[Sommanol Beatmeup]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?
Didn't your statements come from a piece of toilet paper with a cross on called KJV?
I assume that you are, in your own pathetic way, trying to make a joke about the Holy Bible by comparing it to toilet paper. In this thread, none of my statements came from the Bible. Of course, you didn't know that because, although you criticize the Bible, you show no knowledge whatsoever of its contents.
Were did I say that in THIS thread your statements did? Off course I have knowledge about it. But I know that the purpose of it isn't taking it literally. I admit I don't know it out of my head, or like you guys do with "check genesis #, exodus #, ..". But I don't have to..




1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??
Dude, I have a PhD from Harvard in Neuroscience, so don't lecture me on what science is and isn't until you've at least graduated high school, which will probably happen in your mid-30s. My foreskin (are you having gaytalk right now.. ) knows more about science than you do. A theory is what you call a hypothesis that has been verified by a large body of evidence. You don't get to call it a theory just because you really think it is true, or really want it to be true. And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one untill it has been proven.




I took a lot of math in college. I've actually read Witten's M-Theory paper (which gives the "branes" formulation of string "theory"--which is actually several classes of theories, each with an infinite number of solutions). If you, too, have read it, I would be glad to discuss the mathematics with you. But I doubt your mathematical knowledge extends much beyond counting to four, so I imagine we won't get very far discussing differential geometry.
And who was saying Pi to be 3..

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence. If you want to turn your back on the vast literature supporting the Biblical view of the world, that is your loss, but rejecting evidence because you don't like the religious beliefs of the scientists who published it isn't science, it is fantasy. And it's downright un-American.
Well, give me an example of that "proof".





Science is progressive. When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..

You can explain any orbit you want just by adding more epicycles. Fourier proved that in the 1830s. Which means that there is zero evidence disproving epicycles. Science doesn't believe them anymore because there are simpler explanations of the orbits of the planets that don't require adding more and more circles as time goes on. Progress doesn't lie in adding more epicycles, it lies in understanding the basic properties of the system. When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.
But with calculations, you can check it.. And it fits.




Sow God has nothing better to do than playing with little planets..
God does as God sees fit, and I am not in a position to tell Him how to spend his time. Nor are you.
Well, if god sees fit in playing with planets, what a pathetic thing is it then.. Can do whatever I want..




Poor poor guy, get laid..
Well, there's an intelligent, scientific argument.
Thank you, need proof for that one?




All right, G-Baby made a little fault here. But one fault doesn't offsets dozens of faults and contradiction in your Howly Loo Paper
Ha! Another toilet paper analogy. Aren't you the clever one? In a million years, I never would have thought of calling the Holy Bible both toilet paper and loo paper. With that kind of wit, you might want to consider a career as a writer.
Howly Loo Paper sounded just that little bit more..




If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.
Noach Arc.. You probably agree with me that Noach took 2 species from every living specie on earth (male and female). So here is the fault: we all know ants and bees (for example) can't survive with only 2, they need a whole colony! So that overthrows the story of Noach.




You missed the sentence here, IMAGINE. So if you were refering to your god here, you clearly say to me that it is imaginary
If you want to explain how the universe came about, it doesn't help to say that it came from some other universe. In fact, it makes things worse, because now you have two universes to explain instead of just one. This is a pretty basic point of logic. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to get it.
Two collapsing membranes, whats the difficulty in that one??





Are you having those drugs again, you mother told you so to stay away from it. It's bad for your little health, you little rascal..
You don't know me or my mother. Do you always go around telling others what their mothers think about them? If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes.
I don't need to visit someone. I'm fine, thank you. Maybe you should. Believing in imaginary things is severe!!



I am not a drug user, but I would rather be a crack whore than some dips*it who, when he doesn't understand what he's talking about, decides to launch a personal attack instead of discussing the issue at hand.
Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?




Except for gravity... Read it all, and don't rip his words out of their context, please. Thank you.
If you think I quoted someone out of context, feel free to quote those words in context. My point was that it isn't much of a theory when it makes no predictions that we can actually test. Where in the original post did you see a testable prediction?
Like the whole post..



So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?
G-Baby was just using metaphors for the more slowly people under you guys..
And I was just making the point that the metaphor is hiding the reality--he's talking about things that nobody has ever seen as if they were real objects like jelly and bread and ropes and sugar. I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious (I know you don't know what that means, but look it up--you obviously need some education) to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else. That's just scientific propaganda, not scientific progress.
I quote:
- He's talking about things that nobody has ever seen
- I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else.

==> god..




When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.
I do, you are the one who has this jelly in his head the whole time.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.
This sentence really is against the bible, that too is full of metaphors and similes..



Maybe they allready knew that there were strings, but later they made a theory about it..
They don't even know that there are strings NOW! All they have are equations, not facts.
And the equation fits perfectly..



So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.
If you are so slow of comprehension, yes.
Some people don't understand the use of sarcasm to show that a misleading metaphor does not add to a substantive discussion. You are obviously one of those people.
And some people need a funny book to be able to handle with reality.. Now that's just pathetic.




Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common.
Metaphors.. I think you like them, don't you. Maybe that's the only way to let it be more clear to you..
Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.
Which retard doesn't know what irony is. If you would have a BIT of IQ, you would know that they used sugar for example because, like the gravity loops, they could possibly fall of the bread/membrane with some kind of action.



Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?
Nowp, gravity affects the ball hit by the jumpshot. Not elsewise.
No s*it. What I was asking was what makes a loop cause gravity and a line cause electromagnetism or some other force, but not gravity. I think it's a fair question, because I know that the physicists don't have an answer. They just assumed this in order to make the model work. Epicycles.
That's a fair question indeed, and I'm not going to stop you asking questions. Look for "Loop Quantum Gravity", you will find your answer there..




Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.
Dude, even in metaphor you s*ck.. xD
See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.
This whole answer of you is inane, or senseless. I'm sorry for you that I DO know english vocabulary..



Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.
Nei, feeling love from an imaginary thing is just not my thing.. But please, don't let me stop you from your gay experiences.
What does gay experiences have to do with anything we have been discussing? And doesn't any visitor have anything better to discuss than sodomy? There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and only a handful deal with man-man sex (though, of course, that handful is pretty clearly against the whole concept). Only a moron would try to bring homosexuality into a discussion of string "theory."
I thought you weren't going to use the bible in this thread..

And by the way, YOU started with "feeling the love of god" in this discussion of string theory. So only a moron woult try to..


OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?
Certainly not. Because those things are intelligent, they know they don't have to listen to that bullshit.
More s*it references. Well, dude, if you think the Bible is s*it, then you don't know s*it. And, frankly, it is rude to attack other people's religious beliefs, but I will give you a pass on that because you are obviously borderline retarded.
Permission to quote myself:

Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?

Double lol??


Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.
Maybe the universe existed long before, maybe forever. Try to keep up with the text please..
The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?
I quote G-Baby again:
Those were the problems, but can String Theory solve them? Some string theorists have suggested that the big bang, hold on, wasn't the beginning of everything at all! That the universe could've existed long before, even forever. Some aren't agreed with that idea and say that a universe without a beginning is a universe without explanation. So what is the explanation? What if String Theory is right and we're all living on a giant brane inside a higher-dimensional space? Some scientists have proposed that the answer to the big bang riddle lies in the movements of these gigantic branes. Well, it's simple: you have a brane on which we live and another one floating in the higher dimension. What is difficult about imagining that these branes collide with each other?
The text said that some scientist say this, others say that. So "why don't you try to keep up" back at you.



It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.
Well, all you have to do to be a baptist is reading the Howly Loo Paper, preaching the shit and kissing some imaginary ass.. Even simpler (perfect for dudes to who metaphors are aimed to high).
Next time, try saying "fuck" instead of "shit." It's clearly too much to hope that you'd spice up your arguments with some actual facts, but at least that would add variety to your vapid (look that up, too) prose. If you're going to swear instead of reasoning, at least make the swearing a bit more variegated (you know what to do about that word, I should hope).
"preaching the fuck" doesn't say it well. I gave actual facts..


I hope that answers your questions.

Try better next time..

[Silent Wench]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Golly! This thread's confusin me. Haven't they already said the big bang was wrong or somethin?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Originally Posted by Ahimaaz Smith
?? What are you krabbing in your broek ??
I'm sorry, I don't speak Korean, so I have no clue how to respond.

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?
Didn't your statements come from a piece of toilet paper with a cross on called KJV?
I assume that you are, in your own pathetic way, trying to make a joke about the Holy Bible by comparing it to toilet paper. In this thread, none of my statements came from the Bible. Of course, you didn't know that because, although you criticize the Bible, you show no knowledge whatsoever of its contents.

1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??
Dude, I have a PhD from Harvard in Neuroscience, so don't lecture me on what science is and isn't until you've at least graduated high school, which will probably happen in your mid-30s. My foreskin knows more about science than you do. A theory is what you call a hypothesis that has been verified by a large body of evidence. You don't get to call it a theory just because you really think it is true, or really want it to be true. And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one.

I took a lot of math in college. I've actually read Witten's M-Theory paper (which gives the "branes" formulation of string "theory"--which is actually several classes of theories, each with an infinite number of solutions). If you, too, have read it, I would be glad to discuss the mathematics with you. But I doubt your mathematical knowledge extends much beyond counting to four, so I imagine we won't get very far discussing differential geometry.

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence. If you want to turn your back on the vast literature supporting the Biblical view of the world, that is your loss, but rejecting evidence because you don't like the religious beliefs of the scientists who published it isn't science, it is fantasy. And it's downright un-American.

Science is progressive. When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..

You can explain any orbit you want just by adding more epicycles. Fourier proved that in the 1830s. Which means that there is zero evidence disproving epicycles. Science doesn't believe them anymore because there are simpler explanations of the orbits of the planets that don't require adding more and more circles as time goes on. Progress doesn't lie in adding more epicycles, it lies in understanding the basic properties of the system. When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.

Sow God has nothing better to do than playing with little planets..
God does as God sees fit, and I am not in a position to tell Him how to spend his time. Nor are you.

Poor poor guy, get laid..
Well, there's an intelligent, scientific argument.

All right, G-Baby made a little fault here. But one fault doesn't offsets dozens of faults and contradiction in your Howly Loo Paper
Ha! Another toilet paper analogy. Aren't you the clever one? In a million years, I never would have thought of calling the Holy Bible both toilet paper and loo paper. With that kind of wit, you might want to consider a career as a writer.

If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.

So who baked the bread?
A moeder..
Again, I don't speak Korean, so I can't answer.

You missed the sentence here, IMAGINE. So if you were refering to your god here, you clearly say to me that it is imaginary
If you want to explain how the universe came about, it doesn't help to say that it came from some other universe. In fact, it makes things worse, because now you have two universes to explain instead of just one. This is a pretty basic point of logic. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to get it.

Are you having those drugs again, you mother told you so to stay away from it. It's bad for your little health, you little rascal..
You don't know me or my mother. Do you always go around telling others what their mothers think about them? If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes.

I am not a drug user, but I would rather be a crack whore than some dips*it who, when he doesn't understand what he's talking about, decides to launch a personal attack instead of discussing the issue at hand.

Except for gravity... Read it all, and don't rip his words out of their context, please. Thank you.
If you think I quoted someone out of context, feel free to quote those words in context. My point was that it isn't much of a theory when it makes no predictions that we can actually test. Where in the original post did you see a testable prediction?

Why are you comparing humans etc with gravity?? xD
I did no such thing.

So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?
G-Baby was just using metaphors for the more slowly people under you guys..
And I was just making the point that the metaphor is hiding the reality--he's talking about things that nobody has ever seen as if they were real objects like jelly and bread and ropes and sugar. I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious (I know you don't know what that means, but look it up--you obviously need some education) to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else. That's just scientific propeganda, not scientific progress.

When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.

Maybe they allready knew that there were strings, but later they made a theory about it..
They don't even know that there are strings NOW! All they have are equations, not facts.

So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.
If you are so slow of comprehension, yes.
Some people don't understand the use of sarcasm to show that a misleading metaphor does not add to a substantive discussion. You are obviously one of those people.

Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common.
Metaphors.. I think you like them, don't you. Maybe that's the only way to let it be more clear to you..
Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.

Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?
Nowp, gravity affects the ball hit by the jumpshot. Not elsewise.
No s*it. What I was asking was what makes a loop cause gravity and a line cause electromagnetism or some other force, but not gravity. I think it's a fair question, because I know that the physicists don't have an answer. They just assumed this in order to make the model work. Epicycles.

Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.
Dude, even in metaphor you s*ck.. xD
See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.

Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.
Nei, feeling love from an imaginary thing is just not my thing.. But please, don't let me stop you from your gay experiences.
What does gay experiences have to do with anything we have been discussing? And doesn't any visitor have anything better to discuss than sodomy? There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and only a handful deal with man-man sex (though, of course, that handful is pretty clearly against the whole concept). Only a moron would try to bring homosexuality into a discussion of string "theory."

OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?
Certainly not. Because those things are intelligent, they know they don't have to listen to that bullshit.
More s*it references. Well, dude, if you think the Bible is s*it, then you don't know s*it. And, frankly, it is rude to attack other people's religious beliefs, but I will give you a pass on that because you are obviously borderline retarded.

Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.
Maybe the universe existed long before, maybe forever. Try to keep up with the text please..
The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?

It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.
Well, all you have to do to be a baptist is reading the Howly Loo Paper, preaching the shit and kissing some imaginary ass.. Even simpler (perfect for dudes to who metaphors are aimed to high).
Next time, try saying "fuck" instead of "shit." It's clearly too much to hope that you'd spice up your arguments with some actual facts, but at least that would add variety to your vapid (look that up, too) prose. If you're going to swear instead of reasoning, at least make the swearing a bit more variegated (you know what to do about that word, I should hope).

I hope that answers your questions.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

While you're at it... WHY don't YOU tell us your favorite sting hypothesis?
(and don't bounce that question back on me, it won't work... i don't know sh!t about strings)

Why, young Kerplunki Zerplop, that is easy, and I thank you for asking it. Perhaps you are a nice child deep down inside.

My favorite String Theory, is that most beautiful string of history, romance, wisdom, kindness, Fatherly advice and adventure, written in the fluid language of American, that stretches from Genesis to Revelations in the KJV1611.

Y'know, there are some people, and I admit to being amongst them, that once having reached the end, just start reading all over again.

Praise!

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: The "Big Bang"

*string Hypothesis, i meant stRing hypothesis

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: The "Big Bang"

While you're at it... WHY don't YOU tell us your favorite sting hypothesis?
(and don't bounce that question back on me, it won't work... i don't know sh!t about strings)

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Srry, I just had to kick that one in, you see..

The thing here is that you base all this on a few hours of watching TV - I bet you're good at watching TV. This makes you an expert in the String Hypothesis.

Indeed, you are such a brilliant physicist that you are probably wondering if a Nobel Prize is in your grasp.

Currently there are 11 hypotheses of Strings. Which one do you favor and why?

Look, we get enough morons here. Strings are unproven and unlikely ever to be. But there you are, believing this far-fetch rubbish and dismissing the Word of God that has brought civilization to your neighbors, if not to you.

Now, tell us all about your favorite string hypothesis... come on, we're waiting!

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: The "Big Bang"

What? Can't handle it on your own? Come on pastors, get this crybaby his pacifier, ow, and I think he might have a dirty diaper. I thought this forum was for grown-ups.

I don't have the power in this forum to infract you, or ban you, but just keep it coming, sister, keep it coming...

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

, mister, I'm calling on the pastors,

What? Can't handle it on your own? Come on pastors, get this crybaby his pacifier, ow, and I think he might have a dirty diaper. I thought this forum was for grown-ups.

[Sommanol Beatmeup]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That utter lack of respect for both the Bible and science will get you nowhere, mister, I'm calling on the pastors, that gruesome post should give you enough infraction posts from here until the Rapture (soon, LORD, soon...).

Srry, I just had to kick that one in, you see..

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: The "Big Bang"

My order:
1 grab a nice bible
2 get comfortable
*edited for respectfulness to God's word

That utter lack of respect for both the Bible and science will get you nowhere, mister, I'm calling on the pastors, that gruesome post should give you enough infraction posts from here until the Rapture (soon, LORD, soon...).

[Sommanol Beatmeup]

Re: The "Big Bang"

You haven't showed me you know anything about it yourself (bacteria created in a jar as a experiment with goo, photons in an electron microscope, photons having a mass...)
Don't believing in that so called god thing is a big step..

And you have a little preference for ignorance, why don't you grab a nice Bible, get comfortable, and start learning the Word of The Good Lord? And what's with that "no worries" expression, are you an Austrian?

My order:
1 grab a nice bible
2 get comfortable
3 make a nice number 2
4 using that word of the good lord to wipe it off
5 flushing the toilet, I'm a polite guy, you know..

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: The "Big Bang"

1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??

You haven't showed me you know anything about it yourself (bacteria created in a jar as a experiment with goo, photons in an electron microscope, photons having a mass...)

You really have a little preference for metaphors, do you.. No worries, won't tell anybody, promise

And you have a little preference for ignorance, why don't you grab a nice Bible, get comfortable, and start learning the Word of The Good Lord? And what's with that "no worries" expression, are you an Austrian?

[Sommanol Beatmeup]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Leaving all of THEIR universes unexplained? Not a promising start.
?? What are you krabbing in your broek ??

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?
Didn't your statements come from a piece of toilet paper with a cross on called KJV?

Well, I watched all 18 hours (well, it seemed like 18 hours), and I must say I'm rather disappointed. This string hypothesis (in science, you gotta have proof before it becomes a theory) reminds me of the Ptolomaic epicycle theory to explain the motion of the planets in the sky.
1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??

Every time someone made a better calculation of how the planets moved, some theorist would come along and add one or two or ten epicycles until the model fit the data again. Now they're adding dimensions, instead.
Science is progressive. When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..

Of course, Ptolomy completely missed the only satisfactory explanation for the motion of the planets--God moves them around the firmament of the heavens because that is what pleases Him.
Sow God has nothing better to do than playing with little planets.. Poor poor guy, get laid..

There are quarks in electrons? Somebody call the Swedish Academy, we've got a Nobel Prize in Physics to award for this astonishing discovery.
All right, G-Baby made a little fault here. But one fault doesn't offsets dozens of faults and contradiction in your Howly Loo Paper

Whoa, lets back up the film and look at that one more time: with enough energy... So where do the string hypothesists say all of that energy came from--no, let me guess--from an even bigger Big Bang caused by an even higher energy brane, right? See? Epicycles.

So who baked the bread?
A moeder..
You missed the sentence here, IMAGINE. So if you were refering to your god here, you clearly say to me that it is imaginary

Well, isn't that convenient. These stringy thingies are all there, but they're invisible, and silent, and nobody can feel them--why, it's just like the Moon Men from Planet X who invaded the Earth in the 1950's, but hypnotized us with their ray guns so we can't perceive them.
Are you having those drugs again, you mother told you so to stay away from it. It's bad for your little health, you little rascal..

Never have truer words been spoken.
Except for gravity... Read it all, and don't rip his words out of their context, please. Thank you.

But if you put jelly on first, then the sugar won't fall off, it will stick to the jelly, right?
Why are you comparing humans etc with gravity?? xD

So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?
G-Baby was just using metaphors for the more slowly people under you guys..

How could people have had an opinion of any kind about something that they never even imagined existed?
Maybe they allready knew that there were strings, but later they made a theory about it..

So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.
If you are so slow of comprehension, yes.

Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common.
Metaphors.. I think you like them, don't you. Maybe that's the only way to let it be more clear to you..

Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?
Nowp, gravity affects the ball hit by the jumpshot. Not elsewise.

Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.
Dude, even in metaphor you s*ck.. xD

Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.
Nei, feeling love from an imaginary thing is just not my thing.. But please, don't let me stop you from your gay experiences.

OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?
Certainly not. Because those things are intelligent, they know they don't have to listen to that bullshit.

So kids, don't try this at home.
Certainly not..

Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.
Maybe the universe existed long before, maybe forever. Try to keep up with the text please..

It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.
Well, all you have to do to be a baptist is reading the Howly Loo Paper, preaching the shit and kissing some imaginary ass.. Even simpler (perfect for dudes to who metaphors are aimed to high ).

What a shock.
Indeed, if Big Bangs happen more..

So it's turtles all the way down.

You really have a little preference for metaphors, do you.. No worries, won't tell anybody, promise

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

There is also another theory which explaines the beginning of OUR universe:

Leaving all of THEIR universes unexplained? Not a promising start.

The "String Theory". (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html, please non-scientists and scientists, watch all the movies of hour 3. They're SO interesting and actually logic)

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?

Well, I watched all 18 hours (well, it seemed like 18 hours), and I must say I'm rather disappointed. This string hypothesis (in science, you gotta have proof before it becomes a theory) reminds me of the Ptolomaic epicycle theory to explain the motion of the planets in the sky. Every time someone made a better calculation of how the planets moved, some theorist would come along and add one or two or ten epicycles until the model fit the data again. Now they're adding dimensions, instead. Of course, Ptolomy completely missed the only satisfactory explanation for the motion of the planets--God moves them around the firmament of the heavens because that is what pleases Him.

You can find these strings in so called "quarks", which can be found in electrons, protons and neutrons.

There are quarks in electrons? Somebody call the Swedish Academy, we've got a Nobel Prize in Physics to award for this astonishing discovery.

With enough energy, this brane can be very very very small or very very big, as big as a universe.

Whoa, lets back up the film and look at that one more time: with enough energy... So where do the string hypothesists say all of that energy came from--no, let me guess--from an even bigger Big Bang caused by an even higher energy brane, right? See? Epicycles.

If you cut this in slices, you can imagine those slices as parrallel universes and one of them is our universe.

So who baked the bread?

if you have a brane living in a higher-dimensional space, and your particles, your atoms, cannot get off the brane, it's like trying to reach out, but you can't touc anything.

Well, isn't that convenient. These stringy thingies are all there, but they're invisible, and silent, and nobody can feel them--why, it's just like the Moon Men from Planet X who invaded the Earth in the 1950's, but hypnotized us with their ray guns so we can't perceive them.

It might as well be on the other end of the universe.

Never have truer words been spoken.

If you put some jelly on your slice of bread, you can spread it out freely on the surface, but otherwise it's stuck, it can't leave the surface itself. But what if gravity were different? What if it were more like sugar? It WILL fall of the surface. Why would it be so different from everything else that we know of in the universe?

But if you put jelly on first, then the sugar won't fall off, it will stick to the jelly, right?

Well, String Theory provides an answer: It has to do with the shape of the string.

So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?

Before the human came up with the string theory, humans thought that all strings were like closed loops.

How could people have had an opinion of any kind about something that they never even imagined existed?

Than we came up with string theory and said that those strings were all like a piece of open-ended rope.

So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.

But those loops do excist, and one kind is responsible for gravity (graviton).

Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common. Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?

Because there closed, they aren't tied on our membrane. So gravitons can escape to another dimension.

Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.

So perhaps we could one day FEEL the other universes through gravity.

Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.

So theoretically, and purely theoretically, we could communicate with "intelligent life" (if there is any on the other membrane) by sending strong wave sources of gravity.

OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?

1) When you squeeze the entire universe into a infinitesimally small dense package, at a certain point, our laws of physics simply break down.

So kids, don't try this at home.

I, like the guy in the movie I watched, don't like that nothing. It CAN'T be out of nothing.

Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.

It creates the collide we see and it heats up all the particles in the universe in this big, fiery mass! Really, sience is that simple!

It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.

And this isn't the weirdest thing about it

What a shock.

Those collides can happen again ... and again ... and again and that it will happen again in the future! So there will come another big bang and another and this will go on for an indefinite period in the future.

So it's turtles all the way down.