Quote from: Optimism
Universe expands and collapses, expands and collapses. Infinite universe with regard to time.
Do you believe this? (Yes or no)
No.
Go a little more in depth as to what he's saying.
Or better yet redirect me to the thread where he said that so I can get the full story. As of now, I don't either.
This isn't necessarily true -- it is merely one of many propositions of how the universe functions. As I've stated previously, whether the universe is finite or infinite has yet to be determined; moreover, it probably won't be for quite some time.
I elaborated a bit more in detail with regard to that statement. Next time, don't pull information out of context...
Sheesh.
I sound like a broken record, but sadly, you've yet to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe)
Big Bounce
Main article: Big Bounce
The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the beginning of the known Universe. It derives from the oscillatory universe or cyclic repetition interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.
According to one version of the Big Bang theory of cosmology, in the beginning the universe had infinite density. Such a description seems to be at odds with everything else in physics, and especially quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle.[citation needed] It is not surprising, therefore, that quantum mechanics has given rise to an alternative version of the Big Bang theory. Also, if the universe is closed, this theory would predict that once this universe collapses it will spawn another universe in an event similar to the Big Bang after a universal singularity is reached or a repulsive quantum force causes re-expansion.
Within this link are all hypothesis relating to the universe. All speculation.
Multiverse: no complete end
Main article: Multiverse
One multiverse hypothesis states that our uni-"verse" is merely one Big Bang among an infinite number of simultaneously expanding Big Bangs that are spread out over endless distances (open space).
Each "verse" may be either matter or antimatter, with an equal number in existence at any given time. As the "verses" expand they collide and matter and antimatter annihilate, releasing energy. Heat death of a finite universe would be predicted as entropy increases, however, the infinite size of the multiverse and the infinite number of "verses" could mean that new "verses" would be formed as old "verses" were annihilated.
A chain reaction multiverse would be analogous to a fireworks display (each explosion representing a Big Bang) that starts in one neighborhood and is followed by fireworks displays in surrounding neighborhoods and then in neighborhoods further out. The chain reaction of Big Bangs would continue to expand as Big Bang fuel is consumed. If the multiverse is open and the fuel is infinite then the chain reaction would expand forever. Of course, it is not known what the "fuel" is, but it is logical to assume that matter and energy are the product of a transformation from a real reactant, possibly the Higgs boson[citation needed].
Another infinite hypothesis.
Its pretty pathetic that you can't differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory. I expect nothing more, however.
The concept of gravity is a theory -- testable.
The concept whether the universe is finite or infinite would be a hypothesis, and will remain as such until we derive a method to test such concepts.
\facepalm.
Google.com is your friend. Start using it. I suppose you won't be writing that book and claiming the nobel prize anymore. Oh well.
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 05:58:00 PM
(Yes or no)
One only needs to review the previous threads to understand the context that you are asking this question -- you strictly believe the universe to be finite based on some misconstrued "evidence" you've attempted to throw together.
You've been thoroughly owned.
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 10:44:14 PM
Just answer the question. What could you possibly be afraid of?
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 05:58:00 PM
(Yes or no)
The PM you sent me after I locked a topic that hit a dead end with regard to "on-topicness":
Quote from: Xrow on February 27, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
Why did you lock that topic? So you could unfairly get the last word?
Pathetic, Tyler. Truly.
If you think my evidence is not truly evidence, then disprove it with real evidence. If your just going to wall-of-text with no logic or evidence, then you'd be better off picking up a book.
Speaks for itself, no?
lol.
It seems as if I'm the only one that went to look for a reputable source here. I win :).
Its sad, you attempted to push one hypothesis to a greater validity than another when in fact, they were all simply hypotheses (not one is more valid than the other) -- I've stated this since post one, yet you've found a way to close your eyes and plug your ears while screaming "god exists, NANANANANANANANANA".
Sound familiar? Yea, its what you do with Christianity when compared to all religions that have existed, exist or ever will exist.
Well, from this you will grow.
My answer is -- I don't know.
Reason: evidence hasn't been provided regarding the validity of any theory proposed.
(logical answer)
Quote from: Optimism on February 27, 2011, 11:31:50 PM
My answer is -- I don't know.
You know as well as me that the "I don't know" shit is the stupidest response you can give to another person.
You learn that in pay2school. ;)
Sigh. Such a nonprogressive response.
I didn't ask what you KNOW, I asked what you BELIEVE.
Now answer the question.
No, you ****ing idiot.
Do you need a reason? ::)
Hes afraid to answer it.
Thats why hes wall-of-texting.
I don't make blind leaps of faith. Sorry.
I'm on the fence.
Subjective and nonprogressive. Not very scientific of you, Opti.
I only want to know what you BELIEVE.
Do you believe the universe continuously explodes and implodes and is therefore infinite with regards to time or not?
Its really a simple question that requires naught but a simple answer.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:21:30 AM
Subjectivity and nonprogression. Not very scientific of you, Opti.
I only want to know what you BELIEVE.
Do you believe the universe continuously explodes and implodes and is therefore infinite with regards to time or not?
Its really a simple question that requires naught but a simple answer.
I claim to not know, similar to the existence of a god. For Jesus Christ's sake, take not knowing as my belief due to lack of sufficient evidence.
(the logical answer)
Being content with "I don't know" won't get us anywhere, now will it?
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:25:56 AM
Being content with "I don't know" won't get us anywhere, now will it?
Of course it will. We don't know until something is proven. This doesn't mean an effort won't be made to determine truth.
Man, you seriously are something of a confused child ;/.
Btw, you've stated yet another logical fallacy (slippery slope). Nice one. I suggest you go read up on those, brah.
You can stop quoting your little debate chart, someone else's limiting rules don't matter to me.
And of course "I don't know" won't get us anywhere.
If we decide that one option is logically impossible based on the evidence we have, then the other must be true.
So just answer already. It doesn't even really matter if its yes or no.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:31:33 AM
You can stop quoting your little debate chart, someone else's limiting rules don't matter to me.
And of course "I don't know" won't get us anywhere.
If we decide that one option is logically impossible based on the evidence we have, then the other must be true.
So just answer already. It doesn't even really matter if its yes or no.
From this point forward, debate ceases. I'd rather talk to a sheet of ice in the middle of Lake Ontario.
Awww your objectivity quickly hides behind subjectivity when exposed to logic, I see.
Typical atheist - oh well. Can't force you to discover the truth, I guess.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:34:39 AM
Awww your objectivity quickly hides behind subjectivity when exposed to logic, I see.
Typical atheist - oh well. Can't force you to discover the truth, I guess.
Because you fail to fallow the rules of logic, which result in tangible progression within the real world, I honestly have no clue what this statement means other than stupid. I can't continue to follow your skewed logic.
Peace.
Quote from: Optimism on February 28, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:34:39 AM
Awww your objectivity quickly hides behind subjectivity when exposed to logic, I see.
Typical atheist - oh well. Can't force you to discover the truth, I guess.
Because you fail to fallow the rules of logic, which result in tangible progression within the real world, I honestly have no clue what this statement means. Not the slightest.
Please show me these rules of logic that I should "fallow." (Hopefully not your little ad hominid, etc. debate chart - that isn't really logic).
And, Opti, if your "real world logic" doesn't lead to the truth, then it isn't logic now is it?
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:38:26 AM
Quote from: Optimism on February 28, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:34:39 AM
Awww your objectivity quickly hides behind subjectivity when exposed to logic, I see.
Typical atheist - oh well. Can't force you to discover the truth, I guess.
Because you fail to fallow the rules of logic, which result in tangible progression within the real world, I honestly have no clue what this statement means. Not the slightest.
Please show me these rules of logic that I should "fallow." (Hopefully not your little ad hominid, etc. debate chart - that isn't really logic).
And, Opti, if your "real world logic" doesn't lead to the truth, then it isn't logic now is it?
I ****ing lol'd and then face-planted into my television.
How exactly is that logic? I mean, surely it is a set of rules that could govern debates, but it isn't logic in itself.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:43:28 AM
How exactly is that logic? I mean, surely it is a set of rules that could govern debates, but it isn't logic in itself.
L O ****ING L
Yay more post count.
Because this thread is useless.
Quote from: Optimism on February 28, 2011, 12:43:53 AM
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:43:28 AM
How exactly is that logic? I mean, surely it is a set of rules that could govern debates, but it isn't logic in itself.
L O ****ING L
I take that as a lack of substantiation.
SUBSTANTIATE: Definition: (1) : to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
(2) : to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:47:17 AM
Quote from: Optimism on February 28, 2011, 12:43:53 AM
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:43:28 AM
How exactly is that logic? I mean, surely it is a set of rules that could govern debates, but it isn't logic in itself.
L O ****ING L
I take that as a lack of substantiation.
SUBSTANTIATE: Definition: (1) : to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
(2) : to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action.
I don't care? I'm done attempting to guide you in a direction where we can meet on common ground. You are going to have to do that for yourself.
You jealous Cor? XD
Jesus is a dead man.
Why would I be jealous? I'm getting post too for lolz.
Resolution:
Optimism is afraid to answer the question because he has a preconceived notion of what is true, and must base his logic around that preconceived notion.
If we can't progress, then he can't be proven wrong.
Thus his answer is "I don't know."
I request this topic be locked.
Quote from: Xrow on February 28, 2011, 12:50:39 AM
Resolution:
Optimism is afraid to answer the question because he has a preconceived notion of what is true, and must base his logic around that preconceived notion.
If we can't progress, then he can't be proven wrong.
Thus his answer is "I don't know."
I request this topic be locked.
Talk about subjective. LOL. I gave you an honest answer. You refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit within your own premise of what is true and untrue (objective statement).