|
I've been on these foras for 1 year and 1 week.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 04:30 UTC
|
|
|
|
Nobody cares.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 05:08 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
melloyellow582 said: Nobody cares.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 07:21 UTC
|
|
|
buq25
2008 Jul 5 • 583
295 ₧
|
FLAW said: melloyellow582 said: Nobody cares.
Today's post brought to you by the letter: "heck".
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 15:14 UTC
|
|
|
|
Somebody cares.
...and that's the bottom line because Mate de Vita said so.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 16:09 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
To be fair it sounds like Sprinkles cares, doubtless he is someone so therefore BY SCIENCE you're wrong. Also, in the other truck, science hasn't come up with a reason why you can't because you did. If you were unable, you wouldn't have.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 17:34 UTC
|
|
|
|
How am I wrong if I said somebody cares and sprinkles cares and sprinkles is somebody?
...and that's the bottom line because Mate de Vita said so.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 19:01 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Talking to mello, but letting people know that is optional.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 19:31 UTC
|
|
|
|
Actually, according to science, none of us technically exist, as our mass and volume as compared to the rest of the universe is arguably 0.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 20:01 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I would actually argue that the ratio of out mass to that of the universe is very small, but not actually zero. Besides, the basis of all science is experiment, so I conducted a small one right here.
I asked myself if I existed. Since I was in fact able to ask myself this question, I concluded that I existed.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 14 at 21:37 UTC
|
|
|
|
Assuming the universe IS infinite, then no matter how large something is, compared to the size of the rest of everything, it doesn't take up any space at all.
Ah, Cogito ergo sum. That is still a very arguable point, though. The logical flow of existence should be that something exists, so it has the ability to think. The "I think, therefore I am" approach is flawed in that existence is concluded from thinking. A subtle difference, but still very important in philosophy and psychology.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 00:43 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
melloyellow582 said: Assuming the universe IS infinite
I tend not to ;)
For starters, we can see ~14 billion light years in any given direction. Sure, the universe might extend beyond that, but we can't see it right now. Secondly I subscribe to the idea that the universe is finite but boundless -
I had been going to say something about travelling at constant velocity for long enough returning you to your initial point but such motion is possible. Also, the universe is currently expanding.
Finally, any theory which predicts infinities is wrong, somewhere down the line. Currently we believe the universe once started with zero size (which is why that theory is wrong and needs changing) and has been expanding since it began. Sure, it's hypothesized that there was a period of extremely rapid expansion, but the point is you can always ascribe the universe a finite size at any time. The boundless bit means it's like asteroids, but 3D and with complications.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 01:06 UTC
|
|
|
|
That was my bad, I misspoke. I agree that the universe is constantly expanding, what I meant to do was throw in a few "virtually"'s in there. Virtually infinite, virtually really fucking big. For a while scientists thought that the universe would eventually stop expanding, but now they say it looks like it's just going to keep going. Taking this into account, the potential infinity that the universe has will kind of null everything out of existence. It's a kind of asymptote.
My real beliefs on all this have yet to actually come out; I'm a college freshman, what the hell do I know? I'm just throwing out ideas that are forming in my >0 sized skull.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 01:33 UTC
|
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, we will be back after I shit my pants and bet on Nascar matches.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 01:47 UTC
|
|
|
|
sprinkles said: Ladies and gentlemen, we will be back after I shit my pants and bet on Nascar matches.
hot damn
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 03:10 UTC
|
|
|
|
my head hurts...
Make awkward sexual advances, not war. Down Rodeo said: Dammit, this was the one place that didn't have this, but noooooo, molkman pisses all over that 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 03:46 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
SolidKAYOS said: my head hurts...
I guess that's why they call you knucklehead [/lamepun]
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 07:17 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I've done a couple of years of university and have read a fair few books. Obviously I am by no means an expert but I have done some of the necessary maths (completely discounting general relativity as it's just horrific). You can't really say it's asymptotic - however, you can say that it grows without bound.
Basically only real numbers can be approached asymptotically because an asymptote implies a strict upper bound where the difference between your value and the asymptote approaches zero. Trying to plug infinity into that causes some serious issues which I believe can be solved by nonstandard analysis but that's not widely used (formulated in the 1950s I believe).
In fact, current measurements imply that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, so its size really will grow boundlessly. But that isn't the same as infinity.
One fact I have just remembered - and I'll find a cite for you if you *really* want, but it's one of the books I've read - puts the current estimate for the number of atoms in the universe at 10^80. Percentage-wise, that's about 3% of the universe's mass, 27% being dark mass and ~70% dark energy. Again this is large but not infinite. Infinities are believed to be unphysical.
What are you doing at college then? :)
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 10:10 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
Down Rodeo said: WORDS
... I think my head hurts, so I take back that statement about calling you a knucklehead, havokk
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 11:06 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 12:15 UTC
|
|
|
|
head just shit
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 13:17 UTC
|
|
|
|
This thread is now getting interesting.
...and that's the bottom line because Mate de Vita said so.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 13:25 UTC
|
|
|
|
Again, my bad. What I meant was the size of us as people are asymptotic as compared to the size of the universe. As it expands, we in proportion get smaller and smaller.
I'm studying theater. Ha. I kind of have a hardcore love for astronomy and space though.
And people, shit, read a book.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 16:34 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Well, size of the universe -> \u221E, person/universe -> 0. That's true. And it will be asymptotic, yes, in that the ratio will become arbitrarily close to zero.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 16:40 UTC
|
|
|
|
So, we can conclude that while somebody cares, they are incredibly insignificant and pathetic in comparison to everything else. In fact, they are getting more insignificant and pathetic every second.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Sep 15 at 16:53 UTC
|
|
|
|
