Deep Thoughts

[hemisport15]

I don't get it either, but the part that really gets me is the whole "everything coming from nothing" deal. I don't really know how to describe it, but i just can't get how all of this came from what we think of as nothing.
What is absolute nothing? If there was no space or matter before the bang part, what was the area everything started in? Was there actually space before?
Think of it as a room, this room has been around forever with nothing in it. This room is infinitely large and one day BAM everything starts to show up in the room. Does that make any sense? Was what we consider space around before the big bang?
So the bottom line is: What could there have possibly been around before the big bang? Was it literally just a huge amount of emptiness and is it even possible to describe something as a piece of nothing? Hopefully this makes a little bit of sense and someone can shed a little light on the subject.

 

[niky]

Close your eyes? What do you see? Darkness? And even then, it's not really darkness. You still see the backs of your eyelids. Close your eyes in a dark room and you'll see mostly black, colored with streaks and static of red, blue or whatever as your imagination and misfiring photoreceptors try to make sense of the darkness.

We can't even hear the absence of sound. In a completely quiet room, we can still hear the blood rushing through our head.

It's hard for us to grasp the concept of absolute nothingness... and yet, even in empty space, there is not "nothing".

Empty space is quantum soup. A froth of imaginary particles flickering in and out of existence. What (we think) we know of quantum physics indicates that "empty" space generates, at random, particles and anti-particles all the time. It's only because that these particles emerge as pairs and cancel each other out that it remains seemingly empty.

What would have come before the Universe is absolute nothing. No quark soup. No space for that froth to exist in. Nothing that would even have the benefit of time to measure its nothingness by.

No space. No time. No vast emptiness stretching on infinitely over a vast period of time. Just nothing.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think I may be thinking of it in the wrong way. So, when we say space is expanding, it's simply because the objects in space are getting further from each other, right? So space is theoretically infinite, but obviously we can't see all of it, and because everything within our field of vision is expanding (spreading out), we can only assume that the rest of space that we can't see is doing the same thing, thus, expanding?

Some useful things to remember are a) the speed of light is finite and invariant and b) the universe is of a finite age. Because of these facts, we are limited to what it is possible to see, even in theory. We cannot see farther than 13.7 billion light years in any direction - not because we don't have the technology - but because it is not possible for light to have reached us from beyond that point.

There is also the fact that, beyond a certain distance (which, due to the reasons just mentioned equates to an 'epoch' in time), there would be literally nothing to see i.e. not even empty space, because the universe didn't exist then.

BUT, this does not mean that there are no objects more than 13.7 billion light years away from Earth now. We can see galaxies that cannot possibly see each other (if the laws of physics are universal, anyway), and so it's reasonable to assume that we are in the same situation.

EDIT: Also, another "deep thought." Would objects moving towards us appear to be playing on "fast forward" since the light from the object would have less distance to travel to us as time goes on?

The speed of light doesn't change, no matter how fast an object is moving (or appears to be moving), but the frequency of the light will change, depending on the relative speed of the observer. This is the basis of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity...

Imagine a rocket with a light on the front. If it is not moving and switches on the light, the light will travel away from the rocket at the speed of light (c). But, if the rocket is travelling at half the speed of light (0.5 c) and then switches on the light, the light will still be travelling at c, not 1.5 c (one and a half times the speed of light). To an observer on the rocket, the light will appear to move away from them at the speed of light. At the same time, to an observer on a nearby stationary rocket, the light will also appear to be moving at the speed of light.

 

[GT Pro]

If I were to offer my thoughts on the best political arrangement in society, I would say this:

'The single biggest problem with a democracy is that the heads of power are elected by the majority- and the majority are, quite simply, foolish or uninformed. There are two themes of government opposite each other on a balancing scale- the autocracy standing on one side and the democracy of present on the other. A government run strictly according to one of these extremes is undesirable; while absolute power vested in a single individual or group of individuals runs the risk of the more dangerous event of absolute power being exercised by an incompetent, this risk of governmental incompetency is greater when it is the foolish majority, who cannot know what is good for them, elects that government. Therefore, it would be wise that a position between the two extremes is assumed. A group of individuals elected by the informed, rather than all members of society, is an arrangement that is so clearly better than the one we suffer under at present that it should be made way for as soon as is possible.'

I've been told that this is riddled with conceit, but consider this: is conceit not justified when it comes to making decisions with radical externalities? For example, a person better suited to a top-job should be very much allowed to air his opinion as to why he is the better man for the job because the actions of whomever takes that job up is going to affect a lot of people. Or to put aside the hypothetical, the current 'majority' view in Australia is that speed is the ultimate killer on our roads; that the solution to reducing the road toll is to endlessly lower the speed limit. Now, any intelligent person that I have come across knows that such a bold claim is completely unfounded, that it is a multitude of factors within which speed is only of low significance, and that this view is formed by the majority because they can't think for themselves and assume whatever the media feeds them.


What are your thoughts on democracy? Do the majority really know what is good for them? Is it right that the majority wields such power that ALL members of society are affected? What would be a better system?
​

 

[livemusic]

I think Danoff's signature sums up this matter pretty well. Democracy shouldn't be used to vote away rights. In that sense "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

 

[Stevisiov]

'The single biggest problem with a democracy is that the heads of power are elected by the majority- and the majority are, quite simply, foolish or uninformed.

This may be the case, but the people who think they know better are often just as foolish or uninformed.

The problem is, you can completely discard the majority's opinion because someone who thinks they know more, and thinks they know what's best for everyone else, because actually, chances are they don't.

There is no silver bullet, magic solution to every problem, you can't represent everyone's viewpoint without encroaching on others. As such, you can't rely on an group of 'intelligent' people, to best represent other people. The best person to represent the people, is the people.

The "I'm more intelligent, and I know what's best for people, I need to take away their rights to protect them from themselves" is a viewpoint that annoys me frankly, and its the sort of viewpoint which pretty much justifies facism. 👎

 

[Danoff]

Pure democracy is a tyranny of the majority. Pure autocracy is just tyranny. I prefer a limited democracy or, even better, republic. The republic should be limited by its charter.

I think, in many respects, a constitutional republic is the best possible system. Almost all of the problems with ours is that we have gotten rid of the "constitutional" part and ignored our charter - thus veering closer to a pure republic or even pure democracy.

 

[Danoff]

Why is it that it seems singers who have non-american accents sing with an american accent? Is it because they're putting on an american accent to appeal to a US market? Is it because accents somehow go away when singing? Here's an example:

 

[lbsf1]

I don't get it either, but the part that really gets me is the whole "everything coming from nothing" deal. I don't really know how to describe it, but i just can't get how all of this came from what we think of as nothing.
What is absolute nothing? If there was no space or matter before the bang part, what was the area everything started in? Was there actually space before?
Think of it as a room, this room has been around forever with nothing in it. This room is infinitely large and one day BAM everything starts to show up in the room. Does that make any sense? Was what we consider space around before the big bang?
So the bottom line is: What could there have possibly been around before the big bang? Was it literally just a huge amount of emptiness and is it even possible to describe something as a piece of nothing? Hopefully this makes a little bit of sense and someone can shed a little light on the subject.

There was no time before the big bang. If you had a time machine you could go back and back but no further than the big bang. When the "bang happened everything exploded into existence.


What makes me wonder is the fact that in the end in billions of billions of years then the universe will just be cold rocks with clouds of heat floating around the universe with no life. So then time will carry on and on so eventually the percentage of time where something was happening and life existed will be so small that what will be the point off it all. What was the point of everything. Just think about that if nothing exists then what is the point of anything. It is just mind bogling I'm struggling to put it into words it is just worrying.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Be Merry, Drink Beer, Have Sex .... Create more problems for the President to take care of


That's the whole point of life ....

 

[Mark T]

There was no time before the big bang. If you had a time machine you could go back and back but no further than the big bang. When the "bang happened everything exploded into existence.


What makes me wonder is the fact that in the end in billions of billions of years then the universe will just be cold rocks with clouds of heat floating around the universe with no life. So then time will carry on and on so eventually the percentage of time where something was happening and life existed will be so small that what will be the point off it all. What was the point of everything. Just think about that if nothing exists then what is the point of anything. It is just mind bogling I'm struggling to put it into words it is just worrying.

It's a depressing thought, no doubt about that. I don't believe in any after life but I'm always hoping in the back of my mind that I'll awake in some kind of everlasting after life where everything is just awesome. If I think about dying and never having another existence the thought becomes really depressing.

Hopefully those depressing thoughts will encourage people to enjoy the time they have.

 

[CTznOfTime]

If I think about dying and never having another existence the thought becomes really depressing.

Hopefully those depressing thoughts will encourage people to enjoy the time they have.

That's the whole point of life... Just enjoy it while you only get ONE chance at everything... one shoot!

You have to live with the thought that you only get one life to make it good, for you and for everyone...

Who knows what's after, and most likely NOTHING at all...

So based on that, i dont even think we need religion to guide us... It's just logical, and we are now experienced enough as human beings to behave properly (as a whole), War should not be an issue anymore... we should live as citizen of the world, not citizen of any particular country...

Citizen of Time
Help each other better our life, avoid problems and create less of it...

Why make it so hard one each of use by being selfish and always desiring / stealing from each other... The earth is round, what goes around will come around...

Do good and you will get good...

 

[exigeracer]

Why is it that it seems singers who have non-american accents sing with an american accent? Is it because they're putting on an american accent to appeal to a US market? Is it because accents somehow go away when singing?

I remember thinking this when I was a kid because Celine Dion didn't have a Quebec accent when she sang, but talked with a super thick accent (I listened to proper music growing up - this is why I asked when I heard Celine for the first time).

The enunciation of words in songs is meant to achieve a melody rather than the proper pronunciation of the actual word. When you're writing the word correctly on paper, you sing it to a melody rather than let your conversational accent change it like it normally does.

 

[Danoff]

I remember thinking this when I was a kid because Celine Dion didn't have a Quebec accent when she sang, but talked with a super thick accent (I listened to proper music growing up - this is why I asked when I heard Celine for the first time).

The enunciation of words in songs is meant to achieve a melody rather than the proper pronunciation of the actual word. When you're writing the word correctly on paper, you sing it to a melody rather than let your conversational accent change it like it normally does.

But then I can stick on Marry Poppins, My Fair Lady, or Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" and listen to a child chorus singing "We daint naed nae aducaishun" to hear accents in music.

So clearly accents CAN be sung. Yet some people, like the example I gave, don't have any accent at all while singing. I can name tons of other examples.

 

[niky]

Why is it that it seems singers who have non-american accents sing with an american accent? Is it because they're putting on an american accent to appeal to a US market? Is it because accents somehow go away when singing? Here's an example:

I was fairly surprised the first time I heard Tom Jones speak... so... Welsh!

 

[livemusic]

I'm just glad they do because the American accent is easier to understand.

 

[TheCracker]

Therefore, it would be wise that a position between the two extremes is assumed. A group of individuals elected by the informed, rather than all members of society, is an arrangement that is so clearly better than the one we suffer under at present that it should be made way for as soon as is possible.'

Who exactly are the informed?

What does one have to do to be classed as 'informed'?

 

[somebody]

Who exactly are the informed?

What does one have to do to be classed as 'informed'?

And are the informed any less likely to be prejudice towards one view or the other?

 

[Danoff]

If you pronounce column without the n, then columnist shouldn't have an n in the pronunciation either.

Same for hymnal, autumnal, etc. Otherwise we have to pronounce both b's in bomber.

 

[Sureboss]

bom-ber is the sound of a thick skinned drum though.

Actually, I don't pronounce the n in columnist. Though I would for hymnal and autumnal.

 

[lbsf1]

Guy think about this. One day the universe will be pitch black 1 degree above abosolute zero with lifeless balls of frozzen ice floating around. There will be no life, this will go on for ever and ever untill the percentage of time where something was happening was so small that is it insignificant, so what is the point of it all???

 

[exigeracer]

If you pronounce column without the n, then columnist shouldn't have an n in the pronunciation either.

Same for hymnal, autumnal, etc. Otherwise we have to pronounce both b's in bomber.

Works with these, too:

Receipt > recipient

I always wondered where the etymologies of the word sublime and subliminal crossed paths, considering their different meanings and derivatives. Either a coincidence or some massive broken telephone at one point.

 

[niky]

If you pronounce column without the n, then columnist shouldn't have an n in the pronunciation either.

Same for hymnal, autumnal, etc. Otherwise we have to pronounce both b's in bomber.

I believe the reasons are due to a French origin. In French, the second consonant would be silent until you add a vowel after it.

Which doesn't explain bomber... which also comes from the Romantic languages...

Guy think about this. One day the universe will be pitch black 1 degree above abosolute zero with lifeless balls of frozzen ice floating around. There will be no life, this will go on for ever and ever untill the percentage of time where something was happening was so small that is it insignificant, so what is the point of it all???

Slap yourself in the face. Hurts? Take a deep breath. Feels good? That's all the reason you need.

 

[Captain Roh]

As we continue to delve with science, answers only ever give us more questions. The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. We are the pinnacle of life in our known universe, our only companion is endless time. Philosophy and science are undistinquished. They are now and have only ever been conceivable by man. Existance and the universe dies with us. In the end there was only ever one point to it. You. And I.

 

[Danoff]

As we continue to delve with science, answers only ever give us more questions.

That's not all they give us.

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.

Our problems are not caused by our thinking.

We are the pinnacle of life in our known universe,

This is doubtful.

Philosophy and science are undistinquished. They are now and have only ever been conceivable by man.

Also doubtful.

Existance and the universe dies with us. In the end there was only ever one point to it. You. And I.

For me, understanding is the point. Knowing who and where you are are incredibly complex and critical questions worthy of devoting your life to.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

I was daydreaming today, think if you broke the light barrier? A impossibiltiy, but say it happened, you were so fast light was gone. What would become of you, the Universe in itself and all life? Would you merely fall into darkness, and become no matter, destroying the point of matter not being destroyable? Or would the effect be that of a black hole, in itself would your body consume the Universe, destroying everything. Nothing would ever have known to exist. And you would never be you, an eternal state of pure unconsciousness, until the movemnt that destroyed was reversed, although if you're moving that fast you'd better need a wall about 500 billion kilometers in length. But there is no wall. Nothing. You are gone, and you shall become another Universe. Sketchy theory.

 

[Talon]

...or, you just get ahead of your light for a while, and everything goes back to normal once you slow down again. 💡

 

[Danoff]

I was daydreaming today, think if you broke the light barrier? A impossibiltiy, but say it happened, you were so fast light was gone. What would become of you, the Universe in itself and all life? Would you merely fall into darkness, and become no matter, destroying the point of matter not being destroyable? Or would the effect be that of a black hole, in itself would your body consume the Universe, destroying everything. Nothing would ever have known to exist. And you would never be you, an eternal state of pure unconsciousness, until the movemnt that destroyed was reversed, although if you're moving that fast you'd better need a wall about 500 billion kilometers in length. But there is no wall. Nothing. You are gone, and you shall become another Universe. Sketchy theory.

Pretend for a moment that you were light - but a faster version of light. You have no mass, you simply pass through space. Your view of the universe would be one-sided. The light coming behind you would not catch up to you, you would be catching up to the light in front of you moving away from you. So you would see what was behind you, but it would look like it was in front of you, going backward in time. The light coming at you would also appear to be coming from that side. So it would look like you were moving toward both the things in front of you and the things behind you. The things in front of you would be moving forward in time (but sped up), and the things behind you appearing in front of you would be moving backward in time (slower than the things in front of you). If you look behind you, you'd see nothing.

Or perhaps none of that is right. I can only seem to hold relativity in my head for fleeting moments before I am confused about it again.

The problem arises when you add mass to the equation. Because of that fact that you have mass, if you were to travel the speed of light, you would be infinitely large and have infinite mass. You would simultaneously consume the space in the universe and suck it into a gravity singularity - thereby preventing you from moving the speed of light, reducing your size and mass, and eliminating the singularity in the first place.

Very confusing.

 

[Famine]

*cracks knuckles*

Think of the Earth. The gravity of the Earth bends its surface into a 22,000 mile round ball and prevents anything moving below 17,500mph leaving it. It can move around the surface and even, with digging, through it but, unless it hits 17,500mph, it can't leave the confines and environment of the Earth.

Now let's rewrite the above:

Think of the Universe. The gravity of the Universe bends its surface into a 14BLy round ball* and prevents anything moving below c leaving it. It can move around the surface and even, with digging, through it but, unless it hits c, it can't leave the confines and environment of the Universe.

So what would happen if you could break c? Same as happens if you can break 17,500mph, only with the Universe. But you can't*.


*Yeah, alright, it's not a ball or round. But it's not 14BLy across either. The visible universe is though. Get off my case.
**That is to say, you can't travel faster through space faster than c, but there is no theoretical barrier to moving from one point in the universe to another faster than light travelling at c - if one tunnelled through the Earth, you could get from opposite points on the globe in one-fifth(ish) the time it'd take you to fly from one to the other at the same speed.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

I get both your points, just some silly daydreaming today. Very technical stuff, but then again the world won't know, it's theorectically impossible, but humans are compelled to ask "What if"