Christmas Lottery
Either way, the theory of relativity is not mutually exclusive from time existing as the fourth dimension. My point still stands.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
As I said, the concept of that fancy video is highly controversial and not of scientific value. You are free to speculate all you want, I don't really care about that. :P
nigerian PM
Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
Either way, the theory of relativity is not mutually exclusive from time existing as the fourth dimension. My point still stands.

Time as the forth dimension is just renaming it. Matter cannot exist without time. Time cannot exist without matter. billions and billions of years into the future, theoretically, all matter should erode, lose all energy, temperature will be absolute zero, due to the completely proven Conservation of Energy law. But within even a mere googolplex of time, all matter would have no energy whatsoever, no movement, forever floating in the void that is space. Thus is time was infinite, which it would be in your theory, and assuming there were a mass of matter with energy, the law of conservation of energy disproves that. Energy, much less matter, would have HAD to be created by some means other than nature. Gg.

What is the meaning of life, if we know the human race and all life itself is destined to go extinct?
Last edited by PVPPRO; May 30, 2013 at 03:45 AM.
"People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."
Originally Posted by PVPPRO View Post
Time as the forth dimension is just renaming it. Matter cannot exist without time. Time cannot exist without matter. billions and billions of years into the future, theoretically, all matter should erode, lose all energy, temperature will be absolute zero, due to the completely proven Conservation of Energy law. But within even a mere googolplex of time, all matter would have no energy whatsoever, no movement, forever floating in the void that is space. Thus is time was infinite, which it would be in your theory, and assuming there were a mass of matter with energy, the law of conservation of energy disproves that. Energy, much less matter, would have HAD to be created by some means other than nature. Gg.

Non sequitur logic master.


I know you are just a troll account, but this is awesome.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow View Post
Non sequitur logic master.


I know you are just a troll account, but this is awesome.

Uh, this is my main I dont do alts.
"People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."
Originally Posted by PVPPRO View Post
Time as the forth dimension is just renaming it. Matter cannot exist without time. Time cannot exist without matter. billions and billions of years into the future, theoretically, all matter should erode, lose all energy, temperature will be absolute zero, due to the completely proven Conservation of Energy law. But within even a mere googolplex of time, all matter would have no energy whatsoever, no movement, forever floating in the void that is space. Thus is time was infinite, which it would be in your theory, and assuming there were a mass of matter with energy, the law of conservation of energy disproves that. Energy, much less matter, would have HAD to be created by some means other than nature. Gg.

What is the meaning of life, if we know the human race and all life itself is destined to go extinct?

Annndddd not bothering to reply. You make a claim, then only back it up with "it must be god :ooo" and a very poor grasp of science.


And @Sacrafan, sure the theory is controversial, but the concept of time as the fourth dimension is compatible with the theory of relativity. The only part that isn't compatible is time as a constant rate. Matter as a constant because of the existence of time is something compatible. It's just easier to use a simpler theory to explain the basic concept of importance, time merely existing implies the existence of matter, than to go off on a separate tangent and explaining all the complexities surrounding time and space.

String theory in itself is highly speculative, and ultimately unimportant in most aspects of science except at the sub-atomic level, but it's a relatively straightforward theory to help explain the matter of importance.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
Annndddd not bothering to reply. You make a claim, then only back it up with "it must be god :ooo" and a very poor grasp of science.

Lulz. If you read, you would see facts, not solely the belief of a god. c:
"People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."
Oracle:

Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
there is no "black gene" or "smart gene".

I'm going to stop you right here. Race is genetic. There is a black gene, as well as a white gene. There are 3 major races in this world.

Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each race contains distinct characteristics that define a person of that race. Characteristics like skin color, bone structure, and facial make-up.

The rest of what you said seems completely out of place. A lot of what you said doesn't contradict my arguments. So..
thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
It doesn't matter what else you've said, until you discredit the statements you have previously made they still are represented as your opinion.


From your original comment...

"perhaps you would have a slightly more nuanced view"


I didn't say that wasn't my opinion, clearly it's my opinion. I just said that wasn't my only opinion. I'd be like declaring Einstein a creationist because he talks about God.


Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
No, quantum mechanics still has nothing to do with the explanation of the origins or eternal existence of the universe. In fact, physics in general doesn't have much to do with this, as incredibly little is known. That is why these questions are examined in the philosophical realm, not the scientific one.

But it does... much of quantum theory is devoted to explaining the origins of our universe.



How about I fight your link with my link, aye?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/ny...uins.html?_r=0

So it seems that these penguins have "moved on". Perhaps conclusions of an animal's sexuality can be concluded by studying penguins in captivity. If that's the case, then I suppose we can conclude the sexuality is a choice. I mean, that seems apparent here doesn't it? One of the penguins decided to move on. In other words, decided to become heterosexual after being homosexual.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Modern medicine and well, literally all of biology disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

I don't understand how this is an argument for the upbringing of homosexuality by means of genetics? All I see is a genetic disorder that gives a male in extra x-chromosome which ultimately leads to feminine physical features. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, someone with the disorder is not any more likely to become gay than one without.
Last edited by JayStar; May 30, 2013 at 06:25 AM.
Originally Posted by PVPPRO View Post
Time as the forth dimension is just renaming it. Matter cannot exist without time. Time cannot exist without matter. billions and billions of years into the future, theoretically, all matter should erode, lose all energy, temperature will be absolute zero, due to the completely proven Conservation of Energy law. But within even a mere googolplex of time, all matter would have no energy whatsoever, no movement, forever floating in the void that is space. Thus is time was infinite, which it would be in your theory, and assuming there were a mass of matter with energy, the law of conservation of energy disproves that. Energy, much less matter, would have HAD to be created by some means other than nature. Gg.

What is the meaning of life, if we know the human race and all life itself is destined to go extinct?

I'm just going to be frank and say my IQ decreased by at least 5 points after reading this.


Yep, I think I'm done posting in discussion for a while...
Originally Posted by JayStar View Post
Oracle:



I'm going to stop you right here. Race is genetic. There is a black gene, as well as a white gene. There are 3 major races in this world.

Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each race contains distinct characteristics that define a person of that race. Characteristics like skin color, bone structure, and facial make-up.

The rest of what you said seems completely out of place. A lot of what you said doesn't contradict my arguments. So..
thanks for clarifying.

There isn't a gene that dictates race. You can quickly do any search and you will find that the concept of race as biologically defined among humans is horribly outdated. Race is a social construct.

As an example, would you say that a person of African descent is better suited to athletics because of their bone structure? Because that's significantly different from pre-Berlin Olympics thinking, because before then people believed that the "Negro race" was naturally inferior both physically and mentally to the "Caucasian race" and that it was destined for extinction. What caused this change in the perception of the "Negro race"? Because Jesse Ownes dominated track at the Olympics. Suddenly, all "evidence" pointed towards "Negros being more apt to physical work because they were more in tune with the primal aspects of nature".

In addition, 1920s basketball in America was dominated by what "race"? Give up? It was Jewish people. Who aren't actually defined by race by any distinct trait, but by religion, but that's just another reason to support race as a social construct. Regardless, people all said that Jewish people were more apt to play basketball because of their race (race established by religious belief rather than any physical difference), rather than Jewish men were growing up in a less privileged environment, where basketball was the predominant sport played. Rather than a biological reason, the reason was based on economics.

Second, a person can have white skin, but have a bone structure of somebody you might classify as a "Negroid". What determines their race then? Are they "Caucasian" because they are white? Or are they "Negroid" because their bone structure is more similar to that "race". It's also important to note the history behind some of these names. Caucasian only stands to mean white because the person who originated these terms believed that the most beautiful women came from the Caucus region of Russia. Is that the type of reasoning that should be dictating race?

And clearly you don't understand my arguments, because my arguments are routinely against your view. You argue homosexuality is illogical, I argue it is natural and perfectly logical given the biology behind it. You argue homosexuality is influenced by environment, I argue that environmental stimuli is documented to not change sexuality. So you need to either read closely, or bother to inform yourself about your own viewpoints.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games