Minichan

Chuck Lorre's just in a rut.

@previous (B)

Well what do you expect? His cash cow is now over ever since Charlie Sheen was canned from Two and a Half Men. There's no way you could expect that show to hold up without him.

Also note that a simple comparison to how we cannot comprehend something quite simple is to think back to medieval times and attempting to explain radio communication, since there is no concept of radio waves at this point in time it would appear to someone that information is being transmitted and produced from nothing.

Whilst in todays world radio waves are quite a simple concept and we know that they are not spontaneous and are not nothing.

@100,590 (B)

Also, Mike & Molly just doesn't really have the same draw as his other shows. I remember reading a report somewhere that a re-run of Two and a Half Men during their normal block grossed more viewers than new episodes of Mike & Molly. Ah well.

Oh, okay.

are you interested in pursuing asexual relations hip

God makes even lesr sense.

1st one must accept the primeval atom. As minimal heat as one simple atom will produce, which may actually end up in equilibrium in space because space may act as a heat sink making the net temperature = Zero

So if you pay attention to Einstein's general relativity the part of simplifying assumptions.. homogeneity and isotropy of space..

Now so far as of 2011 the Big Bang Theory does NOT explain Moment "0" That very instant of the BANG. The equations do start at femtoseconds AFTER the Bang and work out in detail on Supercomputers for the first 5 seconds minus of course that first Femtosecond. The accuracy of those calculations have been verified not only on Supercomputers but by actually measurements with the Hubble telescope.

We know that 10−37 seconds into the expansion aka Big Bang the first particle had to be quark–gluon plasma.

Math and measurement agree with amazing accuracy. Credit the key and first measurements to a radio amateur who made the first radio telescope and maps of the expansion that later were used to move backwards to the begging of that Big Bang....All that said so far NO one can detail what happen at before 10-36 seconds. One should not worry too much about a detail that is so minor it ends up as less then that first spec of cosmic dust.

@previous (Syntax)
Thank you, but I am still lost and my brain hurts. I just don't understand how there is space (not space as in beyond our atmosphere, but literally space for the universe) and if the universe is expanding what it is expanding into.

Surely if nothing is outside it then there is no space because there is no measure of something? You cannot have infinite nothing because that is a paradox. Infact nothing should have an area of 0, I just dont understand how something with an area of 0 and consisting of nothing (it does not exist) comes to become something of such a large scale (relative to myself atleast) consisting of so much.

If nothing is around t

@100,945 (Green)
I am not talking about their being a God, and I am not saying it didn't happen but how it can be the beginning makes absolutely no sense and defies everything we know, how nothing can exist and become something.

I agree OP.

> the big bang theory relies on the existence of energy as heat

what in the gibbering fuck are you on about? that makes no sense at all and I've never seen it anywhere in big bang cosmology.

@previous (I)
Well you see how the big bang theory claims the universe was in a hot state? Well heat is in fact energy, in heat form strangely enough.

@102,264 (✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig)
One reason it's difficult to wrap our heads around it is because of how we think of time and space as different things. The idea that you can have infinite nothing is not a paradox. It's difficult for us to understand because we imagine that even if there is nothing there and it's just an infinite void we imagine that there is still some fabric of existence that puts that space there, but maybe it's just a void. It's difficult to imagine a void that goes to infinity, but if nothing's there that just means that there's infinite potential. Just like there are infinite numbers but no real infinity, there can be infinite void space but no real infinity. Because of how time and space are related, you can apply the same concept to time. It's difficult for us to imagine space as an empty void stretching infinitely back in time before the big bang, but because there was nothing there, there was no time. Stephen Hawking explained it by saying that asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's further north than the north pole. I realize this might sound like a bunch of gibberish but talking about such abstract concepts is difficult.

@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> I realize this might sound like a bunch of gibberish

yes

@previous (K)
Gibberish to some, but it makes sense.

@102,493 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Infinite nothing must be a paradox because nothing is not measurable, there is no amount of nothing because it is nothing. Nothing doesn't fill up any space because it is absolutely nothing, it cannot have a mass or a distance because distance is a measurement across the axis of something.

If we could witness two masses separated by nothing we could observe this but I don't think this is even possible, as we can see from vacuums which are the closest thing to nothing (nothing would be a perfect vacuum) that pressure increases and surely in a perfect vacuum anything would be be compressed into its smallest form at one point supporting the idea that nothing cannot have a measurement because the distance between two entities in nothing will always be voided.

I hope this makes sense

@previous (✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig)

> Infinite nothing must be a paradox because nothing is not measurable, there is no amount of nothing because it is nothing. Nothing doesn't fill up any space because it is absolutely nothing, it cannot have a mass or a distance because distance is a measurement across the axis of something.

It's still not a paradox. I said it has infinite potential, meaning that empty space can go on "forever", but it really doesn't, because there is nothing there to measure, as you put it. If it is completely void, it is as if time and space do not exist in that void, but if you were to somehow send a person or a space probe to "measure" something in that area, nothing would stop them from doing so, but they have now affected the system by going there and attempting to measure something. It's infinite in the sense that there is no real limit to how far you could travel out (technical issues aside). Like I said, it's hard to imagine because we imagine that if we can travel there, there must be a sort of fabric of reality there that allows us to travel there and the idea that there can a fabric of reality that is infinite nothing seems like a paradox, but only if you think the way you're thinking. There is no fabric of reality that goes on forever. If you were to somehow travel faster than light, go outside the physical universe and try to find where it ends, you could travel into infinity, but you're essentially creating more reality as you travel. Before you showed up, it would be like time and space did not exist in that area. Does this make sense? This concept is important in understanding the Big Bang Theory, because if can understand this you can understand how time does not exist until the Big Bang expansion. Time is relative in such a way that if nothing is going on there is no time.

> If we could witness two masses separated by nothing we could observe this but I don't think this is even possible, as we can see from vacuums which are the closest thing to nothing (nothing would be a perfect vacuum) that pressure increases and surely in a perfect vacuum anything would be be compressed into its smallest form at one point supporting the idea that nothing cannot have a measurement because the distance between two entities in nothing will always be voided.
>
> I hope this makes sense

OK, so what you're asking is, if there is no existence in empty space, how can empty space in between objects exist, and even be quantified? Well, you answered part of this question when you said "If we could witness..." If we can witness it, that means that light, radiation, gravity, particles, etc., from those two objects is filling the void. If there were absolutely nothing there, then you wouldn't be able to witness the two objects. Now you may ask, what if I can't observe them but they are there and have a real distance between them? Well then there's the other issue that time and distance (i.e. space) are relative to one another and only speed of light is constant. You might say that there's a real, absolute, quantifiable distance between two objects in space, but that's only in your frame of reference. The distance and the time it takes to travel between those two objects is relative to your frame of reference. Suddenly the space in between the two objects doesn't seem as real. For example, if you're in between two galaxies and the galaxy to your left is moving away from you at near the speed the of light, and the galaxy to your right is moving away from you at nearly the speed of light, you might say that the two galaxies are moving away from each other at nearly twice the speed of light, but to someone on galaxy A, galaxy B would only be moving away from them at nearly the speed of light. This is because time and space are not constant, but the speed of light is.

(Edited 1 minute later.)