PDA

View Full Version : So is the Pope dead then?


Debaser
02-02-2005, 00:43:35
Some news sites seem to be implying he is...

Anyone here work in the news or anything like that? I want answers dammit!

sleeping_satsuma
02-02-2005, 00:45:52
He was admitted to the Gemelli hospital as precaution and is not in intensive care, the Vatican said.

protein
02-02-2005, 01:36:41
Hope so.*

*sorry, did I say that. I mean, christians are good folk who believe in good things, he's in my prayers etc.

protein
02-02-2005, 02:38:11
Surely if the pope is ill and in need of a hospital then that's proof enough for the abolition of the church and time to enter a new enlightened age where magic and religion take a backseat to logic and science?

sleeping_satsuma
02-02-2005, 03:02:23
thats a very narrow minded opinion. religion and science can work together, and so far, to my knowledge, scientists have not yet disproved the existence of a higher power/universal spirit. They've just proved they can't prove it.

Einstein was religious you know. Just because you personally havent experienced anything 'religious' or 'magical' doesnt mean other people havent.

sleeping_satsuma
02-02-2005, 03:05:11
plus god, in the christian religion does not offer immortality in exchange for faith- people get sick, they die. Thats how the soul progresses to heaven, so the Pope getting sick means nothing more than the world works exactly how God intended it.

there's also a difference between the Church, and God as people experience it/him/her/them

Japher
02-02-2005, 03:16:19
god will save him

or kill him like the bastard he is

Damn you keith!

chagarra
02-02-2005, 03:19:45
Silly little question......

Which God.. ??

Pope John Paul II
02-02-2005, 03:51:33
No. I'm back and better than ever.

Pope John Paul II
02-02-2005, 03:54:31
You bitches best be careful. I know when you are sleeping. I know when you're awake. I know when you'be been bad or good, so be good or I'll consign you to the fiery pits of Hell.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 04:05:32
Originally posted by chagarra
Silly little question......

Which God.. ??
The One Who spells His name with capital letters.

SP

HelloKitty
02-02-2005, 04:07:32
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
thats a very narrow minded opinion. religion and science can work together, and so far, to my knowledge, scientists have not yet disproved the existence of a higher power/universal spirit. They've just proved they can't prove it.

Einstein was religious you know. Just because you personally havent experienced anything 'religious' or 'magical' doesnt mean other people havent.

You can't prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. For example, you cannot ever prove that there are not intangable invisable demon monkeys controlling the weather. We can prove all the laws etc that actually control the weather, but we can never prove that those demon monkeys are not just making it work that way.

Now, change demon monkeys for God.

See how stupid?

That is the reason why that arguement can always be used.

Koshko
02-02-2005, 04:23:31
Originally posted by protein
Surely if the pope is ill and in need of a hospital then that's proof enough for the abolition of the church and time to enter a new enlightened age where magic and religion take a backseat to logic and science?

Well the church and magic and logic and science all says a person can't live forever on Earth as immortals. Thus the death of the current pope means nothing.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 04:49:47
Originally posted by HelloKitty
You can't prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. For example, you cannot ever prove that there are not intangable invisable demon monkeys controlling the weather. We can prove all the laws etc that actually control the weather, but we can never prove that those demon monkeys are not just making it work that way.

Now, change demon monkeys for God.

See how stupid?

That is the reason why that arguement can always be used.
Well yeah, it can always be used because it's true. You can't dismiss an argument because it's true. So long as we're talking about logic here, it's completely illogical to use the fact that you can't prove something exists to prove that it doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't believe in demon monkeys who control the weather, although it would be nice to have something to blame.

SP

Koshko
02-02-2005, 05:09:03
Why can't people accept other's beliefs of the unknown and let things rest?

RedFred
02-02-2005, 05:19:07
Personally I kind of think that demon monkey theory might be a good one.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 05:25:07
Yeah, but you live in Vancouver.

SP

Oerdin
02-02-2005, 05:42:23
I got first dibs on his skull as a Papel relic. It worked in the middle ages so why not now?

DevilsH@lo
02-02-2005, 07:01:34
Demon Monkeys!!!!

"I Think therefore i am"

Deacon
02-02-2005, 07:48:12
A personal belief thread. Nice. In my own opinion, the Religion vs. Science debate is like a boxing match via teleconference. Not much action for now, but I wouldn't rule out progress in the two spheres to the point where scientists build Mechanized Clone Armies to fight off Angels Of Death summoned by clerics. A battle like that would surely settle the matter. :)

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 08:15:11
That would be awesome.

We're not arguing about religion vs. science, we're arguing about logic vs. fundamentalism. At least, I am.

SP

Gary
02-02-2005, 08:20:55
I believe that the point, that science can not prove nonexistence was already made. Since that is the case it can't be used as evidence to imply the non-existence of God.

One has a reason to believe in a God as one can reasonably want an explanation for a first cause for everything. You don't have to want such an explanation if you don't wish to, but many think this is necessary.

However I've yet to find a reason to believe in Demon Monkeys, so no, it's not the slightest bit stupid, nor are the people who choose to believe in God.

Scabrous Birdseed
02-02-2005, 08:25:45
Science is an imperfect method with a very limited scope, but it's probably the best at what it does. Where do you get the idea that a proof or disproof of God lies within the realms of empirical science?

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 08:31:03
I don't think anyone has that idea.

SP

Scabrous Birdseed
02-02-2005, 08:41:40
Okay, where does she get the idea that some people belive a disproof or proof of god lies within the realm of empirical science?

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 08:44:37
I should say, I don't think anyone here has that idea. Somebody somewhere probably does.

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 09:09:06
I wish the demon monkeys would make the sun shine a bit today.

Beta1
02-02-2005, 09:18:09
Obviously we have not been making enough sacrifices.

I told you we should have sacrificed the dutch when we had the chance.

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 09:19:48
Schtop! These dutch aren't ready, you can't just go sacrificing the first dutch guy you see!

Gary
02-02-2005, 09:23:01
You could sacrifice every dutch you see. Just to make sure you have the right one.

I wish the demon monkeys would make ensure I'm not at the same boring building, riding up in the same boring lift, drinking the same boring vending coffee. Although I do have to do something different at the moment. Teach myself XML. I hate that, no on line exercises are either interesting or even capable of making any difference it seems. I know because I was at this same point about a year ago.

Gawd if I could just live without the money. On the other hand what else is there to get out of bed for ?

Meanwhle I feel sure that the pope is alive and well and still shitting in the woods.

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 09:26:24
XML in itself is trivial to learn. Working out how to do something useful with it, that's another matter. :)

Gary
02-02-2005, 09:43:04
Quite probably. Anyway my ultimate goal is VXML, one being a stepping stone to the other.

One thing that's proving a dissappointment. I signed up at various places for web space (to put files) and registering for couses/resources last time I looked at this. Now I can't recall passwords etc. I'm hard pushed to remember the sites themselves !

So they say they'll send it to me in the post if I enter the email address... ah yes but due to excess spam, I changed the address a couple of months ago, so they'll only send it to an invalid account :(

On the other hand they may just have deleted all my registrations by now anyway. So much for reading what I already had to remind me.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:15:42
Originally posted by Gary
Quite probably. Anyway my ultimate goal is VXML, one being a stepping stone to the other.
I'm told you need experience with vaginas to do VXML, and that's the hard part.

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:20:20
The hard part is the penis.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:22:11
Only on the lucky ones.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:26:35
I always get penises and vaginas mixed up. :(

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:31:59
Lucky you!

When he does die are they going to sell Pope on a Rope?

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:33:00
They don't hang him, do they? :eek:

SP

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:33:36
I always get penises and vaginas mixed up.

SP

We know, dude.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:34:29
She has pretty big tits.

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:34:49
You attached that image? So you had it on your computer?

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:35:43
Yes :lol:

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:36:07
Because you thought he was an Inuit?

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:36:41
No. The Inuit is the dude just off camera.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:39:00
Wearing the Perl necklace...

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:39:34
And missing a head...

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:41:28
Quite a talent getting spit roasted by a headless Eskimo and the Invisible Man.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:43:52
That's why we love him.

I also have "adequately bummed" on my mp3 player...

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:44:48
One day he's going to run for elected office and this shit will come in handy.

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:45:44
I'd vote for him.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:46:24
I'd put up his campaign posters if they featured that shot.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:51:12
Unfortunately, my religion forbids me from running for office. Maybe I'll become the CEO of Google though. :)

SP

MoSe
02-02-2005, 10:52:24
Originally posted by Koshko
...and logic and science all says a person can't live forever on Earth as immortals.

...ummm.... I think that all what logic and science can say is that so far every existing human being has died, sooner or later.

Logic can't imply that because every human had died SO FAR, "then" every future human WILL "HAVE" to die too. That's a fallacy.

Science can observe that there are processes in the human body that manifest as "aging", such that the body is ever more and more prone to malfunctioning and functional interrruption.
This is "likely" to lead to death, "sooner or later". All science can do is to gather statistical data giving the distribution of age at which humans died so far. This shows that the majority of people died within a given age range, a smaller slice has lived something longer (or shorter), and a marginal percentage of umans have lived significantly longer than the average, if not MUCH longer.
Science cannot say "every human will die within his/her 110th year". And it's not a matter of setting the proper age: it's the approach. Science can say: "it's likely that (only) the 0.1% of humans will live up to 110 or more" or "the longer you live, the higer becomes the chance that you die" (but it can't "scientifically" set that % at 100% for any given age)

Let's say tat since we have historical data 1E27 humans have lived (1 with 27 trailing 0s). I have totally invented this figure, just for exemplification sake. Maybe there is 1 in 1E50 chance that a human lives up to 200 years, it's just that id didn't occur yet cuz we haven't had enough humans so far, or we haven't just been lucky enough.
Science can't say nobody lives up to 200.
Science can say nobody lived up to 200 SO FAR, and the chances it will happen soon are extremely remote.

So, who knows, maybe it's just a matter of (long) time and (sheer) chance before one or more humans may live on indefinitely long, albeit not being "immortals".
Provided we don't make ourselves extinct before, that is. :D

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:52:28
Could you be a dictator?

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:52:34
How many times do I have to tell you: no matter how devoted you are, laziness is not areligion.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 10:53:05
xpost hell.

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 10:54:05
Humans can't live on earth forever purely for the practical reason that at some point it'll be destroyed when the sun expands.

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:56:05
What if they move it to another solar system?

SP

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 10:58:36
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Could you be a dictator?
I'm not sure. Technically, the rule is against getting involved with party politics because the idea behind party politics is telling everybody how much better you are than other people. The question is whether or not a 1-party system has party politics.

SP

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 11:00:33
I mean, we. What if we move it to another solar system? :nervous:

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 11:04:15
"I'm not better than you, but if you don't do what I say I'll have you killed"

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 11:04:37
Very effective, yet nonjudgmental.

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 11:05:25
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
I mean, we. What if we move it to another solar system? :nervous:

SP

:lol:

Sir Penguin
02-02-2005, 11:06:33
I'm not better than you, but if you don't do what I say I'll force you to rape me up the ass.

SP

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 11:06:59
Still non-judgemental but more effective.

Gary
02-02-2005, 11:39:44
...ummm.... I think that all what logic and science can say is Maybe there is 1 in 1E50 chance that a human lives up to 200 years, it's just that id didn't occur yet cuz we haven't had enough humans so far, or we haven't just been lucky enough. (http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/48-0058.htm)

Actually "up to" equates to "no more than" so I'm suspecting that we all will live up to 200 years. :p :)

Gary
02-02-2005, 11:42:51
We in government are considerably better than you, and if you don't do what we say we'll steal... er I mean confiscate your money and property and sling you in gaol.

MoSe
02-02-2005, 11:57:52
Originally posted by Gary
Actually "up to" equates to "no more than" so I'm suspecting that we all will live up to 200 years. :p :)

ok, ok, blame my language, non my logic... :cute:

I think there must be something wrong in that Maath, tho

King_Ghidra
02-02-2005, 13:08:43
blame the weapons of math destruction

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 13:16:11
The number of humans that have lived (ever) is about 10 billion or so. Certainly nowhere near the region of 10E27

To get 10E27 humans we'd have had to have had 6 billion humans living on the planet earth for 1.6E21 generations.

Unfortunately the universe has only been around for at most a billion generations or so.

Venom
02-02-2005, 13:19:25
How do they calculate that 10 billion number?

Funkodrom
02-02-2005, 13:21:46
From a mixture of historical data where there is any and putting them into population expansion formulas.

Something like that anyway. There's obviously a big margin of error on it but it's of that order, not of the order of 10E27

Venom
02-02-2005, 13:25:00
Well, obviously.

Colon
02-02-2005, 13:26:45
Fucking maths.

MoSe
02-02-2005, 15:31:03
that's what drives it, yes

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 19:35:30
Originally posted by Funkodrom
The number of humans that have lived (ever) is about 10 billion or so.

The number of human beings that have lived in the last 100 years is bigger than 10 billion.

The number I've seen bandied about is more like 100 billion.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 19:36:01
...given that there are 6.5 billion people alive right now, that is...

Darkstar
02-02-2005, 22:31:39
Where did you get the 10 billion number? I've only seen 5 to 6 billion as the number of those who came before us.

Darkstar
02-02-2005, 22:37:24
Originally posted by HelloKitty
You can't prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. For example, you cannot ever prove that there are not intangable invisable demon monkeys controlling the weather. We can prove all the laws etc that actually control the weather, but we can never prove that those demon monkeys are not just making it work that way.

That's why Occum made his "razor". To keep people focused on the physics of something, and not on the demon monkeys.

Those demon monkeys really don't like attention, you know.

KrazyHorse@home
02-02-2005, 23:30:40
Originally posted by Darkstar
Where did you get the 10 billion number? I've only seen 5 to 6 billion as the number of those who came before us.

5 billion is ridiculous. between 0 a.d. and 1800 a.d. the world population was between 300 million and 1 billion at all times. Life expectancy at birth of the total human populations certainly never exceeded 50 years during this period. 1800/50 = 36

36*300 million = 10 billion

so even with the worst possible approximations at least 10 billion people lived and died between 0 and 1800

The population reference bureau estimated in a 1995 paper that the true figure was closer to 100 billion (tracking likely world population size and life expectancy at birth over the course of the last fifty thousand years or so)

Funkodrom
03-02-2005, 09:25:57
50 is a very high average life expectency to pick for that range of time, I'd go for around 35...

Whatever, between 10 and 100 Billion. That's not anything with 27 zeros which was my point.

MoSe
03-02-2005, 11:59:55
yeah, thatnks for focusing, I *did* declare my figure was totally invented.
we're talking 10-11 zeroes here, then? for the better, your point helps proving mine.

I think that 1 human in 100 billions billions can live to 1000 years.
The fact there had been none yet (unless you hold the bible as a scientific source :rolleyes: ) is no surprise and no counterproof: we only had 100 billions humans so far.....

KrazyHorse@home
03-02-2005, 16:22:13
I'm sorry for threadjacking, but I thought that that's what we did around here.

It's just the sort of estimation I'm interested in...

HelloKitty
03-02-2005, 20:00:13
Originally posted by MoSe
...ummm.... I think that all what logic and science can say is that so far every existing human being has died, sooner or later.

Logic can't imply that because every human had died SO FAR, "then" every future human WILL "HAVE" to die too. That's a fallacy.

Science can observe that there are processes in the human body that manifest as "aging", such that the body is ever more and more prone to malfunctioning and functional interrruption.
This is "likely" to lead to death, "sooner or later". All science can do is to gather statistical data giving the distribution of age at which humans died so far. This shows that the majority of people died within a given age range, a smaller slice has lived something longer (or shorter), and a marginal percentage of umans have lived significantly longer than the average, if not MUCH longer.
Science cannot say "every human will die within his/her 110th year". And it's not a matter of setting the proper age: it's the approach. Science can say: "it's likely that (only) the 0.1% of humans will live up to 110 or more" or "the longer you live, the higer becomes the chance that you die" (but it can't "scientifically" set that % at 100% for any given age)

Let's say tat since we have historical data 1E27 humans have lived (1 with 27 trailing 0s). I have totally invented this figure, just for exemplification sake. Maybe there is 1 in 1E50 chance that a human lives up to 200 years, it's just that id didn't occur yet cuz we haven't had enough humans so far, or we haven't just been lucky enough.
Science can't say nobody lives up to 200.
Science can say nobody lived up to 200 SO FAR, and the chances it will happen soon are extremely remote.

So, who knows, maybe it's just a matter of (long) time and (sheer) chance before one or more humans may live on indefinitely long, albeit not being "immortals".
Provided we don't make ourselves extinct before, that is. :D


The second law of thermodynamics shows that all humans will die.

Venom
03-02-2005, 20:02:47
Here's one for the proteins, debasers, and hello kitty's of the board....

Moses lived until like 600 years old.

HelloKitty
03-02-2005, 20:05:42
Yep, thats because he was a christian and just made up math to fit what he believed. I am 340 years old by moses math.

zmama
03-02-2005, 20:26:55
Nope, hes 43

Japher
03-02-2005, 20:44:28
Back in the olden days the earth had less people and thus less mass and thus spun faster.... ergo, Moses lived to be 600 years old.

I'm a genys

Darkstar
03-02-2005, 22:55:03
Originally posted by HelloKitty
The second law of thermodynamics shows that all humans will die.

Quantum physics doesn't. You can have decreasing entropy in at a quantum level. Been demonstrated repeated in laboratory conditions. Currently, this is cosmology's leading cause of the big bang. Quantum fluctuation created big bang, and lead to everything we know. Should happen quite often. So after this universe dies in the big, cold rip, another will eventually be born. Welcome to the bleeding edge of science.

KrazyHorse@home
03-02-2005, 22:58:59
Of course you can have decreasing entropy on a small enough scale. Increasing entropy is a statistical statement. For any macroscopic system the chance of entropy decreasing over a significant period of time is virtually nil.

Darkstar
03-02-2005, 23:02:51
Actually, there's lots of theories out there that our ancestors lived much longer then us. Of course, they tend to be linked to the fact that in the beginning, they didn't have little things ruining their environment like our pollutions. Also, many require that the environment was slightly different from what it is now. But as we know, nothing is truly static, so it's not beyond the realm of scientific possibilities. It is beyond the range of reasonable expectations, but not beyond scientific theory.

Darkstar
03-02-2005, 23:07:21
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
Of course you can have decreasing entropy on a small enough scale. Increasing entropy is a statistical statement. For any macroscopic system the chance of entropy decreasing over a significant period of time is virtually nil.

No. We expect that. It is our experience. We believe that it is a constant, when it is not. It is actually possible to have localized areas on a macro scale that have decreasing entropy. That has been shown in laboratory experiments. But, we can intuit that it isn't going to happen on a significantly large macro scale. Like say, a galaxy. However, current cutting edge of cosmology and quantum physics says this is exactly how we came to be. And that it will statistically repeat indefinately. So, we are back to a repeating cycle of birth and destruction for the universe. Damn those demon monkeys! Always making a mockery of our understanding!

KrazyHorse@home
04-02-2005, 22:55:59
However, current cutting edge of cosmology and quantum physics says this is exactly how we came to be

No it isn't. :)

HelloKitty
05-02-2005, 00:02:46
Ok, Jon Miller called me at home because his internet is out. He was drunk but wanted me to post this.

On a quantum level on an extremely limited scale you can see a decrease in entropy. This is because of the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces and the quantal states.

Outside of the submicroscopic, where those 2 strong forces play a minor role you have to rely on EM and Gravity. Here is where you are stuck using classical theories (Relativity and spec relativity are cnsidered classical right?) because the quantal effects are not seen and int he universe as a whole you never see a net decrease in entropy because if you did we would have to be past the point in the universe where max entropy had been reached and the universe was contracting. If we were at that point life would not exist because there would not have been the complex systems with high energy to develop us (the weak anthorpic model).

Now both classical models and quantal models describe completely different parts of the universe. You annot apply quanum physics on a large scale. If you figure out how to do that you will ahve combined quantum and classical theories and have solved the theory for everything problem.

So, in the universe, as a whole entropy is increasing. When entropy reaches its peak there can be no life because life requires using energy to reduce entropy in a local area, but increases the entropy of the universe as a whole. Eventually there will be no low entropy energy sources for life to use.

KrazyHorse@home
05-02-2005, 02:38:45
Originally posted by HelloKitty
On a quantum level on an extremely limited scale you can see a decrease in entropy. This is because of the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces and the quantal states.

Sorry for doing what you said I'd do, but:

you don't need quantum mechanics, or nuclear forces to see that a decrease in entropy in isolated instances is possible. It's a simple statistical statement. If I mix liquid A and liquid B it's always possible that they will separate spontaneously at some point in the future. The probability of this happening is in an exponentially decreasing relationship with the total amount of each liquid. If you only have 5 molecules of each then it will happen with a very significant probability. 50 molecules of each and it's a bit harder. 5*10^23 and it's take a very very very large amount of trials to see it even happen once. It's like throwing blue and red bouncy balls into a room and watching to see if they ever separate into blue all on one side and red all on the other.

Outside of the submicroscopic, where those 2 strong forces play a minor role you have to rely on EM and Gravity. Here is where you are stuck using classical theories (Relativity and spec relativity are cnsidered classical right?) because the quantal effects are not seen and int he universe as a whole you never see a net decrease in entropy because if you did we would have to be past the point in the universe where max entropy had been reached and the universe was contracting. If we were at that point life would not exist because there would not have been the complex systems with high energy to develop us (the weak anthorpic model).

Again, it's a simple statistical statement that entropy increases. The probability for the net entropy in a system as large as the Universe decreasing is simply ridiculously remote.

So, in the universe, as a whole entropy is increasing.

Yes.

When entropy reaches its peak there can be no life because life requires using energy to reduce entropy in a local area, but increases the entropy of the universe as a whole. Eventually there will be no low entropy energy sources for life to use.

Sort of. Basically, entropy will be at a maximum when the Universe is a uniformly dense gas at uniform temperature. At this point no further work (and thus life) is possible. There are no mechanical or thermal differentials to run engines across. Engines require a high temperature/low temperature or high pressure/low pressure flow of some kind. If everything is in thermodynamic equilibrium with everything else this is impossible by definition.

HelloKitty
05-02-2005, 02:59:00
Damn, that was retarded easy to uderstand and I made it overly complex and wrong.

I am going to edit it to make someone else look confused.

HelloKitty
05-02-2005, 03:00:02
God damn Jon Miller is stupid.

Darkstar
10-02-2005, 05:11:29
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
However, current cutting edge of cosmology and quantum physics says this is exactly how we came to be

No it isn't. :)

:D Yes it is. Once we ignore the Demon Monkeys who push around the quantum and play jokes on us. ;)

Darkstar
10-02-2005, 05:19:14
KH, are you are saying there will be no more quantum fluctuations then? No more particles popping into existance for a few parts of a second and occasionally slamming into something, and thereby adding energy to that local system? You realize that NASA has now measured this event actually transpiring in space.

Now, the fun thing with the big cold rips is that once you have equilibrium, then you no longer need the fluctuation over the entire mass of whatever is left. You just need a momentary big increase, and you get another big bang. Expand and cool. Repeat.

Fun fun.

KrazyHorse@home
10-02-2005, 05:39:39
Originally posted by Darkstar
KH, are you are saying there will be no more quantum fluctuations then? No more particles popping into existance for a few parts of a second and occasionally slamming into something, and thereby adding energy to that local system? You realize that NASA has now measured this event actually transpiring in space.

Yes, there will be. The physical vacuum is different than the 0 state. The problem is that no macro system will ever be able to take advantage of these fluctuations. Not even theoretically.

Oerdin
10-02-2005, 06:08:52
The second law of thermodynamics shows that all humans will die.

Well, the Newton's second law say objects in motion stay in mottion and I'm in motion and I'm staying that way. ;)

MoSe
10-02-2005, 09:26:37
Originally posted by zmama
Nope, hes 43
I thought I was!
Actually that will happen only in 9 months

MoSe
10-02-2005, 09:38:00
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm in motion and I'm staying that way. ;)
doing the locomotion?
you crazy man!