Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)

[Cosmos Jack]

I really have nothing to say to you other than to correct this. Arguing with you is like arguing with a blind man about the color of the sky. It's also really annoying how you twist what I say, because you don't understand what I mean. So there is no way of talking to you.

 

I have no desire to keep correcting your misinterpretations just to have you misinterpret again and again. The fact that you still are arguing things that I have already proven you wrong on is also annoying. It makes it totally pointless to continue, because you don't realize when you are wrong and someone else is right. Even when they have facts to back them up. Odd how when you don't like the facts you ignore them, but you expect everyone to go with your "Swiss Cheese Statements."

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

I would say that you are wrong about Columbus. It had been known by well over a thousand years (closer to 1500, I think) that the world was round. Actual scientists knew that, that is. The common people may not have, but they weren't that informed anyway.

I know all to well about this I really hate when what I say is taken out of context. Eratosthenes figured almost the exact circumference of the Earth over 2,200 years ago in Alexandria. This knowledge became lost and found again "thanks to the Christians ransacking the library of Alexandria." Christians have had a terrible hatred for science and true knowledge from the very beginning. By the time Columbus rolled around educated people knew the Earth was round commoners did not. Columbus argued that Eratosthenes was wrong and that the earth was smaller than it was believed to be.

 

The odd thing of this is that Columbus was wrong about everything except the Earth really being round. If the Americas had not been in his way he would have led his ships to their death. So in America we calibrate a guy that was an idiot that got lucky.

 

Personally with all the knowledge you claim to have I fined it odd you didn't point out Eratosthenes to me. Instead of taking a random guess.

[Homuncul]

MK and CJ

 

You're guys are nuts! In about 10th flaming post I lost the point of your dispute. If it's not too bothering (since you've had such a wonderful intellectual discussion) please do you mind posting again where exactly the misinterpretation (or simply problem with you) is. Maybe it would be simple to solve by an outsider (meaning myself and my super-intelligence). It's just I don't like when worthy discussions end like this.

 

Others, including an agnostic and (I think) an atheist (Homuncul?) are arguing the same perspective.

 

ATHEIST? Oh no, do I look like one? That was harsh. No, I believe in god, it's just I don't go on with religion anymore. And since atheism in my and not solely my opinion is a religion too, I can not possibly be an atheist. Call me realist if you like. I dunno... can't help thinking I'm just some kind of twisted agnostic who doesn't know how convince people that agnosticism is not perfect, that it has contradictions.... which I can't neither justify implicitly nor disprove.

[Master_Keralys]

Sorry bout that Homuncul. We were talking about infinite energy or infinite usability for energy in the context of the possibility of an oscillating universe.

 

Okay, got some corrections of myself here. I was going off of older chemistry text - and it lied. Well, it actually just didn't tell the whole truth.

 

Heat is the energy that flows between two objects as a result of difference in temperature.

 

Reality is that all known processes generate waste heat. This is not to say that no process can use it, just that our processes can't. I was, therefore, wrong on that count. However, as a note, Sadi Carnot showed back in the 1800's that even an ideal engine would generate some waste heat. From this it can be show that any given reaction - regardless of what it is - will increase or maintain the entropy of a system. Even a point system. Moreover, the universe itself is running down: it is a closed system, if our math and Einstein are correct. Getting back to the original point, an oscillating universe would run out of gas, so to speak, because of the principle of entropy: the size of the system doesn't matter, entropy will always increase.

 

Unless this book is wrong too.

 

I apologize for my vehemence there; I was kind of hot at some of the things CJ said. However, as a note, I did have backup - my book did agree with me. I didn't know that the book wasn't telling the whole story.

[Kryn Dreith]

Interesting.

 

I like multiverse, personally. It means that somehwere, somehow, I'm a Jedi... Okay, so not really. But it does make for a lot more possibilities. And it deals with a lot of the paradoxes in our own universe. If there is a multiverse, it means that we don't have to worry about improbabilities and whatnot; they're all bound to happen with enough universes. More later, must run...