A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

[DarkstaR]

For my first post in my contemplation corner, I feel it fitting to post a paper I wrote over a year ago for my highschool Physics class. This discusses the correlations between time, space and the uncertainty principal. Furthermore, it speaks about seeing the future in a very different way than normally assumed.

A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

Time – what is time? Time, in my eyes, is a non-spatial dimension in which events occur in what is a seemingly irreversible and intangible linear succession. As the timeline progresses from the past, moves through the present, and continues to proceed to the future, those who perceive the events occurring down the line of the continuum, which we call time, apparently develop memories of those now past events – the question is, however, “why can’t we remember the future?” One might, with a hasty demeanor, retort “Well, you just said it, we generate memories based on our observation of past occurrences,” but is that really what happens?

Defining time, as I have previously done, is an asinine way of going about answering this question. Since when do we need a definition for time? To us, we instinctively recognize what time is - or, at least, what we believe it to be. If you read carefully as I gave my rough definition of time, it is quite probable that the term “seemingly” arrested your attention. Why did I say this word, seemingly? Am I trying to suggest that we perceive the reality of time to exist in a totally different manner than it, in actuality, exists? Yes, I am.

If you delve deeply into the laws of Quantum Physics, you will eventually come across what is called the EPR Paradox. As one begins to understand the EPR Paradox, they inevitably take heed of what is known as Quantum Entanglement. In a nutshell, Quantum Entanglement articulates that any two or more particles created simultaneously will be entangled; they will instantaneously and identically react when either of their quantum states change. This means that either information about quantum change is traversing a path between entangled particles infinitely fast, or, more likely, everything is actually touching and what we view as space is just the fabric that creates the illusion of the spatiality of our universe.

The law of Quantum Entanglement, the way I look at it, touches back to a quote from a very famous physicist: “The reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.” When I read this quote from Albert Einstein, my mind was immediately riddled with thought. Before I heard this quote, time never needed to be explained; it seemed to be obvious and strictly apparent. I made the assumption that time was time because it was time, and left it at that. However, subsequently to hearing what I would describe as a multitude of wisdom summed up in the most elementary dialect possible, incessant thought and careful calculation lead me to better understand how our universe works.

Time, being a dimension, is perceived as linear, as I previously stated. Think back to the last time you looked at a paper. Now, imagine constructing a line that runs directly up and down on that piece of paper. Secondly, imagine repeating the action, but with the span of the line advancing right to left. Most people would gander at this imaginary paper only see lines. What they, most likely, won’t ponder is the fact that the lines on the paper are drawn in two dimensions, each dimension presenting a new linear continuum in which infinite representations of the lower dimension exists. What this means is that, for example, every step we move in the Y plane contains an infinite amount of steps in the X plane. As we jump back into our three dimension world, we realize that every step in the Z plane also represents infinite steps in the Y plane. Time, existing as the fourth dimension, holds what might visually look like an infinitely long film strip containing representations of the past as it advances to the future.

Just as we perceive depth as forward and back, width as right and left, and height as up and down, we also perceive time as past and future – because that’s all we know. While, according to the laws of Entanglement, we perceive space - our three dimensions - to be separate even though they aren’t, we also perceive time to be linear, even though it’s not. Past, present, and future have both already happened and are still happening. This information gives birth to a new question: “We can see left, we can see right, we can see up, down, forward and back, so why can we only see past and not future?”

The answer is that we truly live in the dimension of time, where we can see all aspects of the lower spatial dimensions. That said, we would see the continuum of time as a spatial entity if we lived in the dimension above, the realm of probability. More understandably, we remember the past because, as Einstein covertly stated, it presents itself as to not let all events happen infinitely fast. Its presentation invokes our senses to cause the synapses in our brain to pass data to our neurons, which store information, known as memory.

However, who is to say that the presentation of events is the only way we can remember them? Memories are in-fact just mental images stored in our mind, aren’t they? In actuality, we can “remember” the future, but to understand how we must deeply inspect the nature of cause-and-effect. If we, as example, toss a ball at a wall, we would naturally view the event of the ball hitting the wall as the effect of throwing the ball in the walls direction. However, whose place is it to infer that the wall is not the cause for the ball hitting it? I mean, come on, we threw the ball in the direction of the wall with intentions of striking it, so wouldn’t the anticipation of the ball hitting the wall, a future-tense event, be the cause of the ball being thrown, in turn hitting the wall?

How can we honestly, without room for argument, imply that we cannot see the future, given that we actually do actions based on future “causes” numerous times a day? Is it really that we can’t “remember” the future, or is it that the universe interferes with the future after we construct it? The real question is finally affirmed: “Why can’t we clearly see the future?”

Contemplate this question: “If I used given data of the past to logically assume future events, and no unknown factors were to interfere, would the future turn out as I predicted?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!” If I throw a ball at a wall with enough speed, I know for a fact that if nothing interferes with that ball that it will hit the wall. However, Chaos Theory communicates that every system tends to move naturally towards disorder, such that there is a measurable quantity of chance, determined by the Uncertainty Principle, of the outcome of every event in a system. This quantity is known as entropy, and, more times than not, is usually in strong favor of disorder.

Now, imagine a closed system, such being a finite representation of an empty replication of our universe. Pretend that placing two atoms adjacent each other in this system will result in the formation of a molecule. We will consider formation of this molecule as orderly, as it is the desired outcome. If we place two atoms within our system at random positions, it is obvious that the chances of them being adjacent to one another are slim to none. This shows that the entropy within this small, closed system undoubtedly points to disorder.

So, once more let’s set an imaginary objective of making a ball hit a wall. We can, within our minds, speculate that if we throw the ball, it will indeed make contact with the wall. Pretend that right as we release the ball from our hands, a random nearby region of air with unevenly proportioned heat shifts, creating a gust of wind thereby knocking our ball off course, changing its trajectory so that the effect of the throw turns out completely different than we expected. Due to the entropy of our universe, our perception of the future is changed as we perceive the ball being caught by the wind, and, given sufficient data and time, we can essentially assume a new outcome for this event.

Some people would dismiss this reasoning as absurd, or even just a radical misunderstanding of what “Seeing the future” really means. I, however, think those people are the ones who have misinterpreted the concept. If using accurate data to draw conclusions and formulate assumptions about a certain point in time is wrong, non-sensible, or a misinterpretation of concept, then the collective histories of our country, planet, galaxy and universe as a whole would just as certain be non-sensible. Moreover, science as we know it would be nothing but a stew of ignorant stupidity, and any rational person knows that that simply isn’t the case.

Take, for example, big bang theory. Factually, this is our past – there is evidence supporting it and data backing it up. Through careful assumption, hypothetical reasoning, and tedious study, science has “remembered,” or better yet put a visual picture in their minds of, the creation of our universe.

Stephen Hawking asks the question “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” Time, space, and the Big Bang Theory play a paramount role in actually supporting the mystery behind this question. The question he proposed along with the quote I shared from Albert Einstein, truth be told, actually touch back to my implications of future effects being cause of past events. Time is here so everything doesn’t happen at once, and the universe would have absolutely no bother with its own existence if that existence were to end simultaneously to its creation; the universe bothers only so that it can coexist in harmony with time.

This coexistence between time and the matter created in the big bang is what sums up our universe, and our spatial perception of this matter and its changes over time is what constructs the man-made concepts of past, present, and future. By carefully analyzing data about the present, we can hereby make assumptions about the events of, for lack of using the general term “remember,” both the past and the future; it is only by chance of entropy that the future be unclear.

[Flappy Joe]

nerd?

[Dizix]

nerd?

+1 :(

[Aydin]

tl;dr

[Apotheosis]

This sounds like an episode of futurerama :P

[Hendy]

bah you cant be more wrong about it

learn somethign real ..............

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

big bang couldnt take place kuz the earth its flat dohhhhhh so obious..........

people this days belive everything in a website u_u

Ahh crap, the earths flat? -.- When will I fall off the edge? ;>

[psychaos]

nerd?

what makes him a nerd? is it the fact that he chooses to try and understand things for what they really are, or the fact that you're just to ignorant to comprehend anything he said?

I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:

If they find the Higgs Boson this year, which im pretty certain they will, the universe and everything that exists will be defined, and the need for a 'God' to explain existence will be entirely ruled out.

DarkstaR.
on a side note, have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment and what are your views on it? i'd be interested hearing your views on what you think that suggests? :)

[Luls]

I remember the first time I read this. Good times, with a slight side of mindfuckery.

[Flappy Joe]

what makes him a nerd? is it the fact that he chooses to try and understand things for what they really are, or the fact that you're just to ignorant to comprehend anything he said?

I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:


You do know I was joking, right?

[DarkstaR]

what makes him a nerd? is it the fact that he chooses to try and understand things for what they really are, or the fact that you're just to ignorant to comprehend anything he said?

I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:

If they find the Higgs Boson this year, which im pretty certain they will, the universe and everything that exists will be defined, and the need for a 'God' to explain existence will be entirely ruled out.

@DarkstaR (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=2).
on a side note, have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment and what are your views on it? i'd be interested hearing your views on what you think that suggests? :)

Yeah I have. That goes one dimension higher to the dimension of probability, as Quantum Physics says, and I breifly mentioned. Eventually I'll write up a post about that :P, probably along with the one I want to make called "A Fourth-Dimensional Mirror."

And I honestly don't think they'll find the God particle this year. (Scientists rage when you call it that haha)
No to mention people over at the LHC are so horny over string theory, even though it has not a single shred of evidence, it makes me sick. Don't get me wrong, the experiment is great and the people are brilliant, I just think more effort can be going elsewhere.

[Sspanky]

Loving this, This is the kinda stuff I like to read while botting.

[Spectrus]

what makes him a nerd? is it the fact that he chooses to try and understand things for what they really are, or the fact that you're just to ignorant to comprehend anything he said?

I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:

If they find the Higgs Boson this year, which im pretty certain they will, the universe and everything that exists will be defined, and the need for a 'God' to explain existence will be entirely ruled out.

DarkstaR.
on a side note, have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment and what are your views on it? i'd be interested hearing your views on what you think that suggests? :)

Most of the publicity on the whole search for the Higgs Particle lately has been rather misleading. Basically, there's a percentage floating about (99.996%) that they will find it. This is not really the case, it's more that IF the particle exists, there is a 99.996% chance it is in the specific mass range that they have narrowed it down to.

There was a post on reddit that I was reading earlier about this exact thing: LINK (http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pgo8v/so_apparently_the_higgs_particle_is_as_good_as/)

As for the whole double slit experiment, weird right?

[DarkstaR]

The Higgs must exist, the real issue is wether or not it exists as theorized. The Higgs, in laymans terms, is said to give particles their mass. Regardless of it's properties it's an essential piece of the Physics of our universe.

[psychaos]

I guess time will tell.

As far as the Double slit experiment, i think is shows that all matter is actually waves and only 'appears' to be particular. everything, including ourselves, is just energy. The higgs theory kind of goes hand in hand with that, since the higgs field is what gives particles their mass, and similarly, without it there would be no matter.


"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

[Spectrus]

Hmm... I watched a video from a TED conference by a guy on super string theory, it was kind of interesting and relevant. Let me try to find it.

EDIT: Here it is, http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

EDIT2: Also relevant, www.break.com/index/how-to-imagine-the-tenth-dimension.html/

[DarkstaR]

I'll watch it but everything I've heard about string theory I find to be senseless.
I understand the logic behind it but with no support it's an idea we shouldn't be focusing on. They propose extra dimensions because they fit into the math which they essentially made up to fit the theory, yet they can't even explain what these dimensions are or why they exist. Its a good idea, but that's the best credit I will give it until it has some backing. While Quantum Mechanics proposes extra dimensions it also has evidence which lead them to the conclusion, i.e. the double slit -> fifth dimension. In my opinion, that's alot more sensible than made up math -> dimensions 5-10.

[Apotheosis]

I'll watch it but everything I've heard about string theory I find to be senseless.
I understand the logic behind it but with no support it's an idea we shouldn't be focusing on. They propose extra dimensions because they fit into the math which they essentially made up to fit the theory, yet they can't even explain what these dimensions are or why they exist. Its a good idea, but that's the best credit I will give it until it has some backing. While Quantum Mechanics proposes extra dimensions it also has evidence which lead them to the conclusion, i.e. the double slit -> fifth dimension. In my opinion, that's alot more sensible than made up math -> dimensions 5-10.


i cant belive you just said that <_<



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQaHVm6dp14


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYAdwS5MFjQ&feature=related

if we didnt know theres a bottom in the ocean, and didnt see it for ages, yet it was just logical that if a beach has sand, 10 metters in the beach it has rand,rocks,and so on, by logic you have to fit that theres a bottom in the ocean, not just water all around us....
just like the earth has layers, that humans will posible will never reach, yet we know them

[DarkstaR]

Thank you for proving my point. We know the beach has a bottom because of the sand. Where's the sand in string theory? "The current theory is an overcomplicated mess which is derived from 50 years of research but is to messy for my taste", what a justification for a theory backed by NO RESEARCH (well, there is quite a bit of research behind it, just none that proves anything). String theory is trying to unify everything into a single theory and simplify it with the assumption that our universe can be quantified into one theory without a super-complex construct. On the other hand, the current model exhales a huge breath of air made up of backed research and, as shown in the second video Spectrus posted, can actually be unified through mathematics which predate years before the model itself.

I'll give string theory the same answer I give religion (and I'm in no way denouncing either one): I'll believe it when I see it.

[Apotheosis]

Thank you for proving my point. We know the beach has a bottom because of the sand. Where's the sand in string theory? "The current theory is an overcomplicated mess which is derived from 50 years of research but is to messy for my taste", what a justification for a theory backed by NO RESEARCH (well, there is quite a bit of research behind it, just none that proves anything). String theory is trying to unify everything into a single theory and simplify it with the assumption that our universe can be quantified into one theory without a super-complex construct. On the other hand, the current model exhales a huge breath of air made up of backed research and, as shown in the second video Spectrus posted, can actually be unified through mathematics which predate years before the model itself.

I'll give string theory the same answer I give religion (and I'm in no way denouncing either one): I'll believe it when I see it.


the string theory isnt about compiling or gather all the books and knowledge we got, "ITS THE ONLY THEORY THAT CAN BE PROOF BY MATH & PHYSICS AND HAS GRAVITTY" and some other aspects of the essencial physics, with string theory you can explain quantum mechanics, its not a new theory, even stephen hawkings belives its the best solution we got


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLprHMq4ZkM


Now if you understand and i belive you do, a theory its something you can see, check, question, you cant be serius to compare it with an invisible naked man that likes to watch pedofile priest molest children.............
Your a programmer, you should be more open minded LOL, its the best suit THEORY, nothing else to add.


// you seriusly need to watch through the wormhole with morgan freeman


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xcKbdZuuao

how in hell can you compare a theory with religion........

[DarkstaR]

String theory and religion are one in the same. A bunch of absurd claims with no physical proof. It's funny that you mention that I'm a programmer though. I'm a programmer because logic is what drives me. With no logic, I cannot believe something to be true. When you have no proof, you have no logic. Furthermore, there is no proof for string theory. The only thing that supports it is the math that they tweaked to support it.

Show me proof and my knees will buckle, until then I stand firm.

Also, go do some reading, the LHC has already disproved a lot of fundamental string theory. Your videos are outdated.

[Apotheosis]

String theory and religion are one in the same. A bunch of absurd claims with no physical proof. It's funny that you mention that I'm a programmer though. I'm a programmer because logic is what drives me. With no logic, I cannot believe something to be true. When you have no proof, you have no logic. Furthermore, there is no proof for string theory. The only thing that supports it is the math that they tweaked to support it.

Show me proof and my knees will buckle, until then I stand firm.

Also, go do some reading, the LHC has already disproved a lot of fundamental string theory. Your videos are outdated.

it is a theory, a theory can be prooven false or true, and the theory evolves, not like god.....
if you use logic.... you know how hard it is for 1 theory to explain all the theories that are related to the universe ? thats not chance LOL
approving/dispproving videos dosnt matter, the string theory its still and approved and released theory, until they officially shut it down, then that theory its done, finito, bb.

thats why its called a theory, if you dont belive in theories, well the big bang "its a theory" , theres a tons of other theories, that cant be prooven and it seems you know or at least you like to think they do exist, just your thread name :

A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

the world of science dosnt and will never support a BELIVE, its not what you think it may happend, its the data we have along this years, string theory its the one that suits 60% of the scientist community

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp


The LHC actually hasn't debunked superstring theory directly. The theory maintains that everything in the universe is actually made up of extremely small vibrating strings. The strings, if they exist, would need to be much smaller than even the smallest particles that are known, and it's impossible for current science to probe such tiny scales.


again this its not a right or wrong debate, i cant be wrong and you cant be wrong but its not logical that you found your point of view on a "belief" when everything points out that the string theory "fits" ofcourse another universes seem kind of silly and stupid, but then again physics it self didnt deny the posibility of them, it has to be founded by physics principals, you cant just made those up <_<, this is the theory that suits the best posible ecenario from a singularity to the hole universe, now that fits dosnt ment it is, or that its the right 1, we are probably far from it, but compare a theory that has decades of research with god, you have to be on drugs.

science its based on theories, you cant say o well i want to belive 2+3 isnt 5, " and you know this ", the world we live in has its own rules, now if you dont "think that theory suits the rest of the theories or that the scientist are wrong" please enlight us, send them a propousal with your arguments, and you just might became the very next einstein.

1 final request, i bet your not studing science, just like i didnt, you just like me just like to dig on whatever its out there, but dont post stuff you cant intelligent disprove or prove, and if your going to post your opinion do it, as your own opinion dont come posting stuff like this :


When you have no proof, you have no logic. Furthermore, there is no proof for string theory. The only thing that supports it is the math that they tweaked to support it.


<_< dosnt make sence of anything you said till now, so i have no proof of the big bang, you got no proof of it, scientist have no proofs of it, ofcourse theres cosmic disposal and etc, that it selfs proofs and even happend, dosnt ment it was the big bang, so then again your basing your point of view in a belief, thats what religion fanatics do.

[DarkstaR]

The Big Bang, Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and even Uncertainty Principle (the entropy I'm referencing) all have evidence supporting them. Physical and tangible evidence which say they are in fact the case unless a huge part of the picture was missed.

The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe, footprints from the trillions of nuclear fusion reactions which lead to the creation of the more advanced matter, and the fact that we've tested the scenario based on the reactions observed from anti-matter and matter collisions. How it happened, we don't know. But we know it happened.

Einstiens Theory of Relativity was proven when he showed that not only does gravity effect light, but moving faster warps ones experience of time - as you move at the speed of light you are time-independent.

And Entropy in this context isn't even a theory, its a fucking property of the Universe.

You can sit here and run circles around what I say all day but it doesn't change the fact that there is no proof behind String Theory. Why is it considered a theory, then, instead of a hypothesis? Don't ask me, cause I don't think it should be.
String Theory is, no doubt, genius in its design. It's very well thought out and organized, but it is not only unproven but also very general. In its broadest sense it can be "shown" by many scenarios in nature which leads experiments to almost be biased to it. That doesn't, however, change the fact that when you get down to the nityy-gritty dirty factual principals of string theory, we have yet to find proof.

For the final time: I'm not saying String Theory is wrong. I'm saying I want proof. and I think its absolutely fucking stupid of you to be arguing for something I'm not even arguing against. I'm asking for proof and your saying "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF." Ignorance in its purest form.

[Moses]

HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

The following is an actual question given on a University of
*Washington *chemistry
mid-term.
...
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it
with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the
pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs
heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas
cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need
to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which
they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets
to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how
many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that
exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these
religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can
project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are,
we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now,
we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law
states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the
same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter
Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all
Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take
into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two
must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen
over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

[Moses]

not linked but a good read :) ^

[Apotheosis]

The Big Bang, Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and even Uncertainty Principle (the entropy I'm referencing) all have evidence supporting them. Physical and tangible evidence which say they are in fact the case unless a huge part of the picture was missed.

The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe, footprints from the trillions of nuclear fusion reactions which lead to the creation of the more advanced matter, and the fact that we've tested the scenario based on the reactions observed from anti-matter and matter collisions. How it happened, we don't know. But we know it happened.

Einstiens Theory of Relativity was proven when he showed that not only does gravity effect light, but moving faster warps ones experience of time - as you move at the speed of light you are time-independent.

And Entropy in this context isn't even a theory, its a fucking property of the Universe.

You can sit here and run circles around what I say all day but it doesn't change the fact that there is no proof behind String Theory. Why is it considered a theory, then, instead of a hypothesis? Don't ask me, cause I don't think it should be.
String Theory is, no doubt, genius in its design. It's very well thought out and organized, but it is not only unproven but also very general. In its broadest sense it can be "shown" by many scenarios in nature which leads experiments to almost be biased to it. That doesn't, however, change the fact that when you get down to the nityy-gritty dirty factual principals of string theory, we have yet to find proof.

For the final time: I'm not saying String Theory is wrong. I'm saying I want proof. and I think its absolutely fucking stupid of you to be arguing for something I'm not even arguing against. I'm asking for proof and your saying "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF." Ignorance in its purest form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Process theory is a commonly used form of scientific research study in which events or occurrences are said to be the result of certain input states leading to a certain outcome (output) state, following a set process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theory


the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
.



The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe
Now theres 2 problems here, first of all you you got its the microwaves to actually pull that statement off, second theres no way to proof that the expansion of the universe its the same in every single sector or galaxy, "you cant prove it" its the very same argument religous fanatics make, you cant proof this or that because you where not alive when it happend, the big bang its not a proven theory, im guessing thats why you call it the big bang theory.....
then if you say that you dont belive in any theory, because they have no evidence?? when theres clearly advanced physics that support that theory otherwise it will never be a theory, you cant just go there and publish "i have an invisible octopus that eats people in the garbage truck theory"

a theory its a "this might be posible, because of this", just liek the big bang the relativity, the black holes "that just a few years ago they found a black hole, still we dont know the exact properties of them, those are still a theory just like wormholes"

and when you tell me that string theory has nothing, no evidence to support it, your making an amazing claim about any other theory out there, i belive you will understand this in this post.
the question is very simple, do you actually know whats time ?
time its relative it self, you cant messuare time, time its time itself, ofcourse you got a watch and gives you the hour, but thats based on our solar system, with day and nights, by the rotation of the earth and so on, 1 hour here, its not 1 hour in space, and its not 1 hour on mars, or pluton (stupid example but you get the point, theres stuff you cant proof or touch, but you can do the math)


does your program Xenobot really exist ? or does it exist in another universe (www)? can you touch xenobot ?
if you cant touch it, you cant hold it, you cant see it physicly, then it dosnt exist right (according to you)?

so in other words if you belive that string theory has no reseach and can assume that xenobot, just pop-up out of nothing you didnt do anything, and why should peoplebelive you that its undetectable, i cant touch it, i cant see its safe or the best way to safety, i didnt saw you making it, therefor at your sight xenobot dosnt exist, and its just "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF.

following your previous argument xenobot isnt real, can be detected, you said it your self "this other people say its safest", see how that shitt works ?
not that funny when you applied those thoughts into something you cant touch isnt it, xenobot isnt a theory, its a program, and that was just another stupid example, i hope you open your eyes, a theory its something scientist have done research and theres evidence, may be they are wrong on some aspects ofcourse they could be wrong, thats why theres a theory, and theories evolve with time, the big bang theory now has a start point the singularity.

with nothing else to add, if you didnt notice yet, your claim about theories its wrong, i cant help ur case.

[DarkstaR]

I did not say I don't believe in any theory, I said I don't believe in String Theory. All the theories I've mentioned have some tangible proof to back them up. Yes, as you said, there are loopholes which make it possible that they aren't true, however the evidence, found after they were theorized, backs them up. On the other hand, String Theory's evidence was tailored to fit. The had to readjust their algorithms multiple times to make it fit, and that didn't even work until they made up 6 new dimensions. And Einstein's Theory of Relativity is irrefutably proven, it just keeps the word theory because science will never declare fact when part of the picture is missing. Because of the general lack of narrowness in the definition of the word theory, there are some theories with ample evidence and other with little to none. My "claim about theories" isn't wrong, I just value the more narrow sense instead of the broader one such as people like you do.

Me: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and be seemingly proven correct every consecutive test.
You: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and found to fir the made-up math which was created to fit every scenario.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

[Syntax]

Wesker: the universe is not expanding at the same rate, but it is relative. The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

[DarkstaR]

It is inversely proportional to the gravitation from the center of the universe. In other words, the less gravity from the super-massive blackhole at our core, the faster it expands.

[Syntax]

Mr. Detail has to add detail.

[Apotheosis]

I did not say I don't believe in any theory, I said I don't believe in String Theory. All the theories I've mentioned have some tangible proof to back them up. Yes, as you said, there are loopholes which make it possible that they aren't true, however the evidence, found after they were theorized, backs them up. On the other hand, String Theory's evidence was tailored to fit. The had to readjust their algorithms multiple times to make it fit, and that didn't even work until they made up 6 new dimensions. And Einstein's Theory of Relativity is irrefutably proven, it just keeps the word theory because science will never declare fact when part of the picture is missing. Because of the general lack of narrowness in the definition of the word theory, there are some theories with ample evidence and other with little to none. My "claim about theories" isn't wrong, I just value the more narrow sense instead of the broader one such as people like you do.

Me: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and be seemingly proven correct every consecutive test.
You: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and found to fir the made-up math which was created to fit every scenario.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

heres my problem with your arguments, you use the word "belive", the problem with that its that theres nothing to "belive", if 2+2=4 you dont belive its 4, YOU FUCKING KNOW ITS 4, now dosnt matter what you may think or not about whats a theory, in earth (the planet i live currently) the theory of relativity its and is still a theory, theories are things that arent tangible, but you can explain them, refute them, decrease it, something like laws in mathematics, you cant touch them or see them, dosnt ment you belive in them

" in science theres no space for a belief "

thats the diference between atheist and theist....... and you cant go around well i will belive in god when i see it, if your using belief to describe everything around you right ?

now if you instead sayed something like " i think the string theory cant fit the aspects of physics it self it sounds silly to made up alternative universes, to me that theory needs more reasearch, i dont think that new universes can explain the particules and everything else in the nodes of the theory "

now that is your personal view on something, you cant say theres not enought evidence, because there is LOL.
the collider has as hes main porpuse to proof or disprove all the theories that exist, a few years or months ago, you might remember they disprove a part of einsteins theory about mmm i think gravitons... whatever not relevant...

when people try their best to come up with theories and explain them, with and under the laws of physics its enought research, its not like we gather jo3, you,mao, ekx and we publish our beggening of the universe theory, im almost sure it wont make fucking sence at all <_<.

so back to the point, stop using belief in science, and all the theories have background to sopport them, until the theory its disproven, remains "truth" if you want to call it truth, im going to say that its probably something that evolves with time, and more reasearch


about :

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

i cant help you with it, i dont have a degree in anything related to physics, and you probably like my self, even if 1 of those scientist explains you the physics behind it, you wont understand anything, its not like kindergarden math LOL, eigther way if you want to prove or disprove that theory, it is posible and any1 in the world can do it, the papers are publish and released, if you want to disprove it with evidence i belive you have to send a letter to the boston science department or something like it, i am not that smart on physics and like i said it is way over my head to even try to explain what it is, with math, maybe you do advance math and etc, i do not know........
if you do then well, you can post valid points why string theory cant do x layer or whatever, if you just dont like string theory, its fine, but you cant ever say theres no research, it didnt appear from nothing.....


once again you dont belief in theories, you rather acknowledge them to be true or false, but then again if they are proven to be false they are no longer theories

[Apotheosis]

Wesker: the universe is not expanding at the same rate, but it is relative. The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

seems that you didnt really got whats the doppler effect

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/doppler_effect_3x4.jpg

Edwin Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

[Syntax]

seems that you didnt really got whats the doppler effect

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/doppler_effect_3x4.jpg

Edwin Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

Your have left out your point. You stated a nice little fact but I see no contradiction between the two unless you misinterpreted my statement.

[Apotheosis]

Your have left out your point. You stated a nice little fact but I see no contradiction between the two unless you misinterpreted my statement.

problem its, something might be far away and if hes not moving, theres no dopler effect.

The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

it should be the higher the frecuency on a moving object from point a to b, or something like that, and the speed of the expansion relative to the distance, the distance of what ??? world-world, galaxy-galaxy, wich if that was the growing speed, then the singularity never took place, you cant go from a-b-y-x-d-c-v, in other words, theres only 1 way to explain it, and it should be what i quoted from the doppler effect

Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

on physics you have to be very especific <_<, or some ashole like my self will point that out

[Luls]

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/doppler_effect_3x4.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/oCR7J.jpg

Game, set, and match.

[Syntax]

problem its, something might be far away and if hes not moving, theres no dopler effect.

The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

it should be the higher the frecuency on a moving object from point a to b, or something like that, and the speed of the expansion relative to the distance, the distance of what ??? world-world, galaxy-galaxy, wich if that was the growing speed, then the singularity never took place, you cant go from a-b-y-x-d-c-v, in other words, theres only 1 way to explain it, and it should be what i quoted from the doppler effect

Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

on physics you have to be very especific <_<, or some ashole like my self will point that out

The way you respond to others in general is why I gave you such a simplistic response. DarkstaR explained further on it.

[Apotheosis]

http://i.imgur.com/oCR7J.jpg

Game, set, and match.

a meme will make that a piece of art



The way you respond to others in general is why I gave you such a simplistic response. DarkstaR explained further on it.
darkstar gives hes own point of view on whatever you ask him, when its something based on science, i dont like to commit errors, and that happends very offen, if i try to explain it, not that darkstar its wrong, didnt really read that responce, but i belive theres nothing better to explain it than the doppler effect, and he could just say that "doppler effect", we get it....

anyways when you explain something, i need to understand it isnt it ?
and the way i explain it, its my lack of vocabulary, and for that i apologize, taking some classes :), soon ill improve :)

[DarkstaR]

" in science theres no space for a belief "


Here's a video you posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WQaHVm6dp14

Go to 2:37, then 3:07

Once you stop contradicting yourself I'll start listening.. Oh wait, that's a paradox. So I'm done.

[Apotheosis]

Here's a video you posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WQaHVm6dp14

Go to 2:37, then 3:07

Once you stop contradicting yourself I'll start listening.. Oh wait, that's a paradox. So I'm done.

i posted it for the content, some of them have to explain it like a belive, because people do not know whats "think" , you know this also, do you belief in science or do you acknowledge science, because if you belief in science then you might as well belief in god.

is not dificult to find contradictions in people, but you cant contradict the fact that i never used belief.

[Luls]

because if you belief in science then you might as well belief in god.

So if you believe in facts you should believe in thousands of year old stories?

[Apotheosis]

So if you believe in facts you should believe in thousands of year old stories?

i DONT BELIEF IN ANYTHING

atheist its a lack of belief in everything, i compare results and data, i do not belive i have a huge penis, i know it :X

[ShadyTim]

I read it and i learned a lot of it. :)


nerd?
Haha +1 XD

[Erra]

I read it and i learned a lot of it. :)


Haha +1 XD

I read Wesker's posts and lost a lot of brain cells as a result. :(

[ShadyTim]

I read Wesker's posts and lost a lot of brain cells as a result. :(

Grab a beer mate, makes you smarter again :p

[Apotheosis]

I read Wesker's posts and lost a lot of brain cells as a result. :(

if you lost a brain cell, reading smart responces, im sure you have some kind of brain damage or down sindrome, so you might just go to a hospital right now...

[JustAnotherDay]

@ Offtopic to Wesker

How long ago did you learn to write in a way that doesn't hurt other peoples eyes while reading? Talking about your English of course :)

[Apotheosis]

@ Offtopic to Wesker

How long ago did you learn to write in a way that doesn't hurt other peoples eyes while reading? Talking about your English of course :)

not to long, working on it, books, grammar books, pronounce books, and so on, trying to improve, but it isnt my first concern, im probably writting like a 8 year old, but if you know the lenguage you can use your common sence, to know what i tried to say, i know my lack of grammar its a huge problem, and its probably 1 of the reasons that some of my posts dont make sence, but smart people can decode it.

and yes im trying to work on that ty :)

[JustAnotherDay]

Hmm, also a change of attitude. To be honest I was expecting to be flamed by you :)

[Erra]

if you lost a brain cell, reading smart responces, im sure you have some kind of brain damage or down sindrome, so you might just go to a hospital right now...

Could be... could be! I'll have someone check it out in the morning :)
Sorry for the douchebaggery though, but you were making quite the pointless argument, haha
Love you :)

[Luls]

not to long, working on it, books, grammar books, pronounce books, and so on, trying to improve, but it isnt my first concern, im probably writting like a 8 year old, but if you know the lenguage you can use your common sence, to know what i tried to say, i know my lack of grammar its a huge problem, and its probably 1 of the reasons that some of my posts dont make sence, but smart people can decode it.

and yes im trying to work on that ty :)

I can honestly say that was the first post I've ever read by you that made any sense at all.

[Apotheosis]

I can honestly say that was the first post I've ever read by you that made any sense at all.


ty :)




Hmm, also a change of attitude. To be honest I was expecting to be flamed by you :)

its probably my lack of grammar didnt try to flame you, raphael can prove that if i want to troll some1, ill go for it, and this is not even near my troll :)
if you dont belive me, you can ask bugwt crew ;)

[DarkstaR]

Entropy.

[Apotheosis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOYLEDKDh0&feature=related


8:12

i admire those words

[Moses]

if you got time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nslc4/Horizon_20092010_Whos_Afraid_of_a_Big_Black_Hole/



goes on for a while tho

[Apotheosis]

if you got time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nslc4/Horizon_20092010_Whos_Afraid_of_a_Big_Black_Hole/



goes on for a while tho

this video can only be displayed in the U.K and im not O.k u_U

[Moses]

thats a shame, it goes on for around an ok its an ok wacth it explains a few things for 'dummys' :P but i still found it a good wacth :) learn something new every day :P

[Fractal]

well anyway i enjoyed your paper dark what did you get on it? thts the real question on everyones mind

[Benji69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOYLEDKDh0&feature=related


8:12

i admire those words

Wow that video is ignorant in so many ways. You guys should seriously watch video series like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvS1UfXl8k will help shed some light on the idea of intelligent design. A science that is growing immensely as the scientists that are discovering more about the way life works and discovering how complex molecular cells are etc cannot, as they say in the video "rationally" conceive, evolution and random natural processes as a good fit to lifes Origin.

People that very harshly call "creationism/intelligent design" supporters assholes should really be researching these other options, as evolution is NOT a closed science and should never be a closed science, much like any other science research out there should never be a closed science.

Also @ the video, taking science video snippets from idiots and labelling them the creationists and intelligent design scientists is absolutely ridiculous.

[Apotheosis]

deleted

[DarkstaR]

Science should never be science? wut.

We have MOUNDS, I mean literally fucking MOUNDS of evidence that support evolutionary theory. It's not "We don't understand this so it must be evolution," it's "We have all this conclusive evidence that seems to all point to evolution, including a VAST NUMBER of transitional species which creationists seem to IGNORE in any form of debate." And don't play the "just a theory" card - if you understood what a theory was you would know its a weak retort (Plus, creationism is just a hypothesis). Gravity is just a theory but jumping off of a building doesn't end many other ways but one. Evolution is pure science. Creationism is nothing but cyclic post hoc ergo proptor hoc logic and that is the reason it is denounced by mainstream scientists. For every respectable, proven scientist you can show me that supports creationism, I'll show you ten who refute it.

Wesker,
Syntax is from Texas. Watch yo back.

[Apotheosis]

Syntax is from Texas. Watch yo back.

that explains ALOTTTTTT now i get it, ill be cool with him :), its not hes fault i guess u_U, but he knows im right Texas contains the dumbest population on earth, i even belive they got like 5 radio religous stations LOL, and if you didnt hear any of them google them they are fucking nuttz LOL

ahahahhaha
he already gave me an infraction for that LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

im guessing he didnt change in all this time xD

[DarkstaR]

@Syntax (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=193) is from Texas. Watch yo back.

that explains ALOTTTTTT now i get it, ill be cool with him :), its not hes fault i guess u_U, but he knows im right Texas contains the dumbest population on earth

Yeah, I know, as long as you're not including a single African country, 90% of Mexico, Antarctica [Fucking genius penguins], 90% of Brazil, Iran, India, or any third-world country in that conclusion, then, yes, I completely agree.

[Syntax]

Syntax is from Texas. Watch yo back.

that explains ALOTTTTTT now i get it, ill be cool with him :), its not hes fault i guess u_U, but he knows im right Texas contains the dumbest population on earth, i even belive they got like 5 radio religous stations LOL, and if you didnt hear any of them google them they are fucking nuttz LOL

Texas is such a huge state it really depends on where you live. I don't see it as a fault. Though I believe 5 religious radio stations may be an understatement.

[Apotheosis]

Yeah, I know, as long as you're not including a single African country, 90% of Mexico, Antarctica [Fucking genius penguins], 90% of Brazil, Iran, India, or any third-world country in that conclusion, then, yes, I completely agree.

90% of mexico ?
excuse me mexico might be 1 of the worlds catholics countrys but ask any1 here if they belive snakes talk, donkeys or pigs possed by demons and the answer will be NO, texas on the other hand its a loop hole, i honestly feel sorry for that kind of people 2012 and they still belive the bibble, and its not the only thing Texas been 1 of the most racists states in u.s.a , i dont think in africa they are teaching creationism or whatever the fuck its called.....
theres a diference between scholars and education, but when you mess with education your messing with the hole chain, now u.s.a has a large rate of "home schooling", by the evangelics, and catholics and so on, theres alot going on in texas and spreading from there, im glad i dont live in u.s.a LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB7fuprXBdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjxp2v6kjTs

about home schooling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic3eXBRbroA&feature=plcp

my point its, the most stupid anoying people, belive in a god and from there everything goes to hell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=related

[Apotheosis]

Texas is such a huge state it really depends on where you live. I don't see it as a fault. Though I believe 5 religious radio stations may be an understatement.

correct me if im wrong but i belive schools have to teach creationism in texas along with evolution, as far as i know your books have the legend or dialog
evolution its just a theory and so on......

im not saying ur dumb or your family, but i bet where do you live theres at least 5 crazy people around u "AT LEAST"

edit : "im sorry i let my self go when it comes to stupid religious fanatics and dumb people that belive in that shitt, so im going to stop the religious side kuz theres no point on it"

[Syntax]

correct me if im wrong but i belive schools have to teach creationism in texas along with evolution, as far as i know your books have the legend or dialog
evolution its just a theory and so on......

im not saying ur dumb or your family, but i bet where do you live theres at least 5 crazy people around u "AT LEAST"

edit : "im sorry i let my self go when it comes to stupid religious fanatics and dumb people that belive in that shitt, so im going to stop the religious side kuz theres no point on it"

Okay I will correct you. You are wrong. As someone who lives in Texas I think I have a little more insight than you do about it. Private schools are allowed to teach whatever they want just like in any other state in America, but public schools can NOT teach creationism in the classrooms.

If you want to continue to stereotype a state that you know I live in then I'm telling you right now that I find it insulting, that being said if you do happen to do it again you will receive another infraction for insulting a member and an infraction for insulting a staff member. Welcome back.

PS: what person doesn't know 5 crazy people?

[Apotheosis]

PS: what person doesn't know 5 crazy people?

me ?

i belive u got some issues if you feel that everything insults you LOL, just a reminder your not that famous or important to the world, not you, not me, not darkstar, we arent important at all, and the fact that if you die there will be MAX 50 persons or people in your grave makes my point clear.........

i dont know how old are u, however it is my understanding that idk if its rick perry or something perry, that he said it is been thought in public schools, and when some1 with that authority says it well.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok7mSB5pZc8

now when u.s.a has so many idiots on politics like "sarah pallin" you cant tell me that u.s.a its been almost ruled by them LOL, now if this offends you because of your own beliefs, i just have to remember you that belief its the tool of mass control "charles manson" will ring on your door with the same crap religion does, its been said that the diference between animals and humans its reason, therefor if you belive in the bibble or any religion your an animal nothing else to add.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg

infractions or not ill speak my mind if you feel offended i care a fuck.....

edit : before i get the infraction, you remind me of SOPA, PIPA and CISPA the internet its made by freedoom the forums porpuse its freedoom, without that we cant call it internet at all, i listen to rules and bounderies, but not some random i dont liek this so ill punish it thats stupid there i didnt had to post again :D same infraction :D.

[Syntax]

I don't want 50 people in my grave tbh. It would be a bit crowded. :S

My warning still stands, your trolling is both annoying and old.
I don't know how old you are, but you really should grow up and find something better to do.

DarkstaR, sorry for hijacking your thread, this is my last post concerning this.

[DarkstaR]

I'm just gonna say that believing in religion doesn't make you a stupid person. Blindly advocating for the ignorant and hateful aspects of a religion makes you a piece of shit and means you're pretty malinformed, but it doesnt mean all religious people are stupid, as you're implying.
@Jo3Bingham (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=6) is very religious and he's one of the smartest and most mature people I know. He also doesn't approve of the hate and propaganda brought up by most right-wing fundamentalist groups like godhatesfags.com.

Lastly, don't sit here talking about your rights to not get infracted, LOL. That just makes you the dumbass. For one, you don't live in the USA so our amendments don't apply to you. For two, you're on an internet forum where you have agree'd to a contract which says you will follow all rules and not be offensive or you will be infracted or banned. These things are far from infringing on any rights of free speech.

@Syntax (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=193)
I know 5 crazy people. @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15) and @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15).

[Aydin]

I'm just gonna say that believing in religion doesn't make you a stupid person. Blindly advocating for the ignorant and hateful aspects of a religion makes you a piece of shit and means you're pretty malinformed, but it doesnt mean all religious people are stupid, as you're implying.
@Jo3Bingham (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=6) is very religious and he's one of the smartest and most mature people I know. He also doesn't approve of the hate and propaganda brought up by most right-wing fundamentalist groups like godhatesfags.com.

Lastly, don't sit here talking about your rights to not get infracted, LOL. That just makes you the dumbass. For one, you don't live in the USA so our amendments don't apply to you. For two, you're on an internet forum where you have agree'd to a contract which says you will follow all rules and not be offensive or you will be infracted or banned. These things are far from infringing on any rights of free speech.

@Syntax (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=193)
I know 5 crazy people. @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15) and @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15).

Dafuq does this have to do with me menz :(

[Apotheosis]

I'm just gonna say that believing in religion doesn't make you a stupid person. Blindly advocating for the ignorant and hateful aspects of a religion makes you a piece of shit and means you're pretty malinformed, but it doesnt mean all religious people are stupid, as you're implying.
@Jo3Bingham (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=6) is very religious and he's one of the smartest and most mature people I know. He also doesn't approve of the hate and propaganda brought up by most right-wing fundamentalist groups like godhatesfags.com.

Lastly, don't sit here talking about your rights to not get infracted, LOL. That just makes you the dumbass. For one, you don't live in the USA so our amendments don't apply to you. For two, you're on an internet forum where you have agree'd to a contract which says you will follow all rules and not be offensive or you will be infracted or banned. These things are far from infringing on any rights of free speech.

@Syntax (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=193)
I know 5 crazy people. @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15), @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15) and @Aydin (http://forums.xenobot.net/member.php?u=15).

that made me laught so hard LOL, freedoom of speech its almost a world right btw.....
second you might be religios dosnt make u stupid - i agree -, and thats having faith, i wont argue with any1 having faith in a super ultra powerful goku in the sky, flying along with shenlong cant argue if you ahve faith in that and that some day it might come down and kill every evil guy and so on.....
theres a diference between faith and consider stuff been real, i have faith that humanity will grow, yet reality strikes every day......

now i cant talk anything about jo3, i consider him honest and hes personal belives and hes religion its not of my damm bissness - this i call it respect - , i wont argue with jo3 about it unless he wants me to, and therefor it will be argued

now this its the section of the forum to disscuss about it, as it states in the forum description on this section, and i belive u shouldnt bring people on it, first u put on syntax, now jo3 and ay(something), whatever u can do whatever u want it is your forum but if they didnt want to argue about it, you just bring them to it, dosnt seem fair to me, this section should be a disscusion between peopel that cares about the topic, not that cames here just to "feel offended", if they dotn want to argue its fine, i just dont like to bring them into topics LOL

everything else i miss i might agree on it

[DarkstaR]

I never said freedom of speech wasn't a 'world right,' but just to defend what I didn't say.
1. I'm talking specifically about the 1st Amendment, which is a part of the UNITED STATES constitution.
2. Go try to use your free speech in a Muslim theocracy to speak out against Allah and see if you aren't stoned. Moreover, go find a woman to speak out in general and see if she isn't stoned. Learn what the fuck you're talking about.

Also, how the hell did I bring anyone into it?
1. I told YOU Syntax is from Texas. He made his own choice to respond to YOU. Not to me, to YOU.
2. I told YOU Jo3 is religious as a means of defending the intellectual integrity of a person of faith, which you seemed to be belittling.
3. Aydin IS crazy. End of story.

[Apotheosis]

I never said freedom of speech wasn't a 'world right,' but just to defend what I didn't say.
1. I'm talking specifically about the 1st Amendment, which is a part of the UNITED STATES constitution.
2. Go try to use your free speech in a Muslim theocracy to speak out against Allah and see if you aren't stoned. Moreover, go find a woman to speak out in general and see if she isn't stoned. Learn what the fuck you're talking about.

Also, how the hell did I bring anyone into it?
1. I told YOU Syntax is from Texas. He made his own choice to respond to YOU. Not to me, to YOU.
2. I told YOU Jo3 is religious as a means of defending the intellectual integrity of a person of faith, which you seemed to be belittling.
3. Aydin IS crazy. End of story.

part 1
1,2 are similar statements but anyways the first Amendment's of almost every country are based on almost the same things wich is world wide, a large part of mexico its now u.s.a and i do have relatives there and i can go any day so yeha i can talk about that .... been from another country dosnt restrict the point of view or topics u can argue and i belive u will accept that fact.

part 2

1.- i dont really care where he is from, i doubt about everything he could say, and im not that much interested in what he/she/it has to say therefor giving me hes state or born certificate its irrelevant to the topic itself

2.- i belive that any1 that belives in religion and its going to be saved because a specific book or god says so, has to be stupid, even retard, heres an example people give me alot
"that priest study about nuclear athoms, physics etc"
does he do anything about that ?
-nope hes a priest
so he wasted tons of years studing something and hes just another retard on a sit, congratz.......
dosnt matter how smart you belive u are, if i said im a genious and then tell you i saw a troll in my house and ask me to kill homosexuals, well..... that makes me the biggest idiot earth has ever seen, dosnt matter if i build an a-bomb, i will be stupid, just like tom cruise in the scientology church
again i dont want to say that jo3 is stupid, but seriusly you want me to go there dont you ¬¬

3.- i got no idea who he is, the only way i can see him been crazy its been a part of a cult, religious, or mentally ill........

[Aydin]

............

[Dark Soul]

I'll consider reading this when I've had a few drinks. because then I'll have a little patience. ;)

[Hack3r]

Everyone knows the earth is flat. Hail Landover baptist church for spreading nothing but the truth. You are all going to hell. Here are some pictures which can prove you wrong, DarkstaR. Stop doing the work of Satan, spreading this cancer.

http://i47.tinypic.com/10igm8j.jpg

[DarkstaR]

I hope you're trolling.

[Luls]

Everyone knows the earth is flat.
http://i47.tinypic.com/10igm8j.jpg

Not going to lie, I'd love to live in world like that, where if you fell off the edge, you just fell into an abyss that never ended. The world would be so much more medieval. You know that criminals would just get thrown off, and that's what hitmen would do as well. Instead of shooting them, just give them a push off. :D

[Siegfiend]

If the world was flat, It would clearly look like this...

http://i.imgur.com/OnJbX.jpg

[Hack3r]

Of course I am, I'm a member of a biggest religion-trolling website. Landoverbaptist. Hahaha, you should see their shit. Genius/gold.

[Vendelikoo]

Nerds...

[swepwn]

I'll watch it but everything I've heard about string theory I find to be senseless.
I understand the logic behind it but with no support it's an idea we shouldn't be focusing on. They propose extra dimensions because they fit into the math which they essentially made up to fit the theory, yet they can't even explain what these dimensions are or why they exist. Its a good idea, but that's the best credit I will give it until it has some backing. While Quantum Mechanics proposes extra dimensions it also has evidence which lead them to the conclusion, i.e. the double slit -> fifth dimension. In my opinion, that's alot more sensible than made up math -> dimensions 5-10.

Well i dont agree with you, i find string theory very believable, since it gives extra dimensions with "proof", i mean if you do look at an object at one distance you see x amount of dimensions, but if you look at the same object at a closer view you see more dimensions. also the algebra have been proven right between quantum Mechanics and General Gravitivity. Yes, it has not been proven experiemental yet, but that is no reason to rule out the String Theory. Now i am no Proffesor, so i cant really go into the complicated physics and proof of String Theory but from what ive read and studied about it, it seems "legit".

[DarkstaR]

Well i dont agree with you, i find string theory very believable, since it gives extra dimensions with "proof", i mean if you do look at an object at one distance you see x amount of dimensions, but if you look at the same object at a closer view you see more dimensions. also the algebra have been proven right between quantum Mechanics and General Gravitivity. Yes, it has not been proven experiemental yet, but that is no reason to rule out the String Theory. Now i am no Proffesor, so i cant really go into the complicated physics and proof of String Theory but from what ive read and studied about it, it seems "legit".

Considering we just found the Higgs, helping support the standard model, string theory is just more buried. They were trying to say we need a unifying solution and the standard model is an old inaccurate mess, but it still predicted a particles back in the 60's that took generations to find. String theory has had no such evidence.