Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

inhuien wrote:

mrpsbrk wrote:Given that the universe is infinite, and therefore bound to show almost every possible configuration of things, what exactly could have both A and B?

Come on mate, can't you try a little harder than "Space is big".

Indeed, not to mention that we do not know if the universe is infinite.

Xenu wrote:

inhuien wrote:

mrpsbrk wrote:Given that the universe is infinite, and therefore bound to show almost every possible configuration of things, what exactly could have both A and B?

Come on mate, can't you try a little harder than "Space is big".

Indeed, not to mention that we do not know if the universe is infinite.

Outside of theories, that's not a far off hypothesis I believe. The oscillating universe theory and the expanding universe implies a limited number of resources in energy and matter. But that's based on what we have decoded so far in reading red shift on telescope print outs and radiation readings that are being produced by celestial bodies, energy that presumedly marks the movement of the big bang and the residual energy that is still being given off from that time of the universe's explosive birth. But perhaps we are missing a piece of the puzzle, one that would suggest an infinite cyclic system.
Correct me on my science, mates, If I am in the wrong.

Whatever happened to "finite but unbounded"?

SandChigger wrote:Whatever happened to "finite but unbounded"?

My generation, Chigger. The three main geometries were believed to be bounded, unbounded, and flat - represented by the sphere, the hyperbolic saddle shape, and the...flat.
That's reduced to 3 dimensions, of course.

Right now, we're sitting with a split between cosmologists who advance the multi-verse theorem, as it seems to account for many observed properties of Q.D., and the proponents of the oscillating single universe theory - big bang to slowdown to contraction, ad infinitum. The presence of something we're dubbing dark energy is adding interest to the mix at the moment, and I await new findings with bated breath.

I'm temperamentally inclined to favour the oscillating universe scenario myself - but then I would, wouldn't I?

Doesn't the increasing rate of acceleration throw a monkey wrench in the oscillation theory?

I thought the current accepted theory was that it would eventually expand to the point where even atoms and the particles withing were ripped apart.

Freakzilla wrote:Doesn't the increasing rate of acceleration throw a monkey wrench in the oscillation theory?

Not really - any more than it throws a monkey wrench into any of the others, that is.

Inflation has been one moerse headache for most cosmologists, as I understand it - there seems to be absolutely no reason for the universe to have been doing that silly thing at all.

But then, I'm several years behind the cutting edge - apart from articles in New Scientist.

Oh hang on - I just realised I read your post wrongly, Freak.

I was assuming that you were referring to inflation, which is supposed to have occured near the start of the shebang. But I see you were probably talking about the lately-observed great rush of some material towards a mysterious point off stage left somewhere.

Yeah well that's what all this invocation of dark energy has been about. We don't have any handy mechanisms to account for it, so we'll stick dark energy in there.

It looks a lot like the N1 out of Joburg at Easter time, so I believe - a whole lot of mass trying to be someplace else very swiftly.

I like the space fountain idea, it has some similarities to the real life captive column in using the forces to keep it in place, but comes at it from the opposite direction. Too bad they can't combine the two, we could theoretically start this soon.

Oh well.... down the drain.

say ... uh .... what're you doin' in an intellectual discussion about Dune in this sietch ?

were you looking for the lurking report and whining & Keith-hating,
and got sidetracked into the real content here ?

lemme help you find your way out ....

Kevin J. Anderson is a dumb stupid poopy-head ...
and all those croutons who like him are silly suckwads ...
and Brain Herbert hair looks funny ...

there you go .... go get all resentimental elsewhere - you've offended me and
I will not tolerate your presence in a serious thread ....

feel free to attempt a "flame war" with me in the Distraction, however ....

I'd enjoy that .....

let it go, let it go, let it go ....

SandRider wrote:say ... uh .... what're you doin' in an intellectual discussion about Dune in this sietch ?

were you looking for the lurking report and whining & Keith-hating,
and got sidetracked into the real content here ?

lemme help you find your way out ....

Kevin J. Anderson is a dumb stupid poopy-head ...
and all those croutons who like him are silly suckwads ...
and Brain Herbert hair looks funny ...

there you go .... go get all resentimental elsewhere - you've offended me and
I will not tolerate your presence in a serious thread ....

feel free to attempt a "flame war" with me in the Distraction, however ....

I'd enjoy that .....

I think Franks vision of space was vast enough to get across the distance and time of the events he wanted. But still, it would be nice to have a reference to make such a possibility a reality. But first, we need a Spacing Guild or FTL.

inhuien wrote:

mrpsbrk wrote:Given that the universe is infinite, and therefore bound to show almost every possible configuration of things, what exactly could have both A and B?

Come on mate, can't you try a little harder than "Space is big".

Are you completely sure you read GEoD? I mean... Did you just skip ahead some chapters? Those long boring chapters where this conceited fella speaks and speaks endlessly what is bound to be a bunch of BS? Because, you know, much of His arguments also revolve around space is big...

Xenu wrote:

inhuien wrote:

mrpsbrk wrote:Given that the universe is infinite, and therefore bound to show almost every possible configuration of things, what exactly could have both A and B?

Come on mate, can't you try a little harder than "Space is big".

Indeed, not to mention that we do not know if the universe is infinite.

OK, so i presume you took "Golden Path as Philosophy" to mean "Golden Path as Natural Philosophy", i.e., as physics. I couldn't care less. From a strategy-for-life in the "listening to the left hand" way it is completely immaterial if the universe is infinite by your terms. What matters is whether or not any given system is capable of dealing with everything in the universe, if you can assume to know everything. My True God Leto the Second's whole mode of behaviour is based on assuming we as a system are not able to comprehend the whole universe. Ergo, it is infinite. As in every long term is short term when compared to the infinite. As in if i puny non-spiced non-SPACE-faring 21st centurier go travelling around the Earth i will die before i get to see even just all the cool places not to mention everything. So, to me, to say that "the universe is infinite" is a fairly good approximation.

That said, this has NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER with what the guy had asked, and if you get derailed by such a point you are probably not interested in this WHOLE THREAD, as in it is bound to be boring, as in hide is your friend.

I actually read thru that three times,
and it never did make a lick of sense ....

This post was made by morpork who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This post was made by morpork who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

SandRider wrote:I actually read thru that three times,
and it never did make a lick of sense ....

Thanks, 'Rider! You successfully killed any temptation to peek!

(Could someone hand the little guy some tissues? Looks like he splurted twice. )

I got yer back, pard.

I'll read all the shitheel postings, and you read Keith's twits ...

mrpsbrk wrote:

inhuien wrote:

mrpsbrk wrote:Given that the universe is infinite, and therefore bound to show almost every possible configuration of things, what exactly could have both A and B?

Come on mate, can't you try a little harder than "Space is big".

Are you completely sure you read GEoD? I mean... Did you just skip ahead some chapters? Those long boring chapters where this conceited fella speaks and speaks endlessly what is bound to be a bunch of BS? Because, you know, much of His arguments also revolve around space is big...

Are you completely sure you read GEoD? - YES
Did you just skip ahead some chapters? - NO
Those long boring chapters where this conceited fella speaks and speaks endlessly what is bound to be a bunch of BS?- What endlessly as in infinitely? that would make for a BIG ASS book.
Because, you know, much of His arguments also revolve around space is big... - Oh you mean, hold on a sec, your trying to be sarcastic here. I get it.

SandRider wrote:I actually read thru that three times,
and it never did make a lick of sense ....

it is actually quite amazing to be able to not make sense at all like this

And THEN someone goes and quotes idiocy...

you're calling SR an idiot?

now this is becoming more interesting

No, I said someone goes and quotes idiocy. Meaning morpork's posts. The content of which I choose not to view because he has nothing interesting to say about this topic.

The comment was meant to rib The Bouncy One. Now stop trying to cause a stir.

lotek, catch!


And shame on you Sandie, you could never rub me up the wrong way.

there is no spoon
there is no argument

you have not seen me

I wasn't here

Who said what.

Who are you guys? Why are you in my house?