Pastelland Forum

You do remember the layer of time only has the light because of the kinetic energy gained my air molecules as people walk, right? The light isn't an inherent property of that layer.

EDIT: Well, unless you mean that the molecules being trapped in place because the is no time is an inherent property of the layer. But that is sort of cheating. Because timelessness is the core quality of this realm, not whatever follows from that.

Yeah, but truth be told, we could never tell how much time had really past between each game.
Not until we found out in Submachine 9 that everyone is already dead, or somewhere else 742 years ago.

Plus, I always thought Murtuagh, when he left the loop, he ended up 32 years in the past, and met the younger Liz at the lab.
Besides, everyone kept telling me I'm good with understanding the concept of time itself.
But I mean, come on, its the existence of the universe being created, why is it not called "The Big Bang" theory?

The Big Bang theory was coined in a radio show to mock the particular theory, mostly because it implied that the Universe even had a beginning.

And yeah, that aspect of the chronology is very hard to ascertain.

What?
So...the universe never had a beginning?
No offense Anteroinen, but that does not make logical sense.

I know I'm quoting the matrix, but it also applies here as well.
"Everything that has a beginning, has an end."

More over, if the Universe never had a beginning, then how are "We" here?
Unless I read your post wrong, the end bit is confusing me in your first part.
Then...how does this even work?

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:What?
So...the universe never had a beginning?
No offense Anteroinen, but that does not make logical sense.

I know I'm quoting the matrix, but it also applies here as well.
"Everything that has a beginning, has an end."

More over, if the Universe never had a beginning, then how are "We" here?
Unless I read your post wrong, the end bit is confusing me in your first part.
Then...how does this even work?

Oh, didn't you know that for a long time scientists argued against models where the universe had a beginning? This was mostly because:

a) There was no particular reason to say it did
b) That sounded way too religious.

Most proposed an eternal universe, which never had a beginning. Because if it didn't begin, we don't run into problems like "what caused the Universe to begin existing"? Surely there could be no such mechanism. So universe mustn't have a beginning. It makes sense mathematically. Infinite chains of events tend to cancel out into reality quite nicely.

Besides, technically that it exactly how time is even now, because time began to exist with the big bang, yes, but that doesn't mean it has a beginning any more than it means the Universe has an outer edge.

it's true. Even now there exist some cyclic models in cosmology, we can't say for certain whether time has a beginning at the Big Bang or not.

Not to be rude, but all idea of both string theory, and dark matter within the concept of theoretical physics, its all just that.

Theory.

Anteroinen wrote:That sounded way too religious.

Its no different than Religious.
Granted its a science, but it the only thing I can think of that can be thought in High School, without it being complete fact, rather than possible speculation.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:Not to be rude, but all idea of both string theory, and dark matter within the concept of theoretical physics, its all just that.

Theory.

Anteroinen wrote:That sounded way too religious.

Its no different than Religious.
Granted its a science, but it the only thing I can think of that can be thought in High School, without it being complete fact, rather than possible speculation.

*eye twitches*

You'd do well to learn the meaning of the word "theory" is scientific contexts. I mean, string theory especially is mostly using that moniker wrong, I gather, but still. Regardless, "just a theory" is still not a very wise thing to say, considering that "theory" is about as solidly proven as an explanation can be.

What I meant by it sounding too religious is just that, scientists had comparatively recently stopped using the scriptures as evidence (with good reason), so they wanted to keep things separate. Anything that could possibly imply that the world was "created" was not ideologically concordant. Eventually the evidence won, as we know, but that is a phase that still existed.

I have a saying, "Everything Comes from somewhere, weather its inspiration for a story, or the building materials for a house".

Religion aside, what about ancient Mythology?
The people who told those story, did they see something at the time that they could only comprehend it as such in their time?
Or did they once know someone in their past who died, and met someone young who has those same "Characteristics".
My point is, that something happened that could have been interpreted only as much as those simple minded people could at the time.
More over, if you feel humanity is just "Gone" after we die, not simple just going somewhere else, then what is the point of living to beginning with? Granted we live out our lives knowing were all going to die one day, but if you feel there nothing to come after death, that does not seem much of a life worth living to being with.

For example, the Noah Ark in the bible, its impossible to flood the whole world. But what if it wasn't the whole world? What if it just was the Mediterranean flooding for the first time from the Atlantic ocean? It would explain how the animals "Came" to the ark, they weren't coming to him, they had their 6th animal sense we don't, and saw that flooding coming long before we did. And they were running to the east, from the flood coming from the west.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:I have a saying, "Everything Comes from somewhere, weather its inspiration for a story, or the building materials for a house".

Religion aside, what about ancient Mythology?
The people who told those story, did they see something at the time that they could only comprehend it as such in their time?
Or did they once know someone in their past who died, and met someone young who has those same "Characteristics".
My point is, that something happened that could have been interpreted only as much as those simple minded people could at the time.
More over, if you feel humanity is just "Gone" after we die, not simple just going somewhere else, then what is the point of living to beginning with? Granted we live out our lives knowing were all going to die one day, but if you feel there nothing to come after death, that does not seem much of a life worth living to being with.

For example, the Noah Ark in the bible, its impossible to flood the whole world. But what if it wasn't the whole world? What if it just was the Mediterranean flooding for the first time from the Atlantic ocean? It would explain how the animals "Came" to the ark, they weren't coming to him, they had their 6th animal sense we don't, and saw that flooding coming long before we did. And they were running to the east, from the flood coming from the west.

Well, this is getting wildly off-topic, but yes, there are apparently pretty good estimates of how big "Noah's flood" was, how high it was and where it was located, based on geological, archaeological and anthropological data, such as locations of various similar floodmyths. It was pretty much restricted to the Iraqi floodplain. The whole whole flood thing isn't really that mysterious once you reject the whole "global" part of it. Then stuff gets exaggerated and they blow out of proportion.

As for the whole life after death thing, I really don't see why it would make life any more meaningful. Honestly, if anything it robs every shred of beauty out of life to me, to think that we would be resurrected or that we'd go to Heaven. But that is just my opinion.