What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
256 Comments
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -5/+85This has all happened before, and it will happen again
- cnot3, on 04/09/2008, -1/+72Except in the other universe we all had goatees.
- greenlight2001, on 04/09/2008, -2/+41i read that as 'goatse'... and needless to say I was a little taken back. I don't want to think of my bounce universe equal participating in such a thing.
- kingmanic, on 04/09/2008, -2/+33Except time ran backwards. You haven't lived until you piss backwards... I knew a Cat who tried it, was never the same again.
- CarStan, on 04/09/2008, -3/+34This comment was posted before and it will be posted again.
- rawg, on 04/09/2008, -1/+31Big Bang?! Twins?!
Boy was I disappointed. - nesibus, on 04/09/2008, -4/+31Pft!....I dug this already....trillions of years ago the last time it was on digg....on earth 2.
- JMSantos, on 04/09/2008, -2/+22This combo has been broken before and will be broken again.
- coachmcguirk, on 04/09/2008, -10/+27I am curious if this comment got dugg up in the past, or dugg down...
My money is on down... - ryan926, on 04/09/2008, -4/+20That comment was dugg before and it will be dugg again.
- Mewchu11, on 04/09/2008, -1/+16TIME PARADOX
- sevvo, on 04/09/2008, -21/+36Heresy--we all know nothing existed before 6000 BC.
- Renork, on 04/09/2008, -2/+17What makes you so confident that time is running forward this time?
- Gunsdead, on 04/09/2008, -2/+16As hard as I try, my brain cannot grasp these concepts. I feel sad and inadequate.
- rawg, on 04/09/2008, -2/+16I think that's why we had to start over again.
- variant5, on 04/09/2008, -2/+12Pile of balls... that's quite the mental image. Thanks.
So, um, if all that scientific evidence is just "random nonsense" to you, what proof do you have of anything? If I didn't know any better, your last sentence could easily looked at and considered "random nonsense" given that it doesn't follow my established rules of grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. - tbranham, on 04/09/2008, -2/+12Funny, in the previous Universe, Red Dwarf referenced YOU!
- bjs3171, on 04/09/2008, -3/+12yeah. what *****, constantly trying to improve their understanding of physics. ***** jerks.
- mythicflux, on 04/09/2008, -0/+9So say we all?
- bjs3171, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9so how was THAT one formed?
- ST0N3, on 04/09/2008, -3/+9this would back up feynman's theory that time is more of a mirror rather than a river flowing from past to future. If you drop a cup and break it, something can reverse that. Yes it is hard to apply the specific force that will make every little shard go back where it started and have the atoms realign, but it is possible. That would mean that the initial mirror is in fact the big bang. crazy.
- bratterscain, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6I don't see it that way. A cup can be pieced together but there's no theoretical way to change time of a given object independently of everything around it. Time may be more complex just as gravity is inherently more complex than Einstein's geometric model of it but linear time is a way to model it. Viewing a billiard ball being hit into another ball, you can roughly reverse the action by hitting the hit ball to make the initial hit ball back to where it was, but you can't reverse it in time. If you want to see the universe as an on-going calculation being carried out just as we can equate physical actions into mathematical data, you can't change one number in the equation without changing them all or else the sum and initial figures just wouldn't add up.
For logic to be formed, everything has to connect, to be interoperable or else the whole basis of logic is destroyed. Someone help me out here if I'm missing something but I can never understand how anyone can see time other than linear, as an on-going calculation that can be traced both backwards and forwards. Maybe I'm handicapped in this sense because I usually see numbers in things like this instead of abstract ideas. - dafragsta, on 04/09/2008, -3/+9It's like this: there is no god, at least not with a quaint little manual for how to live your life anyway, that's the meaning of life itself; to understand and document the smallest and largest reaches of the universe, which is constantly redefined as we step up or down to the next scale. Don't live your life for the hereafter, because it's not going to be what you think it will be, and don't dedicate your life for the pursuit of rewards there. It's likely the only reward will be somehow tied to drawing on the uniqueness of your experiences. There is no textbook for life and no vengeful or judging God. Just all of us standing around bickering at each other instead of exploring space together. We are, after all, just an organization of a bunch of atoms thrown into a radioactive lotto hopper.
- bjs3171, on 04/09/2008, -1/+7whoa....heavy.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/09/2008, -3/+9Goatse?
No wonder the universe exploded. - SpeshulEd, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6Your name is WheezyNinja, so cool.
- silvermaadi, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7There are theories that suggests multi-universe existence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
- mlagana, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6this is not something i want to think about. Nietzsche once asked the question, (not in these words) which would you choose after dying, simply becoming nothing and forfeiting your existence, or being reincarnated as yourself and repeating your life in the exact same way. kinda related
- dafragsta, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5And yet you read both.
- hexydes, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6At least when they don't have an answer, they own up to it...
- nitsuj, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4"The universe as we know it, required energy in order to come to be."
It has always had all the energy it needed.
"Likewise, the universe continues to require energy in order to continue to sustain the forces which define the laws of nature known to us now."
The universe has always had the same amount of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Check out the Law of Thermodynamics.
"Regardless, it is not our feeble attempts to unravel the mysteries of the universe that bother as much as the sheer arrogance that follows when those would actually make fun of others for believing in something that they themselves can't measure."
Not all beliefs are equal or deserve equal respect. If you were to say that you believed the moon was made of cheese, would you consider it a belief worthy of respect?
"Einstein said it best when he stated that out of all of the absolutes known to him, it was man's foolishness that was without a doubt infinite."
I'm pretty certain that Einsteins use of the term 'foolishness' is different to what you had in mind when hijacking this quote. - zeusthemoose, on 04/09/2008, -3/+7Its called Cosmic Background Radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back ...
Try getting a real education before you start claiming something to be "random nonsense"... - Twinked, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5Wouldn't it have been earth 1 seeing as it's all happened before. This would be earth 2 or 2000? How do we know this isn't some vicious cycle we're in, to be imploded every 400 trillion year.
- LLLSecretChimp, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Yeah. In the other one, Spock has a beard.
- AndySomnifac, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6No, they say that our equations break down @ T=0, thus we have no way of modeling what, if anything, came before. This idea of a quantum bounce is a theory that has no current methods that could be used to test it.
- MoClippa, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5The universe is so remarkably complex... while this theory will by all counts be revised or debunked in the future... its always wonderful to spend time trying to comprehend what exactly all of this space that surrounds us actually is, where it goes (if it even goes anywhere?), what existed before it or if it had always just existed.... there is just so much, and reading theories like this always gives me new questions to ponder.
Just thinking about it makes me recognize how small and insignificant I am on such a grand scale, but how significant one can be on the smaller scale. - Pillage, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3That's why they are called "theories" and not beliefs.
- nitsuj, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3"Maybe you should stop listening to pompous A-holes and start listening to Jesus."
Yes, yes, let's listen to Jesus and not stove our neighbors head in. Now, what does Jesus say about physics and cosmology? - StaticThunder, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3This math is a result of an equation that has no testable basis in physics. It answers the question "IF the universe IS like this, then what are the consequences." But nobody has been able to show the universe IS in fact like this, so the results of the math doesn't MEAN anything. Sure, this equation could be right, but so could a billion other ones.
Look, if you want science to mean something, you have to keep it away from baseless hand-waving and empty gesticulations. - inactive, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4its always made sense to me that maybe our universe has been going through the same cycle for eternity
what need is there for a god or creator when the universe has simply been doing this for infinity?
seems like the simplest answer to me - NeoNevermore, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4The same as ours
- had3l, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Actually... when they speak of a "Twin" Universe, it is one that follows the exact same laws of physics as ours, not one that is "IDENTICAL" (i.e, where there was an Earth and the history that goes with it.)
- SquishyMon, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4"Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.
These dates are incorrect.
Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.
These suggestions are also incorrect.
Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21th of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour."
-Good Omens - mortigon, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4No lie... I dugg up your comment only once and got "You have already dugg this comment"
So weird... - slvrbullet87, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Leave BK Knights out of this
- nitsuj, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Really? Because I thought the bible had no theories and only one weak hypothesis: Godditit.
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3The mathematics these fellows employ is leagues beyond what you would do at school or college. They come to the conclusions with numbers, not emotions and feelings.
Einsteins theory of relativity was a pretty crazy prediction, implying that as you go faster the time around you slows down. What do you know..he was proven right. He used numbers to come up with an outlandish concept that proved true. - clkou, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Rumor has it that our universe feels the same pain from our twin universe. Our universe can also complete our twin universe's sentences. We're very close to our twin universe.
- xNIBx, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Your reverse psychology doesnt work on me. Buried.
On second though, this could be double reverse psychology, which means that you want me to bury you. Well your jedi mind tricks dont work on me. Dugg. - eyepatch100, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4actually, you were on "ggid"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 257 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is