Phi for All

I was pointing out that assuming the BB was the "beginning of the universe" was incorrect. I think it's likely the universe is cyclic, but we can't assume it. We observe expansion, but what mechanism does the universe use to contract back?

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

! Moderator Note Two threads on the same story merged.

It seems to be a fairly well reviewed introductory treatment of the subject, so the prerequisite should be just some basic knowledge of maths and physics. Most books like this are light on the maths involved and focus on a verbal explanation that might resonate with the reader. If you have above average mathematic skills, you might enjoy a more technical textbook.

"Perhaps we can communicate with the aliens if they are aware of the EM spectrum." "We can develop the technology to capture what we need from space along the way to another system" "We can figure out new ways to communicate with alien cultures." "Aliens probably think differently." It's been a long time since I spoke any Hydrox. It's an older form of Oreo, where the middle is stressed before either end is considered.

You first need to define "stimulation" and "stimulants". Is caffeine a stimulant? It doesn't stimulate anything, really, it suppresses another substance that makes us drowsy. That's like swallowing saliva to make a parched throat feel better and claiming you're "hydrating". I also wouldn't put alcohol and cannabis in the same "stimulant" category with meth or cocaine. Passed-out drinkers/smokers don't seem as 'stimulated" as the folks who've been up for two days. I've never looked at "stimulation" as part of being intelligent. The opposite seems true, that someone who lacks knowledge and creativity would be more likely to crave something more interesting than the crickets in their heads. Wouldn't a truly intelligent person be more interested in exploring what their truly intelligent mind is capable of soberly investigating? Most people I know who partake in <insert substance of choice here> do it because they want a break from intelligent pursuits. They call it getting crazy for a reason. If there is any correlation, that's where I'd search for it. It's not about the stimulation, it's about throwing a blanket over the monkeys in your head.

So no evidence to satisfy normal healthy skepticism, and circular arguments that have no falsifiability, which we just have to take your word for, since you speak for your god(s). Physics that can be changed at will, rendering any "science" that might be discussed worthless. There is literally nothing meaningful we could discuss under these conditions. This is primarily a discussion forum, and you're here to teach/preach/soapbox your perspective. It's just not what we do here. Sorry. "Now if you were God, would you let a guy like that go around describing you? I'd have some kind of a run off I think if it were that fella." --George Carlin

Is any of this demostrable? Is there a way to support your assertions with scientific evidence? People have long claimed to have spoken to god(s), but it can never be repeated or tested. Why is that, I wonder? Perhaps you can ask your god.

Strange pointed out the problems with your definition of "become". Also, "not possible" is the same as impossible, meaning it can't EVER happen. Yet we KNOW change occurs, we see things changing by the normal, mainstream definition of the word ALL THE TIME (especially since the most fundamental change is time itself - something may not physically change in a nanosecond, except it does become a nanosecond older -- which is change!). All around us, things are changing in many ways. A tree can take the carbon away from a CO2 molecule to leave oxygen. The CO2 is transformed, the tree gets bigger, the O2 is converted to a breathable form. Change, change, change. I would encourage you to do some detailed, mainstream study to see what others have already determined on the subject. They'll use terms and definitions that most who study these things use, so discoveries and experiments are testable and repeatable by everyone. It will certainly make discussion more useful and meaningful to you.

Perhaps that's because you define space as "an area that is unoccupied or empty". An object occupying an unoccupyable region is troubling indeed. One of the greatest contributions of formal science study is precise definitions for sharing information as an ongoing part of the methodology. Everyone knows what the words mean, and it doesn't take pages just to explain what you're talking about. I encourage you to use mainstream terminology whenever you can, and ask rather than guessing or making it up.

Again, a very unhelpful definition. Different is NOT equal to contradictory.

The goalposts you just moved now need a bigger volume to occupy.

If a square is turning and friction wears away the corners so it's now circular, why wouldn't you say the square "became" a circle? If you put bread in a toaster and heat it, it "becomes" toast. The toast is a subset of bread (all toast is bread, not all bread is toast). The square with the corners worn off into a circle is no longer a square, but you could classify it with "objects that started out square". If you painted it green when it used to be red, it could be "things which became green". But none of this is really interesting. Change is inevitable, as we observe with spacetime constantly, and as we observe with evolution. Evolution is literally changes over time. When something "becomes" something else, it can retain parts of it's original state (toasted bread), it can be completely different (square is now a circle), or it can be essentially unchanged (knowledge can change your perspective, helping you "become aware" without changing anything else about you).

So empty space is a certain volume that doesn't have anything in it. But an object inside the volume doesn't have to have the same volume. The density of matter can vary within that space.

That's a poor definition. Space can't have anything in it? Of what use is that definition? Where would I use it? Where do I encounter space that has nothing in it?

What do you put in a toaster?

I think they're also watching his wealth potential swell to match his head. The next presidency will either plug the ethics loopholes in the job or exploit them even more now that Trump has stretched them out like a petite angora sweater.

I have to say, having a single party in charge of practically everything (which always made me uneasy) has broken up the log jams at the state level in Colorado. Like the US House, dems in CO have been passing bills on infrastructure, healthcare, environment, and many other issues while the Republicans (just like in DC) complain they aren't getting anything done (after spending years stalling on these very issues). But I actually hope Hickenlooper gets smacked down for his lack of progressive agenda. He's on about jobs being more important to the average person than social concerns. I think he's just promoting a different set of big businesses over voter representation.

! Moderator Note Then please stop it. If you want to blog, do so elsewhere. Others are taking their time to discuss What is Pain?

If you give me half a liter of your nothing, will it decrease in size?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.2: Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not. Furthermore, changing what others have written for the purpose of misquotation is equally unacceptable. ! Moderator Note This was pointed out to you, so you had a chance to avoid the warning point I'm giving you now. We don't copy anyone else's work here without giving a citation for the work THEY did. You should care about ethics, since it guides how information is used (which is what really matters).

Me too! For us here in the US, I think we should start a publically-funded national solar grid for electricity. Electricity from solar is SO cheap that private investors aren't interested, so we should take on the project to provide dirt cheap electricity for EVERYONE! We could allow the US Postal Service to buy their own fleet of planes instead of having to lease from private companies. Then the USPS could transport materials for manufacturing solar panels to every zip code in the US, so we could put urban and rural people to work making solar panels under strict guidelines. Other green guidelines could be implemented with such a network of distribution. Lots of work doesn't get done because the energy to do it is too expensive. Private electric utilities are charging a fortune for what is basically a necessity in modern life. They have little competition, so they're practically monopolies. It's time we used our public power for public benefit!

Wasn't he the guy who claimed a bald ghost in a purple Mini Cooper wearing 117 wristwatches caused him to have an accident early one morning after drinking boilermakers the night before?

I was joking that you weren't being generous enough in assessing your moronity. I thought your Slav mentality would appreciate the outrageous disrespect. Btw, Michigan does not exist.

! Moderator Note You've had three pages to persuade us with your verbal arguments about your idea, and each of your arguments have been shot down. Now you're just repeating the same arguments you've had from the beginning. If you knew the maths involved in what you're proposing, you could fairly easily try to model your idea using two extra time dimensions, and because you knew the maths, you could equally easily see why the idea results in an unworkable, unpredictable state. Much of the physics we know works would be changed if your idea had ANY merit. Everything we know works about Relativity and the observer effect wouldn't work if there were two extra time dimensions. If you come up with evidence to support yourself, please contact a staff member about re-opening this thread, but otherwise don't bring it up again.