|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
I could just imagne some japanese guy with a shoe box saying that there is a universe in the box BUT YOU CANT LOOK AT IT BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE!, and then everyone takes his word for it.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Hah, like the Samurai who apperantly invented integral and differential calculus 300 years before the fact but never told anyone because he didn't want anyone to think he was too superior.
Gimme a break. This is pointless and stupid. How ya doing, buddy?
POLO!
|
wtf samurai? and that has what to do with this?
You people need to settle down. Our universe isn't going to end. Not for an incomprehensable amount of time. Considering how these scientists are smart enough to hypothetically do this thing in the first place, then I will take their word for it that the only downside is that it will happen too quickly to even observe. The sky isn't falling. I bet you all freaked at Y2K, too. I was speaking idiomatically. |
The samurai bit comes in in it happening too fast, etc. It's like me saying I am the greatest genius of all time, and that I have invented a source of infinite wealth, but I am not going to tell you about it. Will you call me a genius? What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Marco; Aug 17, 2006 at 07:45 PM.
|
This sort of thing has always made me wonder. Is this what our own universe/multiverse amounts to? Someone's science project? Are we like micro-organisms upon something far more massive? Then the question becomes not, "what created out universe?" but rather, "what created the universe in which something created our universe?"
Maybe there's even some odd loop taking place; like a child-universe is somehow the father to the father of its father-universe. FELIPE NO |
Are you serious?
That crap doesn't strike you as idle speculation? Think about it: even IF this universe was created, and even IF it is nothing compared to what it resides in, it is still infinite in our scale. Consider the fact that there are billions of years of KNOWN geological history and that it would take us billions of years to reach most stars. Ok. Don't you think speculating beyond what we can SEE is just fucking wild talk? I mean, it sounds like stoner-talk to me. Also: The universe, by definition, is the only one of its kind. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Marco; Aug 18, 2006 at 07:37 AM.
|
someone doens't have any imgination.
besides, if you make one thing pointless, then i can make everything pointless. Our existance is pointless. why worry about anything? why speculate on anything? of course it doesn't mean anything. It's just entertainment. just kill yourself all ready. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Playing around with theoretical physics to create something so miniscule it cannot even be MEASURED is pointless. It's not even science. That's why it's pointless. Most amazing jew boots |
God, you're boring.
I don't know much about science; I prefer to look at many things in a philosophical way because I acknowledge possibilities and massive amounts of uncertainty. I'm going to guess that this sort of thinking has something to do with science. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Wow.
I was under the impression that Maxwell's equations precluded the existence of a magnetic monopole (zero divergence of magnetic field), but apparently Dirac found that the existence of a single magnetic monopole would quantize all electric charges. However, I can't imagine how one would go about finding or creating such a thing. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Everyone here needs to chill, have a Coke, and a smile.
The chances of the universe actually being destroyed by this experiment is nigh impossible. How do I know, you ask? Simply because these scientists know what they're doing. If they didn't, no one in their right mind would've funded this project. Even if they somehow blow everything up, God (or whatever you want to call the being that created everything) would just create everything again. Although, if you're an atheist, then this whole thing would sound pretty sketchy to you, I suppose. I was speaking idiomatically.
"A man can be destroyed but not defeated." - Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)
|
Most amazing jew boots |
They know more about it than you and anyone else in this thread, that's for sure.
Right... Whatever, dude. It's useless to be worrying about something that won't happen. FELIPE NO
"A man can be destroyed but not defeated." - Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)
|
I gotta side with Bradylama on this one. As much as I say "sign me up" for the aforementioned reasons, realistically speaking, I think this stunt is beyond stupid.
Here is my thinking, after getting rid of all religious bias: Let's, for a moment, ignore the fact that a small miscalculation could destroy the universe. What, pray tell, do we have to gain by creating a universe in a box? Nada. Does it disprove the existence of God? Most Atheists would say so, but not me. I may be an Atheist, but I'm not so closed-minded as to think God can't exist, I just don't believe he does, while leaving my mind open to the possibility that I could be wrong. (It's organized religion I really have a gripe with, not God, as I do believe there is a creator out there, be it an all-powerful deity or something else.) Anyway, God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning he can do anything. Just because we can do something that seems godlike to our meager existences does not mean God couldn't have done it. God can probably play basketball, too, but that doesn't stop us from doing it. Basically, this wouldn't disprove or prove anything and is a waste of research money that I think is better spent elsewhere, like stem cell research and finding a cure for AIDS. Important things. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
Sorry, but having all the scientists in the world working on cures for AIDS, concer and whatnot won't get them cured any faster. And what about all those non-medical/biological scientists that you apparently want working on that shit. Yeah, curing AIDS is certainly within their grasp. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Perhaps, but it's not like they'll stop the project, especially at this stage.
Funny, that's almost the same way I am (except I'm not an atheist). I don't belong to any religion at all. I have an idea of God and (if he/she/it exists) they must have an idea of me. That's enough, I think. However, I am open to the possibility that God doesn't exist.
I concur, but what can you do? Maybe the only reason they're doing this is for the "cool" factor and they know that there's no real point to the experiment. There's nowhere I can't reach.
"A man can be destroyed but not defeated." - Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)
|
It's not pointless to have an entire universe man-created. It creates a lot of significant scientific and philosophical ramifications. How is it worthless proving our own god-like abilities? I mean, it's a whole new universe.
It doesn't disprove religion, though. What it would do is give scientific plausibility to the concept of creationism. What makes it a pointless excercize, though, is that there's no way to measure the process of creation, let alone whether or not a universe has actually been created. Even after the experiment is done, the entire affair remains wholly theoretical. Not only that, but it's an experiment that runs the danger of destroying the universe as we know it, regardless of how miniscule the risk is. Relying on the words of scientists who don't want to lose their grant money is retarded. They can say they know what they're doing all they want, the fact of the matter is that they couldn't possibly know because all of the physics involved are theoretical. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
This universe deal is pointless because once achieved, all you get is the ability to say you did it. Read the end of the article: It says this would be done in such a miniscule scale and the "universe" would collapse so quickly we would not be able to measure it properly - if at all. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
The guy has calculus figured out 500 years before Newton comes along. Granted he was not killed because he was probing, but what if he had published what he had found? What if we just let these scientists go on with the experiment. Most amazing jew boots
I forgot my old sig...
|
I don't think I was the only one who pictured the opening sequence of Akira while reading all this, but I'm not really worried. Spectacular fiction aside, in reality energy and matter have a neat way of keeping each other in check, so I won't hold my breath for the wacked out chain reaction that teleports half of our atmosphere into the sun.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
My cousin and I however think her closet is a man-made black hole, I sware anything we put in there is missing the next day! FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Interesting. I don't really believe that it would be possible. But then again, I am not a scientist or anything. However, if this does become a reality, I hope it doesn't destroy the world or anything. The worst part about experiments and technology, is sometimes it doesn't work right and something really bad happens.
When you start playing around with things that have large amounts of potential energy, etc., you start playing with fire a bit. I hope their educated research and hypotheses are correct. Jam it back in, in the dark. |