Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53
Like Tree17Likes
  • 1 Post By confusedasyou
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 3 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 3 Post By Implicate Order

Thread: My theory on what this life, universe, and our state of being is.

  1. #1 My theory on what this life, universe, and our state of being is. 
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Ok so I am counting on you guys to keep me in line and give me constructive and logical criticism on my theory. Also I would love some suggestions or maybe some ways that would explain any things that are contradictory or unknown. I know you guys wont let me down.
    Oh yeah hope my grammar wont mess you up too much.


    My Observations and little knowledge
    For anything, that we see to work properly, live, and be how we are used to them being, it has to have smaller things that make it up (ATOMS I assume). Not only that but these things (ATOMS?) need to be working properly and more than likely require some form of help or support from things smaller than itself to exist. And so on. Much like how we need water and food to exist and carry on.

    Not only do we depend on those things to exist but we also depend on many other smaller things within our bodies to exist.One of the smallest being atoms.
    Everything we see and know is part of something greater than itself , while at the same time being greater than and containing many smaller things within itself. In order for us to live we depend on every thing that makes us up , to run smoothly and perfectly. Even things that are in our physical world, we need them to run smoothly and perfectly for us to exist. If anything in our world ceased to exist, then something would surely die. If anything ceased to exist, then it would have a negative impact on anything that is smaller than itself. How humans require water, would be a good example if you were looking for one. Without any water the smaller things within us, would be negatively impacted. Without plants on earth life would be dramatically altered. So in short the things that are smaller than us, must exist if we are to exist. But once they are present then they help create something greater than itself. Us. I have also noticed that opposites must exist for anything to exist.


    My Theory/Thoughts There may be some science I don't know so please inform me in a tactful manner if I need to be told. Thanks

    Something must be housing the billions of galaxies that we know of. We can come to assume this based upon the observation that all things are part of something greater than itself. So what can this thing be that houses our galaxies? It is a question that I am still trying to logically figure out based upon my observation, logic, and process of elimination. But for the sake of example I will say it is one pixel that makes up a "being's" cell color. This is just so I can show you my thoughts.

    So lets take one of our human red blood cells for example. I we zoom down we can see the cell along with it's color. This color itself can be divided into many pixels. Now assume we had the capability to zoom into a single pixel. What would we see? Billions of galaxies? I am theorizing that our galaxies are housed by something (maybe a pixel of color from a cell) very large to us, yet microscopic to the being that houses it. This "being" also has time but as a result of our size compared to theirs, our time moves astronomically faster. A trillionth of a second to them could mean a billion years here in this life and on this Earth. So we have eternity before they meet with something grim like death. Well maybe not eternity but a time that would take time to calculate. And if you think of "those beings", "that house those", "that house us", then you have a calculation on your hands that would be hard to measure.

    I call this the uncontrollable repeat. Where you have an infinite amount of worlds that depend on both the worlds that are larger and smaller than it is, in order to be/exist. These worlds can be either larger or smaller than our world and life we live. They cannot be seen by our most advance telescope or microscope. I theorize, that the thing/reason that separates us from the larger world is the same as the thing/reason that separates us from the smaller world. The same thing connects all worlds as well as separates them. These rules apply to all worlds since they will also have worlds larger and smaller than them selves. I am also theorizing that we and everything around us just popped into existence. Each person is housing, creating, and destroying an astronomical amount of galaxies/pixels/universes while they live and will eliminate all of the ones that reside in their body once they die.


    How did we pop into existence?

    Lets assume it is a "being's"(Maybe Human) red blood cell's color pixel that houses the billions of galaxies we know of. Once that person was created and circulating blood in their world, we had life here as well. Everything just popped into existence. There was many men and women who popped into existence and they was all uncertain of how they got here. So they just did what was instinct and natural and mated. As well as survived. None of them knew what to tell their children and so different religions started to take place. The people from all these other worlds did the same thing and every world will always do it at their beginning. Each time a person dies so does an unmeasurable amount of worlds like ours. But let me remind you that this would take a very long time.


    What do opposites have to do with this?

    In order for human life to be achieved there has to be a mother and a father. Which oddly enough is opposites. If we assume I am right, then the world that is larger than us is the complete opposite of the world that is smaller than us. The sheer reason any of this is going on is because in order for anything to exist opposites must exist. In order for a larger world to exist, it needs to contain a certain life line and health. The reason it's health is even present is because it's health contains things smaller than it that keeps it alive. Like red blood cells. And in order for those things (like red blood cells) to exist, they have to be supported by even smaller things. Like pixels. Those pixels may be supported by the "being's" life and energy that it naturally creates to live. Once the pixel has been created, the smaller world to them is created. Our world is built upon opposites which lead me to believe that opposites play a large role in this theory.


    What about plants and animals?

    As far as plants and animals go, I have not thought into that much. I would just assume that they solely exist so that we can continue the uncontrollable repeat. Which would explain why we are In order for the "being" that houses us to exist: Everything, physics, laws, and rules must be set up in our world perfectly. That would explain why things are set up so perfectly.

    So how did this begin?

    I will use an example to show you what I mean. Example: "-1" is completely opposite of "1". "- .00005" is the complete opposite of ".00005" But what do these two things have in common? Their starting point, "0"/"nothing". When you take "0" into consideration you know that it is nothing. It does not draw toward either the negative or the positive . Everything that we know of has an opposite but what we don't think about (maybe it is just me) is that everything has a neutral starting point that both them and their opposite is based upon. We may not be able to conceive what the neutral point is of some opposites but it seems to me that everything is based upon a neutral point where it is not pulled or pushed toward/in any direction. It is nothing. And I cant help but feel that the "nothing" is the same "nothing" that all opposites are based upon.

    So how did this uncontrollable repeat begin?
    The beginning had a lot to do with opposites. Since nothing was present then something did happen. I will explain: When something exist there is an opposite to that certain thing. When the two interact with one another there is a reaction. When ever there is nothing though, what happens to the opposites? There is none right? Because there is nothing to base anything upon other than whats around "nothing". Well here is where my final theory/thought comes in.

    Just because nothing exist this does not mean that the rules of opposites does not apply. Just because nothing physical is around does not mean that a rule/law still cant be around. And since there is nothing to have an opposite against, the rule/law of opposites reside within this nothingness. Laying and intertwining within it. Waiting to apply once something exist outside of this "nothingness". The rule/law of opposites lie's within nothingness because there are no opposites outside of this nothingness for the rule/law to take place.

    I am suggesting that this uncontrollable repeat is residing inside of "nothing" and is able to exist, while not existing. Since the positive and negative are not pushing against one another (on the outside of the "nothingness" they intertwine creating this uncontrollable repeat. Neither one taking more intertwining space than the other and both play fair. The "nothingness" that we reside in is so great a "nothingness" that our mere existence is only the reaction of the opposites intertwining inside of the "nothingness" because they have nothing to be opposites from. Our existence is so small and minute that on the scale of the "great nothingness" we in fact are nothing. But if something was to appear outside of this "great nothingness", and cause the law of opposites to take place, then our uncontrollable repeat would cease to exist and so would everything within it.




    My Questions

    Is it possible that our size shrinks the further out in space we get? (Just asking)

    Is it possible that the further you go into space the more space you create?


    Last edited by confusedasyou; December 30th, 2013 at 01:09 PM. Reason: Constructive Criticism
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Before I attempt to read and process what you have posted, I want to be sure that you are not a spammer.
    Hence I ask you why you have posted the same here: View Profile: confusedasyou - SciForums.com

    If you are genuinely looking for "constructive and logical criticism", then it stands to reason that I will provide my input on your theory.
    It is also advisable to create more flow in your text by dividing your text in more paragraphs.


    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I did not recieve a reply and thought I would try it somewhere else. I am new to the forum world and usually just go on yahoo answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    This site is laid out better and easy to understand the other was not. How did you know I posted there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I really appreciate the advice concerning the way I should write it and will definitely do it right away.

    I am definitely looking for logical and constructive criticism. I want to brain storm on life and see where its paths continue and end. I like to put myself on both sides of an argument. Even if the side I am on is one that I dont particularly believe in. For example. I dont believe the things of the bible are true, but I still come up with how it could have happened according to the bible. Just because I dont believe in the bible does not mean I cant think of how it happened if it were to of happened. I am looking to find the answer to life even if I never find it out.So whenever I am talking to someone about the bible or any religion it makes since for me to think about how it I would chose to believe it happened, if in fact it did happen. Sorry if that was redundant.
    Last edited by confusedasyou; December 30th, 2013 at 01:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    I did not recieve a reply and thought I would try it somewhere else. I am new to the forum world and usually just go on yahoo answers.
    This site is laid out better and easy to understand the other was not. How did you know I posted there?

    I copy-pasted a fragment of your text into the Google Search bar and the first result led me to that site.
    As I am not a member of the SciForums nor Yahoo Answers, I cannot comment on the willingness of their members to read your theory, nor about their layout.

    It seems that your request for criticism is genuine, so I will provide some input.
    Yet, it is advisable to be patient, as you have posted a lot (hence my request to increase the flow in post #2).
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    For anything, that we see to work properly, live, and be how we are used to them being, it has to have smaller things that make it up (ATOMS I assume). Not only that but these things (ATOMS?) need to be working properly and more than likely require some form of help or support from things smaller than itself to exist.
    Well, this is true to some extent. All matter is made up of atoms. And atoms are made of smaller particles (electrons, protons and neutrons). But electrons are, as far as we know, fundamental; i.e. not made of anything smaller.

    Everything we see and know is part of something greater than itself , while at the same time being greater than and containing many smaller things within itself.
    Well, that is partly true as well. Our planet is part of our solar system. The solar system is part of our Galaxy. Our Galaxy is part of the Local Cluster. The Local Cluster is pat of the Universe. The Universe is everything there is (again, as far as we know).

    Something must be housing the billions of galaxies that we know of.
    That would be space, or the universe.

    We can come to assume this based upon the observation that all things are part of something greater than itself. So what can this thing be that houses our galaxies? It is a question that I am still trying to logically figure out based upon my observation, logic, and process of elimination. But for the sake of example I will say it is one pixel that makes up a "being's" cell color.
    This is all very imaginative. But that is all it is: imagination. There is no evidence for any of this, and therefore it isn't science. It is just clever story telling.

    How did we pop into existence?
    If by "we' you mean human beings, then we didn't "pop" into existence. It was the result of a long slow process of evolution.

    What about plants and animals?
    Also evolution.

    Is it possible that our size shrinks the further out in space we get? (Just asking)
    There is no evidence for that.

    Is it possible that the further you go into space the more space you create?
    There is no evidence for that.

    I guess you are quite young? You are certainly very imaginative and curious. I hope you enjoy studying science and learning how the world really works.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Not only that but these things (ATOMS?) need to be working properly and more than likely require some form of help or support from things smaller than itself to exist.
    If you continue with this line of "reasoning" then there's no such thing as a "smallest component".
    This appears to be false.

    Everything we see and know is part of something greater than itself
    Only in an airy-fairy hippy "everything is connected maaan" sense. What is the "something" that a rock is part of?

    In order for us to live we depend on every thing that makes us up , to run smoothly and perfectly. Even things that are in our physical world, we need them to run smoothly and perfectly for us to exist.
    "Perfectly"?

    If anything in our world ceased to exist, then something would surely die. If anything ceased to exist, then it would have a negative impact on anything that is smaller than itself.
    Whut?
    If everything is made up smaller things how does a larger thing have a negative impact?

    How humans require water, would be a good example if you were looking for one. Without any water the smaller things within us, would be negatively impacted. Without plants on earth life would be dramatically altered. So in short the things that are smaller than us, must exist if we are to exist.
    Oh okay. That sort of answers my question: but you're leaping about a bit.

    I have also noticed that opposites must exist for anything to exist.
    Yeah?
    What's the opposite of "grass"? The opposite of "chicken sandwich"?

    Something must be housing the billions of galaxies that we know of.
    It's called "the universe".

    We can come to assume this based upon the observation that all things are part of something greater than itself.
    Extending an observation like this leads to new age "thinking" Avoid if possible.

    I am theorizing that our galaxies are housed by something (maybe a pixel of color from a cell) very large to us, yet microscopic to the being that houses it.
    Word of warning, you're on a science site: the word "theory" has a specific meaning. What you're postulating is not a theory.

    This "being" also has time but as a result of our size compared to theirs
    Why should it be a "being"?

    And if you think of "those beings", "that house those", "that house us", then you have a calculation on your hands that would be hard to measure. I call this the uncontrollable repeat. Where you have an infinite amount of worlds that depend on both the worlds that are larger and smaller than it is, in order to be/exist. These worlds can be either larger or smaller than our world and life we live. They cannot be seen by our most advance telescope or microscope. I theorize, that the thing/reason that separates us from the larger world is the same as the thing/reason that separates us from the smaller world. The same thing connects all worlds as well as separates them. These rules apply to all worlds since they will also have worlds larger and smaller than them selves. I am also theorizing that we and everything around us just popped into existence. Each person is housing, creating, and destroying an astronomical amount of galaxies/pixels/universes while they live and will eliminate all of the ones that reside in their body once they die.
    This is little but wild speculation.

    Lets assume it is a "being's"(Maybe Human) red blood cell's color pixel that houses the billions of galaxies we know of. Once that person was created and circulating blood in their world, we had life here as well. Everything just popped into existence. There was many men and women who popped into existence and they was all uncertain of how they got here. So they just did what was instinct and natural and mated. As well as survived. None of them knew what to tell their children and so different religions started to take place. The people from all these other worlds did the same thing and every world will always do it at their beginning. Each time a person dies so does an unmeasurable amount of worlds like ours. But let me remind you that this would take a very long time.
    As is this.

    In order for human life to be achieved there has to be a mother and a father. Which oddly enough is opposites.
    Why are they "opposites"? Because that's how humans have decided to portray them?

    If we assume I am right, then the world that is larger than us is the complete opposite of the world that is smaller than us.
    Not only speculation but a non-sequitur.

    The sheer reason any of this is going on is because in order for anything to exist opposites must exist.
    "Must"?

    In order for a larger world to exist, it needs to contain a certain life line and health. The reason it's health is even present is because it's health contains things smaller than it that keeps it alive. Like red blood cells. And in order for those things (like red blood cells) to exist, they have to be supported by even smaller things. Like pixels. Those pixels may be supported by the "being's" life and energy that it naturally creates to live. Once the pixel has been created, the smaller world to them is created. Our world is built upon opposites which lead me to believe that opposites play a large role in this theory.
    More unfounded speculation.

    As far as plants and animals go, I have not thought into that much. I would just assume that they solely exist so that we can continue the uncontrollable repeat. Which would explain why we are In order for the "being" that houses us to exist: Everything, physics, laws, and rules must be set up in our world perfectly. That would explain why things are set up so perfectly.
    Oh my.
    A reason for existence?
    "Perfectly"?

    I will use an example to show you what I mean. Example: "-1" is completely opposite of "1". "- .00005" is the complete opposite of ".00005" But what do these two things have in common? Their starting point, "0"/"nothing". When you take "0" into consideration you know that it is nothing. It does not draw toward either the negative or the positive . Everything that we know of has an opposite but what we don't think about (maybe it is just me) is that everything has a neutral starting point that both them and their opposite is based upon. We may not be able to conceive what the neutral point is of some opposites but it seems to me that everything is based upon a neutral point where it is not pulled or pushed toward/in any direction. It is nothing. And I cant help but feel that the "nothing" is the same "nothing" that all opposites are based upon. So how did this uncontrollable repeat begin? The beginning had a lot to do with opposites. Since nothing was present then something did happen. I will explain: When something exist there is an opposite to that certain thing. When the two interact with one another there is a reaction. When ever there is nothing though, what happens to the opposites? There is none right? Because there is nothing to base anything upon other than whats around "nothing". Well here is where my final theory/thought comes in. Just because nothing exist this does not mean that the rules of opposites does not apply. Just because nothing physical is around does not mean that a rule/law still cant be around. And since there is nothing to have an opposite against, the rule/law of opposites reside within this nothingness. Laying and intertwining within it. Waiting to apply once something exist outside of this "nothingness". The rule/law of opposites lie's within nothingness because there are no opposites outside of this nothingness for the rule/law to take place. I am suggesting that this uncontrollable repeat is residing inside of "nothing" and is able to exist, while not existing. Since the positive and negative are not pushing against one another (on the outside of the "nothingness" they intertwine creating this uncontrollable repeat. Neither one taking more intertwining space than the other and both play fair. The "nothingness" that we reside in is so great a "nothingness" that our mere existence is only the reaction of the opposites intertwining inside of the "nothingness" because they have nothing to be opposites from. Our existence is so small and minute that on the scale of the "great nothingness" we in fact are nothing. But if something was to appear outside of this "great nothingness", and cause the law of opposites to take place, then our uncontrollable repeat would cease to exist and so would everything within it.
    And it just gets worse... "law of opposites"?

    Is it possible that our size shrinks the further out in space we get? (Just asking)
    Not only unlikely but contra-indicated by what we do know.

    Is it possible that the further you go into space the more space you create?
    See previous reply.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    @strange You said,

    If by "we' you mean human beings, then we didn't "pop" into existence. It was the result of a long slow process of evolution.

    Last I checked evolution was also a theory.

    So why couldnt we have just popped into existence?

    You said we have no evidence to back up what I am saying and therefore it is not science. Isnt science supposed to prove me wrong, not the other way around?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Last I checked evolution was also a theory.
    One more time: you're on a science site: the word "theory" has a specific meaning.
    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation
    If you use the phrase "evolution is just (or only) a theory" you come across an uneducated crank.

    So why couldnt we have just popped into existence?
    We could have. The same way I could have a unicorn in my garage.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    @strange You said,

    If by "we' you mean human beings, then we didn't "pop" into existence. It was the result of a long slow process of evolution.

    Last I checked evolution was also a theory.

    So why couldnt we have just popped into existence?

    You said we have no evidence to back up what I am saying and therefore it is not science. Isnt science supposed to prove me wrong, not the other way around?

    You are assuming that evolution must be included when factoring in this equation. But isnt evolution still a belief and religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Isnt science supposed to prove me wrong, not the other way around?
    For something to be science it must have evidence (at the very least).
    Otherwise it's not even worth consideration.

    But isnt evolution still a belief and religion?
    No and No.
    In that order.
    (And again, another crank catch phrase).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I see what you are saying. From what I see things are housing other things. and doesnt that mere observation count for something? My first assumption is that that there is an uncontrollable repeat. Worlds that house other worlds smaller than they. There is no beginning or end. Anything after that is based upon a very imaginative thought, but until you can prove it wrong, it is not wrong. And neither should it be discarded as being wrong. Wheres my flaws.lol I know I have some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Evidence of things being housed by greater things is the evidence that I am bringing forth to begin this thought/theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I guess it would depend on what kind of evolution we were talking about. Cosmic, organic, micro,macro,etc. But at some point dont you require a bit of faith to say that macro evolution is true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Last I checked evolution was also a theory.
    Which means it is a complete and consistent explanation supported by evidence. In science, "theory" is as close to "true" as you can get. In the case of evolution there is a mountain of evidence for it; it is an extremely well-supported theory.

    So why couldnt we have just popped into existence?
    There is no evidence for that. And it would defy various physical laws.

    You said we have no evidence to back up what I am saying and therefore it is not science. Isnt science supposed to prove me wrong, not the other way around?
    You are right: a theory can be proved wrong by contradictory evidence.

    But, before you can get to that stage, you need some evidence to support your idea. Then you can develop a testable hypothesis. If it survives extensive testing by multiple people it may become accepted as a theory.

    Otherwise we would have to say that every random idea was possible: the universe was created 5 minutes ago by a red hippopotamus; the universe is a large steam-powered clockwork machine; the planets are moved around the sun by invisible pink flying unicorns; and so on and so on...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    but until you can prove it wrong, it is not wrong
    And the third crank catch phrase.
    Unless there is supporting evidence (as opposed to speculation) then it's not science and isn't worth consideration.

    And neither should it be discarded as being wrong
    So you subscribe to the idea that there's an invisible intangible unicorn in my garage. Good.

    Wheres my flaws
    Been pointed out.

    From what I see things are housing other things. and doesnt that mere observation count for something?
    So you've observed something smaller (more fundamental) than an electron?

    My first assumption is that that there is an uncontrollable repeat.
    And it's been shown to be just that: an assumption (and false at that).

    Worlds that house other worlds smaller than they.
    Unsupported by evidence.

    There is no beginning or end.
    Also unsupported.
    And both contradicted by available evidence.

    Anything after that is based upon a very imaginative thought
    Since ALL it is is "imaginative thought" it's neither science nor philosophy.
    And therefore not worthy of consideration.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    the universe was created 5 minutes ago by a red hippopotamus
    Heretic! Apostate!
    It was 3 minutes ago by a green hippo!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    but until you can prove it wrong, it is not wrong.
    So, the center of a black hole is made of chocolate because you can't prove it isn't?
    And the universe was definitely made of the snot sneezed by a young unicorn because you can't prove that it wasn't?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    But at some point dont you require a bit of faith to say that macro evolution is true?
    Why? The evidence is overwhelming. It is only certain people of faith (those who think that if their favourite book disagrees with reality then reality must be wrong) who are capable of ignoring the evidence. That takes a monumental act of denial.

    On the other hand, you believe your made-up story based on no evidence at all.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    My Observations and little knowledge
    For anything, that we see to work properly, live, and be how we are used to them being, it has to have smaller things that make it up (ATOMS I assume). Not only that but these things (ATOMS?) need to be working properly and more than likely require some form of help or support from things smaller than itself to exist. And so on. Much like how we need water and food to exist and carry on. Not only do we depend on those things to exist but we also depend on many other smaller things within our bodies to exist.One of the smallest being atoms.(...)Without plants on earth life would be dramatically altered. So in short the things that are smaller than us, must exist if we are to exist. But once they are present then they help create something greater than itself. Us. I have also noticed that opposites must exist for anything to exist.

    If I understand it correctly, you are implying that humans are like clocks and that all the smaller bits (e.g. gears) must work in order for the clock to display the right time. It is true that atoms are the particles that constitute matter, but I think you are overestimating their importance in regard to the workings of the human body (cells, tissues and organs are better examples in your analogy). Does your analogy also hold when one looks at things that are larger than planet Earth?

    Next, feel free to elucidate this phrase: "I have also noticed that opposites must exist for anything to exist".

    My Theory/Thoughts There may be some science I don't know so please inform me in a tactful manner if I need to be told. Thanks

    Something must be housing the billions of galaxies that we know of. We can come to assume this based upon the observation that all things are part of something greater than itself. So what can this thing be that houses our galaxies? (...) I am also theorizing that we and everything around us just popped into existence. Each person is housing, creating, and destroying an astronomical amount of galaxies/pixels/universes while they live and will eliminate all of the ones that reside in their body once they die.

    To be honest, I had to re-read this paragraph a few times before I quasi understood what you said.
    As member Strange noted, it is very imaginative and I share his opinion. However, it is not scientific and as such I will not comment on it.

    How did we pop into existence?

    Lets assume it is a "being's"(Maybe Human) red blood cell's color pixel that houses the billions of galaxies we know of. Once that person was created and circulating blood in their world, we had life here as well. Everything just popped into existence. There was many men and women who popped into existence and they was all uncertain of how they got here. So they just did what was instinct and natural and mated. As well as survived. None of them knew what to tell their children and so different religions started to take place. The people from all these other worlds did the same thing and every world will always do it at their beginning. Each time a person dies so does an unmeasurable amount of worlds like ours. But let me remind you that this would take a very long time.

    I see that this paragraph follows from the principles you have stated above.
    Yet, this is something I cannot agree with, because the scientific theories that attempt to explain the origin of the universe, the Solar System, the Earth and terrestrial life are far more reliable due to their respective excessive amount of experimental and theoretical proofs that are in their favor. The phrase "popping into existence" is not quite convincing when you keep in mind what we already know about our origins.

    What do opposites have to do with this?

    In order for human life to be achieved there has to be a mother and a father. Which oddly enough is opposites. If we assume I am right, then the world that is larger than us is the complete opposite of the world that is smaller than us. The sheer reason any of this is going on is because in order for anything to exist opposites must exist. In order for a larger world to exist, it needs to contain a certain life line and health. The reason it's health is even present is because it's health contains things smaller than it that keeps it alive. Like red blood cells. And in order for those things (like red blood cells) to exist, they have to be supported by even smaller things. Like pixels. Those pixels may be supported by the "being's" life and energy that it naturally creates to live. Once the pixel has been created, the smaller world to them is created. Our world is built upon opposites which lead me to believe that opposites play a large role in this theory.

    Would your reasoning not lead to smaller "worlds", ad infinitum?

    What about plants and animals?

    As far as plants and animals go, I have not thought into that much. I would just assume that they solely exist so that we can continue the uncontrollable repeat. Which would explain why we are In order for the "being" that houses us to exist: Everything, physics, laws, and rules must be set up in our world perfectly. That would explain why things are set up so perfectly.

    The theory of evolution can explain the emergence of plants and animals (and any other living organism on planet Earth).
    However, I disagree with the notion that "things are set up so perfectly". As an example, 71% of Earth's surface is covered in water, but humans can only consume a tiny percentage of that (2.5% of the 71% is fresh water, of which 98.8% is stored as ice and ground water).

    So how did this begin?

    I will use an example to show you what I mean. Example: "-1" is completely opposite of "1". "- .00005" is the complete opposite of ".00005" But what do these two things have in common? Their starting point, "0"/"nothing". When you take "0" into consideration you know that it is nothing. It does not draw toward either the negative or the positive . Everything that we know of has an opposite but what we don't think about (maybe it is just me) is that everything has a neutral starting point that both them and their opposite is based upon. (...) Our existence is so small and minute that on the scale of the "great nothingness" we in fact are nothing. But if something was to appear outside of this "great nothingness", and cause the law of opposites to take place, then our uncontrollable repeat would cease to exist and so would everything within it.

    I do not understand this part of your theory, thus I cannot comment on it.

    My Questions
    Is it possible that our size shrinks the further out in space we get? (Just asking)
    Is it possible that the further you go into space the more space you create?

    I do not know the answers to those questions.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; March 4th, 2014 at 08:57 AM.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    LOl I loved the airy fairy hippy thing.

    What is the something a rock is part of? The Earth. What is the Earth a part of? Our galaxy.

    Why should I avoid new age thinking?

    You say, " What's the opposite of grass and a chicken sandwhich. In order: Death/dirt no chicken sandwhich. lol

    Thank you for helping me understand what a theory is.

    Why should it be a being? Because life needed to exist in order for us to have existed.

    Why is a mother and a father opposite? Because you need both for a human to exist. And once they have combined and intertwined their items a child can be born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Why should I avoid new age thinking?

    The term "New Age thinking" is a contradictio in terminis.

    From RationalWiki:
    Quote Originally Posted by RationalWiki
    The New Age movement lacks intellectual rigor and shuns scientific approaches to reality, ostensibly due to the perceived separation between science and spirituality, but also under the pretense of postmodern congruity. New Age believers typically take a pick and mix approach to spirituality, adapting beliefs and practices from a wide variety of sources such as Hinduism, Neopaganism, ufology, Zen, and any other weird concept that is appealing. Particularly if it involves money.
    (Bold mine)
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    What is the something a rock is part of? The Earth.
    Would the absence of that rock alter the nature of the Earth?

    What is the Earth a part of? Our galaxy.
    Would the absence of Earth alter the nature of the galaxy?

    Why should I avoid new age thinking?
    Because it's bullshit unscientific (and in many cases anti-scientific) wishful crap (doesn't even class as "thinking").

    You say, " What's the opposite of grass and a chicken sandwhich. In order: Death/dirt no chicken sandwhich.
    Opposite of grass is death? So death isn't the "opposite" of life then? Oh wait, it's dirt. So "grass" = "cleanliness" or "water"?
    "No chicken sandwich" isn't an opposite, it's a lack, an absence.

    Why should it be a being? Because life needed to exist in order for us to have existed.
    Unsupported speculation.

    Why is a mother and a father opposite? Because you need both for a human to exist.
    Circular argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by You
    In order for human life to be achieved there has to be a mother and a father. Which oddly enough is opposites
    I.e. life comes from opposites, in this case mother and father. Because life comes from mother and father that must mean they're opposites.
    Failed "argument".
    Irrational and illogical.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I never once said I believed it, it was just a thought that I had. I am still not sure what I believe. Just because you cant prove something does not mean that it does not exist. So it could be a possibility that the center of a black hole is chocolate,lol. If you cant prove it wrong then you should not discard it. This does not mean you cant calculate the probability that it is though. Since we dont see chocolate in space the thought that there being chocolate in the center of the blackhole would be a possibility that could happen but is very unlikely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Just because you cant prove something does not mean that it does not exist.
    Another bullshit "argument".

    Trash please mods, this certainly isn't philosophy.
    Looks like Santa's forgotten me again...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    I never once said I believed it, it was just a thought that I had. I am still not sure what I believe. Just because you cant prove something does not mean that it does not exist. So it could be a possibility that the center of a black hole is chocolate,lol. If you cant prove it wrong then you should not discard it. This does not mean you cant calculate the probability that it is though. Since we dont see chocolate in space the thought that there being chocolate in the center of the blackhole would be a possibility that could happen but is very unlikely.

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    (What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.)
    Dywyddyr, PhDemon and sir ir r aj like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Yes the absence of rock would alter the earth and the galaxies and so on. I said in my first part that if something ceases to exist then something will surely die. Is this not true?

    I just took your chicken sandwhich as a example but in order for there to be a chicken there had to be two opposites. Life and death. The opposites that I am talking about is being around and not existing. Which isnt that life and death?

    I will answer your questions in more dept once the comments have slowed. I appreciate you input and everyone elses. This is exactly what I wanted. People around me think I am wierd to try and think of things like this. I do want my thought to be based upon science but that does not mean that assumption has to be taken out of factor. I will respond to others and believe me I will come back to your comment(s).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I am going to be typing on your thoughts now. Sorry it is taking me so long to type. Thank you for all your thoughts this is what I am loooking for!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Are you saying that we can exist without opposites?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Yes the absence of rock would alter the earth and the galaxies and so on.
    Really?
    Would it stop being the Earth without that rock or the galaxy without the Earth?
    I.e. would it alter the actual nature of either?
    I doubt it.

    I said in my first part that if something ceases to exist then something will surely die. Is this not true?
    Apparently not.
    You're working from wishful thinking instead of rational thinking.
    Do I need every single microbe or atom in my body?

    but in order for there to be a chicken there had to be two opposites
    Once again you repeat this as if it were a fact rather than an unsupported claim.

    Life and death. The opposites that I am talking about is being around and not existing. Which isnt that life and death?
    Extrapolating from "life and death being opposites" to "there must be opposites in order for existence to be" is a leap too far.

    I do want my thought to be based upon science but that does not mean that assumption has to be taken out of factor.
    Assumptions are not science.
    One or the other.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I understand what you mean, and please just understand that I am wanting to see all my flaws. Which you and everyone have pointed out Are you also saying that things can exist without opposites? Not things we have created from things already here but things that were already here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Are you also saying that things can exist without opposites?
    What's the opposite of tree?
    Of grass?
    Of clouds?
    Of green?
    Of horse?
    Planet?
    Gravity?
    Etc.
    "Opposite" is a human concept. It probably means bugger all to the universe.

    Not things we have created from things already here but things that were already here.
    What's the difference?
    We're a product of nature, therefore everything we make is also a product.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    If the rock was to go then it would alter everything. Including the universe but that does not mean the thing that houses it will cease to exist. No you do not need every microbe and atom to exist but you rely on a collection of them to.

    Why cant you have an assumption coexist with science?

    Evolution does not a definitive answer as to how we got here. It also relies on a little faith and assumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Are you saying that we can exist without opposites?
    Not everything has an opposite, as D. says. Some things are part of a continuum (e.g. Newton decided there were 7 colours, but of course, there are an infinite number). Others don't have a single "opposite"; for example quarks and gluons come in threes.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I never thought of opposites as a human concept although it is definitely a good and valid point. I guess I will end this now and appreciate you helping me debunk my thought. I enjoyed this thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Why cant you have an assumption coexist with science?
    Becuase an assumption is not science. By definition.

    Evolution does not a definitive answer as to how we got here. It also relies on a little faith and assumption.
    It does not rely on faith or assumptions. It relies on evidence.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    If the rock was to go then it would alter everything
    Unsupported assumption.
    How would the absence or presence of a rock alter your life?

    No you do not need every microbe and atom to exist but you rely on a collection of them to.
    Ah right.
    One rock alters everything, but one microbe doesn't.
    In other words your "scaling factor" isn't true.

    Why cant you have an assumption coexist with science?
    Because an assumption is unevidenced. That means it's not science.

    Evolution does not a definitive answer as to how we got here.
    Evolution isn't intended to answer that question. It doesn't even address it.
    Evolution is about what happens once life has started.

    It also relies on a little faith and assumption.
    Rubbish. Complete and utter.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I never thought of that and am appreciative of your insight as well. It is apparent that this thought of mine lacks answers. I am going to end this now but I thank you for helping me and talking with me as well. I needed that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    for example quarks and gluons come in threes.
    Like women going to the loo in a pub!
    OMG, new theory in progress...
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Well thank you again. This is the exact kind of responses I was looking for. It is apparent that I need to do more research and think a lot more. It is apparent that you guys are not as confused as me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I am going to end this but I really appreciate your focus and attention. You and everyone else gave me exactly what I was looking for and I really appreciate that. It seems like it is taboo for me to think of stuff like this with the people I have around me. But with you guys I can be myself and also ask the questions I want. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    lol. You are cool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    I thought I knew something but you guys showed me how much I didnt know. Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Is there a way to stop a thread? From receiving new post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    You could ask a mod to lock it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    Mod lock thread
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore confusedasyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    106
    End thread
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    precious sir ir r aj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    End thread
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by confusedasyou View Post
    Is there a way to stop a thread? From receiving new post?
    Simply (as you have done) say "Thanks and bye!" and then stop replying.
    You are not obliged to continue responding and threads will 'die a natural death' without replies.

    Or maybe someone else will continue the discussion.

    Either way - there's nothing more you need to do.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Or you could destroy the entire universe: that prevents ANYONE posting further in the thread.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Or you could destroy the entire universe: that prevents ANYONE posting further in the thread.
    I haven't yet ruled out that option.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Or you could destroy the entire universe: that prevents ANYONE posting further in the thread.
    Which universe? Over here in mine some guy has just observed chocolate in the centre of a black hole and things are just getting out of hand. :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Steady State Theory
    By Dave Lee in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: July 21st, 2013, 04:14 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 21st, 2013, 11:10 PM
  3. Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything
    By Ik in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2011, 03:51 PM
  4. Steady- State Theory.
    By Halliday in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 11th, 2008, 07:35 AM
  5. Steady State Universe
    By Mike NS in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: May 26th, 2007, 07:51 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •