The entire ideal seems rather sidestepping to me. This doesnt really solve anything or shut anyone up or do anything, it merely presents more problems.
From the Pro-life perspective, this does fine.
From the Religious perspective, this does fine because no moralized philosophies are violated.
From the Pro-choice perspective, personally, Id still like to see abortion in place for the elimination of unwanted future elements, but yes this is fine too. As long as they dont start taking up shitloads of space in basements across the world.
Yes, the fater should have some right to allow the continuation of growth, but at the same time no, they shouldnt. From the equal rights perspective, the man was equally and arguably more responsible for the fermentation to begin with. However, from the autonomy perspective, its a big no-no because its her body, right? If it were another woman's body continuing the growth of a fetus after the father's partner had it removed, Id say the father's consent is required. If the mother would like to continue it, no the father's consent would not be required, for if these two partner's are still together and the father did not consent it, LOOK OUT.
Heres a page on the Macroscopic violation of Thermodynamics. I Believe it also makes reference to other violations, including scalar dimensions/universes, Quantum Foam(Theory?), certain interpretations of aerodynamics and other specific statistical theories I cant remember.
I never said the technology existed, Protozoa. Im merely relating it back to the argument of cleanest and best energy source. If you think about it, all one really requires is electromagnetism and superdense matter. After that, youre golden. The Zero-point energy I speak of is the transcendant energy of gravity waves of all matter floating through space. I dont think it would be very difficult whatsoever to harvest that.
As for the manipulator search suggestion, that was mostly a joke. Refer to my first statement.
Okay, yes, its energy conversion, but weve already cleared that part up.
As for entropy, Screw it. Think about non-realistic applications of the manipulation of zero-point energy fields and how nice and useful that would be. Just think about it. Its so limitless.
As for antimatter, I just dont see it happening on planet. It requires way too much Capital.
Go do something better Enigmatic. That is all there really is to say. Unless of course you are trying pointlessly to rack up some quick points for your account. Then by all means, continue. And eating with sticks is indeed fun. Anyone who disagrees with that is a bigoted fool.
As for my lunatics comment, I mean the Chinese Communist government in general when I say lunatics and the rest of the country is very quickly moving toward a capitalistic-Democracy.
How about a privatized Government? One that utilizes the competition mechanic to achieve efficiency and lower costs? Except, instead of competing over money, they are competing over the number of people that live in their country and the educational/worth density of those people? In other words, splitting a well-established country in two to achieve privatized government, one that legislates quite literally as the people see fit to get the most that they can out of them and their opponent. Now, the question here would be how do you prevent underhand tricks? you do so with a promotion of open-book government, a paradigm change to such and a paradigm switch to making everyone more politically active or at least more politically aware. This would result in a much lower and even destroyed underhand-dealing mechanic.
As for war, these two separate governments are still part of the same country. In the end, these two governments act as one internationally. Kind of like two states instead of fifty in the US. They both have equal access to their respective north and south relative borders, i.e. both have equal access to Mexico and Canada in the case of the US. Finally, both would sign a document guaranteeing their mutual disclosure of information, resources and military power, Ultimately meaning that the two are still the same country with checks and balances to each other, but potentially significantly different laws apply to things inside each respective government's boundaries. War is prevented, the people get what they want, the economic experiment is engaged and no one gets hurt. It also forces to surface many issues that require answers. Thus, the ultimate serving of government is, well, served.
I disagree with your statement on the insatiable want to grow the government, by the government. Has every government in American history acted this way? No, Jefferson shrank the size of the government significantly, Hoover did, Coolidge did and I believe one of the post-civil war presidents did as well. Some even left them the same size by the time they left the office. Whats to say that next United States president after Obama wont shrink the size of government significantly, even destroy specific taxes, sign in free energy and destroy Public Healthcare? Any of that could happen, right? More or less. Regardless, Saying that government by nature of its establishment hungers for growth of itself is misguided at best. It depends entirely on the institution, its leader and how good he is at selling an idea.
"Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth."
Do not confuse a sense of realism with pessimism.
Hey! Im not uneducated!
And I did not know it had passed 60% efficiency. Perhaps we should be looking to that then.
As for antimatter, even a mechanic for capturing the antimatter generated by Lightning storms would be expensive, dont you think? Transport is still a problem, holding remains a problem, manipulation remains a problem, realistically, youd need an entire planet designated for energy generation for cost to become feasible. Thus, I do not believe it has any realistic potential. So there.
As for Zero-point energy manipulator generator, I meant merely a device used for manipulating and conglomerating Zero-point energy into a useful amount of energy and then using it to generate electricity. Not a manipulator-generator, something that generates manipulators. Sorry about that.
If you want an article, look up "zero-point energy manipulator" alone. That ought to turn up some results.
Its rather easy to conglomerate energy into more using a really long addition problem, Protozoa.
Secondly, were not converting energy to a higher state, were just putting it together to say we have more energy total. No conversions there.
And when I say energy manipulator generator, I mean energy that is being manipulated into a closed state i.e. conglomerated, and then used to generate electricity.
As for Nuclear Fission, it is actually rather green. Youre environmental argument stems from the 1960s and '70s, when analysts obviously saw waste products from a radioactive process being dumped in places. All of these arguments have been more or less stemmed thanks to an overview. When you think about the total radioactivity of 5 years worth on Nuclear Power plant waste, it comes up to about one cancer dose. Secondly, the materials used to encase the waste products and make sure they stay that way are generally lead and tungsten composites. These exist naturally in the environment to begin with. We are merely putting it in other places on the planet. Places with equivalent specs to the places we took those resources from. Thus, taking resources from one desert and putting them into another desert(Sahara to Nevada) isnt really much of a problem.
As for efficiency, if you can just cite the source for your stats at the bottom of your argument, Ill address that. Until then, The most cost-effective/energy-effective Nuclear power plant built recently has been built in China, with a (non-cited) low building cost and it produces nuclear energy at a rate of $0.022/kW/h. Pretty cheap.
When one addresses the cost of maintenance on either wind or Nuclear and the length of their lives producing power, the average 20-acre Wind farm has a 20 year life, whereas modern nuclear has a 35-40 year life span. Cost of maintenance over the course of their life times per year are actually EXACTLY the same(weird!). That number comes out to be $4,500(rounded).
Heres a link for this debate if you wish to continue.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
What if you could create a paradigm shift in the people so that they feel as though the government works for them without engaging in socialism? How about a government that does exactly that and doesnt stray because its people know the history and WILL engage their government to make sure they do not take control? What about a constitutional guarantee of smaller, efficient government? Its all about the theory. Just because it doesnt exist now does not mean it cant exist. Why so negative?
By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification.
Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails. This argument is supposed to be positive and constructive.
As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please.
Piezoelectricity is a very neat topic, especially under Highways and high-traffic-volume streets. However, as of now, most generators have only a 20% efficiency and a high input cost, and due to the nature of their placement, roads and highways, it would require a huge government bill to put these in. If they can achieve a much higher efficiency, around 60%, Id say that they should and would be put into every Highway. Until then, the easiest form of green energy remains thermo-solar.
As for Most potential, you give the example of a Matter-Antimatter Anihilation Generator. Yes, it gives off a great amount of energy per kilogram, but the cost of infrastructure and a stable reaction chamber would be in the trillions per facility and the cost of fuel would be enormous, regardless of its source. Unless we can get Zero-Point Energy manipulators in here, there is no way to efficiently transport, hold or utilize Antimatter. My suggestion would be a Zero-Point Energy Manipulator Generator. By utilizing the gravity of any mass at all, useful energy is produced. Essentially, the Earth's Own Gravity could be used, or the gravity of every single body of mass in the universe. Endlessly, as well.
Also, your projection for Ocean waves is incorrect. I believe that figure comes from current Wave-Mechanic Generators. Future ones on the ocean floor, where the current is 80000 times stronger, will produce far more energy than ones as of today. Your number of 2.88x10^20 x 8x10^4 equals 2.30x10^25 J/year. Thats a lot more. Not to be mean or anything. That sounded mean, sorry.
The most efficient form of Energy known today is Actually Gasoline. The most efficient Heat energy-mechanical work converter known today works at 65-67% efficiency. Bioethanol actually has a -12% energy Efficiency rate. The Cheapest form of Green Energy is Nuclear Fission, almost by definition. The easiest to make form of Green Energy generators is Thermo-Solar, it can be as cheap as $300 to cover a small roof. The one with the best potential is actually Zero-Point Energy Manipulator Generators, as they quite literally suck energy out of "empty" Space and are powered by the gravity of all mass in the universe. As of today, Id say the Best form of Green energy is Nuclear Fission, thanks to its low cost and high energy output.
Of course there hasnt been a better system in human history. Otherwise, it would still exist. I agree that Democracy is the best, or the least horrible, governmental system thus far. What if I told I DID have a new and more Beneficial system to its people, one that would exist as long as its people were modified with a slight paradime change? One that could minimize the levels of Poverty and increase government efficiency? What then, Mr. David H.?
Yes, Anarchy is a silly, idiotic, primitive, impulsive form of both life and "Government." I hope we can agree on that.
China is a backwards, ageing nation of lunatics who eat with sticks.
I THINK NOT. Though you seem to think Size is not synonomous with strength, I disagree. It is actually RATHER synonomous, but not necessarily exactly so. China is big, and growing. It is indeed filled with lunatics, but the rest of the country is growing more and more aware of that and moving in for the kill. And eating with sticks is fun, dont be insulting.
Is this statement addressed to "chavs", Englishmen or the the opposition? Upon which published statistics do you base your claim that all chavs suck, that all Englishmen are chavs, that this is only generally true or that it is true at all?
It was a joke, Enigmatic. Dont you have something better to do than insult Americans?
That's just a childish argument.
Point in fact.
Is that a joke, or do you seriously believe that is how the word "wank" is used?
THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS A JOKE. GO WANK IT OFF WILL YA? (Sorry, I heard one of my English Friends say that once and it makes me laugh every time.)
The trouble (one of them, at least) with being American is that geography is beyond your conception. Scotland is a horrible, horrible place.
Have you any proof? Regardless, I meant more so of the people. I have had a much better experience with the Scottish than the English. Less Drunk men, nicer people and less over-bloated self-confidence. But maybe its just me.
Most of America is a wasteland. The rest is filled with Americans. The only conceivable worse place on Earth is Spain (excepting Africa and Asia, but they are just awful).
You are just a mean man, Enigmatic. It seems were on comepletely different sides of this argument in every respect. I refuse to drop to your level of supposedly unbiased truthfullness. Besides, England is a land of refuse where old drunk, fat men rape their women and beat their children out of their homes, which they eventually lose to the Government and somehow maintain the shitty quality of life they had before. Sorry, moment of weakness.
Anarchy is important in the balance of the political stream in both a theoretical and realistic sense. It is the absolute end of the Freedom part of the Political Spectrum, providing an absolute end. Simultaneously, it helps to point out potential flaws in our thinking and our applications of laws, philosophies and ideals. Without it, The Elite would completely control the minds of the World, as no relative negative exists to pull people away from the Elitist view. Anarchy also empowers the average man to be his own, whereas Elitism essentially either guarantees the worthlessness of that man or that he futilely try to be more like the Elite and forever fail. This is truly the only real benefit of Anarchy, and in general it need remain a more abstract, intangible item than applied ideology due to its direct violation of established human rights through its upholding of primal instinct and destruction of social barriers. Anyone who engages in any form of Anarchy is a fool.
I wouldnt necessarily say that Obama isnt exactly trying his hardest or not doing anything at all, I just personally dont believe that the direction that hes taking is a very good one or beneficial one. He has more or less driven himself into a hole of favor debt, one that he pays back in biased legislature, and hes part of the Democratic Political party which is essentially using him, regardless of what he thinks. Under such, I believe that Both a new candidate is required, preferably one from an independent party for some fresh air and far less political agenda, and eventually a massive political overhaul of parties and lobbying. But since were talking about Obama specifically, youve got youre answer. No, its not a good idea. No, we dont have a good candidate replacement, but still no, its not a good idea.
Though teachers should generally dress rather well to emote a greater sense of power and psuedo-leadership while teaching for their own good, it for the most part would come down to a question of the school and whether or not it has a dress code to begin with. British Schools argue that the teachers dont require a dress code because they arent the ones who have done things wrong, and Ill remind you I hate British schools in that they assume that the students are there because they are faggot wankers of kids who require complete control over them in order to function correctly. Regardless, any school without a More specific Dress code, such as suitcoat and tie for example, would not require the Teachers to necessarily dress in any specific manner, as long as they dont show up in an outfit that violates student Dress codes. In the end, thats what it comes down to: If it violates generalized student Dress codes, then no, they cant wear it. However, a Strict Dress code is never a requirement, especially seeing as they are the ones who exhume the power in the clasroom(Hopefully).
Im not saying political systems are bad at all. Im no anarchist. I just DISPISE the generalizations and corruptions and stereotypes that follow Politcal PARTIES. Not Political systems. The United states Government is currently the best government in the world as of now Id say, but that doesnt mean we have an excuse to stop trying to make a better government for the FUTURE. I believe that the elimination of Political parties, a new standardized Voting system and a paradigm shifttoward being politically active and aware in your country is the best possible form of political election we, or anyone, can have.
Saying that no government is perfect is often used as an excuse argument, though Im not necessarily accusing you of it. The American government has quite a few potential changes it could make toward a more successful, efficient, streamlined government if the democrats and republicans, the country's political parties, would stop bickering over petty stupidities of the Government's size. Both need to be completely humbled and slapped in the face or gotten rid of for more than just that reason.
In short, regardless of how good you may think we are now, thats not an excuse to stop advancements. We can do much better than just this.
That statement alone would can be analyzed in this way:
Do you know of the Little Red Cookbook Incident in China? When a man stood in front of a line of Chinese Tanks for Free Speech? He was killed on the spot. This is an excellent example of what Im trying to get across in the entirety of my argument. If a person does not work for the government or hold any form of high government position, theyre life is essentially shit if the government doesnt like what they say, which can include a long list of things if youre the Chinese Government or even the United States Government. Limits of any kind on free speech to begin with are essentially the beginning of the end in my opinion because it allows the strong to manipulate the weak and the truth and whats right can never surface, regardless of the problems like hate speech that puts forth. Its a requirement. No clever Trolling here, sir.
Shouldnt this argument be between China and the US? England, chillax. You chavs suck in general, with your annoying voices and falsely overbloated self-confidence. Go wank it off, will ya? Scotland is better anyway. (Just kidding guys, you can be pretty cool when youre not posting dumb arguments like this one.)
America could use a bit of a facelift as well, Id say. But not NEARLY as much as England does. Now, if this were an argument between the UK and England, then maybe we'd have some logs to burn here. Until then, Its kind of the obvious answer of America.
Okay, I see where youre going here. I agree with the supermassive black hole. However, what makes the Big Bang particle explode?
Also, you say that the Big Bang particle itself is the Supermassive Black Hole. I diagree. The CENTER of the Black hole, the singularity, is the Big Bang particle and the Big Bang particle is center of all Black holes at all times, even now. All Black Holes are connected in the sense that they all suck up matter into the exact same Big Bang particle at all times. Or so I say.
I believe your interpretations of Dark matter were a bit to science-fiction. Dark matter is not vorpal matter occupying all space at all times. If we surmise that Dark matter is indeed neutralinos, then it would rim all major galaxies at all points in the universe, not just the universal horizon. Therefore, It would, in essence, randomly attract other matter in the universe, not Just send it outward or inward.
Regardless of the dark matter problem, we seem to agree that in the end, there will only be your proposed Black Hole Era that will eventually suck up everything. However, Are black holes composed of matter themselves? Or are the giant spheres of nothing just points of extreme gravity and therefore not composed of anything but the Big Bang Particle? I believe the latter is correct and therefore, once all matter in the universe has been sucked into the Big Bang Particle, the Black Hole Era will instantly end and the Bing Bang Particle will explode due to lack of other matter to relate to in the universe.
So the question is: What happens when the Big Bang particle finally explodes and what else is there in the universe when that happens and why is it there or not there? Intricacies, Intricacies.
Thats the exact same argument every country without free speech puts out. China uses that doctrine and uses it openly to put down those against the government or in anyway radical.
Also, this would include much of what is on the web and in circulation as of today.
Again, this would prevent anyone in the country from making any form of threat without penalty of law.
Finally, those with ideas that in anyway invoke or involve violence would never be able to state their arguments, and though this sounds like a good idea, if these people never spoke up we would have these people more actively committing their own ideas because of the suppression and these ideas could never used as evidence for anything in any real world application or argument. In short, it causes more anger among those would normally use it to vent and limits the plausibility of arguments who would normally require said arguments in terms of realism and perfection of crafting.
So we agree that Time is infinite, though, correct? Regardless of its shape. Good.
Your interpretation of Dark matter is wrong. Check the link. Maybe you can refine your theory around it. OR ACCEPT MINE. EITHER IS WELCOME.
Skipping to Bing Bang particle paragraph, I disagree that the Particle is a black hole. Although my entire theory is based around black holes sucking up all matter, which is also what you say by the way, it is the central point of all these black holes that is the EXACT SMAE SINGULARITY, ONE PARTICLE. You just say that a Black hole at the center of the universe would suck up everything, wehereas I say a series of random blackholes will suck up the universe randomly at random points in space and time. This is really the only difference we have left for our theories, I believe.
One would have to be able to weigh whether or not a direct action, or lack thereof, is worthy of its cost and benefits. In your example, is his lack of action going to affect more people than his own death? In my opinion, it is better to save the two men than the one incredibly obese man because if the obese man chose to save these two men, their lives must be worth something or be of some importance, more than his own. Also, simply by committing this selfless act, the obese man has increased the value of his own life and person, at least in relation to others who are not selfless. In an entirely selfless, purely fantastical world, which this one is not currently not mind you, this man's action wouldnt be acknowledged because no one's actions mean anything in terms of adding or losing abstract moral weight. Thereofore, in the perfect, preferable world, this man would do it regardless and be thought of as nothing more than what he was already. Therefore, The man's action is weightless in essence. SO, its better to save the two men in action than it is to passively allow them to die on the face of the scenario. In basis, your scenario is a question of whether or not the obese man's action holds enough weight to which I say no, it does not for the reasons I gave above.
Tell that to the rest of the world.
I want to know why a lack of a balancing act argument makes me inevitably incorrect. Explain that if you dont mind.
I dont understand how your warrants in both arguments lead to your conclusions.
I dont believe I was talking about the amount of money they were being paid, anyway. I was more so arguing that a result of political parties is that they blindfold the less intelligent and then feed them ice cream and goodies so that they vote for their candidate, regardless of what the candidate actually will or will not do in the end, or his character for that matter. Political parties cause enmassed bullshit and remove exactly what you said at the bottom of your argument to be completely disreagrded by those who hold just one of the same key values, Which is generally EVERYONE because these parties put out tons of bullshit about what their entire party thinks, which is an absolute lie. Parties corrupt and harm and manipulate and these completely outweigh their abstract benefits.
Essentially, the universe will travel faster than the speed of light at two lengths of time
How will the universe travel at two lengths of time if time is an infinite passage?
continues expanding due to dark matter.
If it continues expanding due to dark matter, how did the dark matter get further out than the edge of the Big Bang expansion sphere? Wouldnt the most basic particle be the fastest one out there(Thus far that would be the photon I believe)?
"The expanding universe will change direction due to gravity, resulting in a contraction of the universe."
How will gravity change the direction if dark matter is sucking the universe outward?
"As the universe contracts, it eventually passes the speed of light, until it contracts into the big bang particle."
What does the speed of light phrase have to do with anything? Does the universe have to contract at a speed faster than c to make the big bang particle? Clarification please.
The Time Travel part makes sense to me as youve stated it, but how does the universe reset itself then? If its gravity, where is all this mass coming from all of a sudden in the center of the universe? Is the center of the universe when the big bang happened the exact same place as where all the universe's matter will contract into the Big Bang particle? Answer all of these individually if you dont mind.
Human rights are obtained from nature, and by nature I mean sociological placement and biological ability, and the human mind's development on our placement in evolutionary chains. Essentially, human rights arrive from what the majority of the planet thinks the Human race owns in terms of rights, property and self-righteousness. The Whole food chain concept and human self-awareness also play a huge part in this.
Legal rights, on the other hand, arrive from the state. These are generally rights that are borrowed from philosophy(Actually, I cant think of any rights outside of those that have been philosophically extended, nonetheless...) involving humanity and its placement, such as the right to life, the right to free belief, the right to freedom of speech. All natural rights that are legally extended by the state are legal rights. According to the United States of America's Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first eleven amendments, rights that arent extended by the state dont NOT necessarily exist. However, across the world today, the natural right system is not generally acknowledged, even in places like Europe and especially Asia, not to say, however, that these continents and their countries dont have Legal rights.
As for the debate over unlimited rights, The video above is correct in leaning toward unlimited rights in that the only theoretical flaw is that people can do whatever they want, which is wrong. Some unspoken human rights include the right to responsibility, the right to realistic option and the right of obligation to serve. These unspoken philosophical laws are ones that are expected to be respected in society by individuals and are without enforcement, which is why they are often not acknowledged or even known. Saying such, Unlimited rights are the way to go. However, certain rights limit intolerable or absolutely free behavior.
If you want a source for some of the rights that have been discussed before in history, look up the Second Continental Congress and its Rights Debating society.
I thought you said that your cause of the infinite contractions was that the universe will eventually accellerate past the speed of light as it expands away from the center of the universe. Not Gravitational Atraction. Clarification perhaps?
Metabinary Mechanics are the application of ones and zeros into systems in order to find the attributes of order and chaos. In this case, 1 is chaos and zero is order. The argument I make is that the universe HAS to happen at one point or another because there is the slightest possibility of it happening. The same argument can be applied to electrons and protons combining to form neutrons:Because it is energetically favorable. The Universe happened because it was energetically favorable and there was no resistance to it. Thats my explanation. Feel free to ask for more explanation. I feel like this isnt really enough.
Entropy isnt absent. At least it isnt in my explanation if thats what your talking about. All particles and laws affected by Entropy, that being all of them, are eventually sucked up by black holes regardless of where they are because, essentially, Balck holes come and find them. One way or another. I disregard Dark Matter's existence as well by the way, more or less.
Theres no evidence of it ever happening because it only happens ONCE: The Big Bang Singularity. We havent seen it happen.You have to visualize my model in order to get the idea and then it hits you like, as you previously put it, a grenade to the face. Which I enjoyed.
We both agree. Hmmm. NOT EXACTLY. My entire argument is based on the Gravitational model. If you think about it the way I have, which could be wrong, I accept, you come out with a nice theory that works rather well and explains EVERYTHING. But it kind of requires a rather large amount of creative imagination to find and view, though not to say that that would make it unviable. Also, I disagree that random quantum motion would have caused the original Big Bang. It doesnt seem plausable to me, as you would have to have something creating force before it, which I offered Metabinary Mechanics as a possible solution to that problem.
I said that the idea behind the Gravitational plane model is Basically Einstein's Life Work combined with modern Special Relativity. Look it up and see, I cant really cite it very well. As for the universe placement... thing, I argue that we'll never know whether or not this is universe numero uno or 7,056,443,618, Especially if the universe before this one had an adverse affect on this universe's creation through your very same quantum motion. In the end, the question comes down to whether or not you accept this model I have propsed and think about it from my view or stick with individual time travel elements. Or at least, so I think. Your move, Protozoa. I wait in envy.
Im not saying its the only thing he wants nor that he wants it all, but to treat man like shit is also not his agenda or shouldnt. If it is his agenda, he doesnt deserve to be god. If you want more information on the Big Bang, Check out Metabinary Theory. And there is a point in trying to figure out his motives, Especially if youre a kind of person who wants the truth.
Okay, Im saying entropy doesnt matter IN THE LONG RUN. Black holes would eventually suck up everything regardless. As for the no evidence thing, I agree. There is no evidence. HOWEVER, in my theory, I argue that in order to have gravity, you require a system, one particle attracted to another. A RELATIVE system. Therefore, when all other energy and matter in the universe is sucked into the one central point, the universe essentially explodes once again for a slew of potential reasons.
One is that the gravitational plane, as in the gravity model elastic blanket, remains in one constant position forever while other particles fall into it and blah blah blah refer to my original argument. Now if thats true, then when the central point is all thats left, it skyrockets back to equilibrium and then explodes once it hits the flat point.
Another is that you basically follow the one above, but that the point emits energy as it flows back toward equilibrium and then flies past the gravity plane, and then comes back through it, and then flies back through again going up, and so on until it achieves equilibrium in relation to the Gravity plane. This would also happen over the course of a few seconds or may not have actually happened in the form of the Big Bang, but is what will happen the secind time the universe goes back to what it was.
There are a few other potential explanations, but I wanna see how you respond to these first. Also, if you can, disprove what I said in the opening before approaching these explanations, but disprove it with an open mind if you will. I dont want you coming at me with just time reversal or entropy please.
If everything said in the top argument is true, then why does god allow the universe to stay its course? If he knows that man will eventually corrupt itself beyond selfrepair or savior, then why does he allow its continued existence? Does he not care about man? It would seem outrightly so. If this is true, why should we not turn our backs on a creator who has done such to us? Why continue assailing a god who doesnt give a shit? Theres no point. And if he turns around and realizes that were no longer caring ourselves and demands that we worship him once again, why should we worship and listen to a hippocritical five-year-old deity?
The argument questions Why God ALLOWS Suffering to happen, not why he DOES it. The point is, God allows men to kill other men and destroy his(God's) own value. Why? He himself supposedly holds man to be sacred, but both Testaments also state that god created man to worship him, Essentially saying that God was bored and is also a rather selfish being. If thats true, why believe in him? Why trust his word? Why like him? God gives you the choice of continuing to serve him in heaven for eternity or receiving damnation in Hell for eternity. Thats not really a great choice. Its like choosing to buy gas for 28.99 a gallon, or being lit on fire. Both kinda suck. Theres just no longer any reason to believe in this guy, in terms of existence OR virtue. Hes just a grumpy old father who doesnt feel like allowing his son to do what he wants, but that the son has to work for him every monday, tuesday afternoon, wednesday, thursday, Friday Night and saturday. Thats not a God Im a fan of.
Your depressed, bias, self-centered opinions dont matter at all. All you do is bitch and bitch and bitch about whats going on now, not why, or how, just the face of everything. If you are so damn disgusted with the world, do something about it that will save the rest of us from this place while upholding your self-proclaimed morals behind your statements. And if you cant, then go get a retropsychosematic and go visit the good ol' days for yourself, yeah? Maybe yours is filled with rainbows and unicorns and self-worth.
Sorry, but I had to say it.
OH HO HO HO GOOD OL' ENGLAND. Full of wankers and whatnots. Self-centered socialist pricks, the majority of those children. Think that they undertsnad the world. Disgusting. Not to say you are one necessarily. I just have a thing against the idiots of your country as well as the United States of America. And I do happen to know a good amount of British History, thanks. However, you are true in stating that my answer above ascertains mostly if not entirely to the US. As for Brtiain, it was a dangerous, filthy time where socialists and marxists were revolutionizing and Ireland was starting to get pissed, but only starting. Much of the Government's focus was on that of maintaining the Empire or its remnants and keeping the British War machine up top, reducing entirely any funds for improving the life of those in the motherland or instilling new ideas or programs. Life was at a stand still, free to the jaws of any industrious thinker with enough money and malice. Which is why labour laws didnt exist, working class sucked metaphorical penis everyday, quality of life was worhtless and the only way to achieve happiness was through religion, generalized piety or ignorance of the Status Quo. Germany had many on edge, and many fell off that same edge. Depression and sadness ran rampant through the time between the turn of the century and the end of the Second Great War. Men controlled women and beat they children often in the populated areas. Disease was common, as was death. Desperate times, desperate measures. Everyone was on edge, for political revolution, war, crime, disease, death, social reform, religion and otherwise.
As for today, The world requires something to keep its focus, otherwise we'd have a shitload or several shitloads of people with nothing to do, and unfortuantely we cant just kill them. So there exists a network of entertainment and communication and thrill for the Primary, secondary and tertiary sector workers throughout the world so that the world runs smoothly and doesnt fall into the hands of imbeciles on a massive reformist scale. This goes for England, America, every developed country. Negative radicalism is a result of boredom and illogical, impulsive thought. We use what you perceive as the modern world to prevent that from happening. To prevent the "I want is NAO"s from gaining too much power in the world. Or else we all fail. And there isnt another jesus to unite us all. Thats my view on things. Due to the fact that many worhtless people exist, and we cant just enslave them due to their classification and nature, we must make sure they dont do anything stupid. Thats why the world is so fucking disgusting in every manner. Its necessary.
And I argue that entropy and time do not matter, merely that time is an infinite passage that the universe in any state follows and that entropic particles and laws are sucked up by black holes and delivered back to the beginning for yet another ride through the space/time continuum. Excellent. Now whos correct? THAT, is the real question. I cannot think of any immediate evidence or mathematics for my argument and I know that youve given some numbers for yours, but no one really knows. We can only postulate theoretically and tear down theory based on more accurate theory. Sigh. What a question.
Thank you for the literature, Zombee. It is rather appreciated. However, Ive read parts of that book and I must say I disagree. Though I may have read the book wrong or biasedly, I feel as though the people in the countries on the continent are somehow in a lack of development philosophically, and that the best way to achieve World Peace is to actually colonize Africa, in a sense. Not the 1600s colonies, oh no. The artificial installation of Democracy and the increase in life value for all on the continent. The continent must be mined and harvested eventually, and now is probably better than later while we have a stable world political regime. Industrialization is key and the rapid development of Africa into an industrial God for the world is a key token of the future, I think. Therefore, how can we ignore the prospect of, in a more negative sense, force democracy and the world upon them as the world has allowed them a get out of jail free card for too long. In my opinion. This is a touch sloppy and comes across as rather heartless and not thought out, but I just wish to touch on the idea.
Thank you for the literature, Zombee. It is rather appreciated. However, Ive read parts of that book and I must say I disagree. Though I may have read the book wrong or biasedly, I feel as though the people in the countries on the continent are somehow in a lack of development philosophically, and that the best way to achieve World Peace is to actually colonize Africa, in a sense. Not the 1600s colonies, oh no. The artificial installation of Democracy and the increase in life value for all on the continent. The continent must be mined and harvested eventually, and now is probably better than later while we have a stable world political regime. Industrialization is key and the rapid development of Africa into an industrial God for the world is a key token of the future, I think. Therefore, how can we ignore the prospect of, in a more negative sense, force democracy and the world upon them as the world has allowed them a get out of jail free card for too long. In my opinion.
