Wednesday, November 22, 2017 • Morning Edition • "At least we're not The Comics Reporter!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Minority Report

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:52 am

Strict, dude, you're telling me that we absolutely KNOW the fundamentals of the universe and how things work?

There's no way we could discover something that changes our perception?

At every turn when science believes they have a good grasp on the Universe, something comes along to completely turn our world upside down.

We couldn't fathom quantum theory decades ago, and we still don't have a real grasp of where it could take us, but we have a good grasp on the universe?

You're talking about a species that has reached only its moon and never been to another planet, but we understand spacetime and how it works?

No.

We have created rules based on our limited observations.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:58 am

And it still doesn't change the fact that you won't discuss the premise as it was laid out.

I get it. You don't like the movie. Solution? DOn't spend hours discussing it.

It was basically a moral dilemna wrapped in science FICTION. That's what we were discussing.

Way to be a killjoy.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:05 am

jsalwen wrote:Strict, dude, you're telling me that we absolutely KNOW the fundamentals of the universe and how things work?

There's no way we could discover something that changes our perception?

At every turn when science believes they have a good grasp on the Universe, something comes along to completely turn our world upside down.

We couldn't fathom quantum theory decades ago, and we still don't have a real grasp of where it could take us, but we have a good grasp on the universe?

You're talking about a species that has reached only its moon and never been to another planet, but we understand spacetime and how it works?

No.

We have created rules based on our limited observations.


No. I'm telling you to read what others have learned and have taught before you engage in wild speculation that has less basis in the observation of reality, and more basis in bad science fiction.

I mean...seriously, if you wish to think that perhaps Minority report has the right idea about the nature of time and physics does not, that's fine. If you wish to think that Minority Report's interpretation of time is more valid than that of people who've dedicated their lives to the subject, then i dunno what to tell you.

But here are the laws that the universe uses to function. You can choose to not believe in them if you wish I suppose. or you can test and observe the shit for yourself. Go and grab an ice cube. Set it out on the counter and see what happens.

That is an easy way for you to witness the second law of thermodynamics in action. You can confirm it independantly.

I mean, it's not like i just made all this fucking shit up while smoking some chronic and opining about space bitches. I'm not telling you anything you can't find out on your own.

There's a fundamental difference between saying anything is possible, and testing and observing to see what actually is possible. And to simply discount the work thousands of scientists have performed and established just because t does not fit with the position you wish to support is...

...Jude-ish... :P
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:08 am

You're telling me that the Big Bounce theory has been categorically and absolutely proven to be inaccurate?
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:13 am

jsalwen wrote:And it still doesn't change the fact that you won't discuss the premise as it was laid out.

I get it. You don't like the movie. Solution? DOn't spend hours discussing it.

It was basically a moral dilemna wrapped in science FICTION. That's what we were discussing.

Way to be a killjoy.


I did discuss the premise. And the conclusion I reached was that the writers may have intended for the characters to be mistaken about the nature of time. You've failed to acknowledge this, but it is due to no oversight of mine.

If you follow my position through to its logical and very simple end, it means i think the entire philosophy adopted through the reports is flawed.

Further, i have discussed at length everything you've brought up or put before me: the nature of time; free will vs. the perception of restriction; Stephen Hawking.

But if your goal is to get me to apply reason to something I find unreasonable even in the context of science-fiction, sorry. I can't apply sense to something that doesn't make sense. The deeper meaning of the movie is based on a flawed premise. And is thus, questionable in application at best.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:14 am

ANd the funny thing here is that based on our limited observations, you are making predictions that involve the ultimate fate of the universe.

You've basically said that it is impossible for anything like the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce to occur. Scientists (smarter than us) are still debating this.

So for you to basically call me stupid over this is pretty immature.

There were 2 different discussions going on here.

1. Based on Minority Report where a morality question was posited. It was actually fun to discuss until you came along.

2. Apparently entropy and the ultimate fate of the universe. While I was mostly kidding with you and taking this lightly, I do think you're being an asshole about it now.

You can't possibly say with certainty that something like the Big Bounce couldn't happen. If you can, they you deserve the Nobel, because there are multiple phD's still debating the issue.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:17 am

jsalwen wrote:You're telling me that the Big Bounce theory has been categorically and absolutely proven to be inaccurate?


I'm telling you to do some research about the open universe model, the closed universe model, the shape of time, universal heat death and Edwin frigging Hubble.

Do some reasearch about Cepheid variables and the increasing speed of the universe's expansion. Those last two are not factors that are up to interpretation.

Do some research about the cosmological constant, and non-zero energy. Or dark energy.

Do some research about the weight of the uiniverse and "missing mass."

That's what I'm telling you.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:20 am

jsalwen wrote:ANd the funny thing here is that based on our limited observations, you are making predictions that involve the ultimate fate of the universe.

You've basically said that it is impossible for anything like the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce to occur. Scientists (smarter than us) are still debating this.

So for you to basically call me stupid over this is pretty immature.

There were 2 different discussions going on here.

1. Based on Minority Report where a morality question was posited. It was actually fun to discuss until you came along.

2. Apparently entropy and the ultimate fate of the universe. While I was mostly kidding with you and taking this lightly, I do think you're being an asshole about it now.

You can't possibly say with certainty that something like the Big Bounce couldn't happen. If you can, they you deserve the Nobel, because there are multiple phD's still debating the issue.


I challenge you to find and point out, at any fucking point, where i've called you stupid. "Basically" or otherwise.

What I've told you is that it is futile to argue science from the standpoint of fiction and baseless speculation. What I've told you is the theory to which you seem to ascribe was made outdated when Edwin Hubble discovered the universe was expanding at an increasing rate of speed.

These are all things you can confirm for yourself. Please do so before you toss about accusations of immaturity.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:26 am

Strict31 wrote:I'm telling you to do some research about the open universe model, the closed universe model, the shape of time, universal heat death and Edwin frigging Hubble.

Do some reasearch about Cepheid variables and the increasing speed of the universe's expansion. Those last two are not factors that are up to interpretation.

Do some research about the cosmological constant, and non-zero energy. Or dark energy.

Do some research about the weight of the uiniverse and "missing mass."

That's what I'm telling you.


Umm, I have read about those things. I realize that the universe is accelerating. But there are still theories out there that challenge the nature of dark energy which supposedly drives the acceleration. One of these is Loop Quantum Comology.

What you are saying is that based on theories like the Heat Crunch, that we know what's absolutely going to happen.

We don't.

We know so little, yet based on limited observations and data, we claim to actually understand the fundamentals of the universe. How much of the Universe have we mapped? How much of our own galaxy?

Yet in your hubris, you can tell me for sure that you know what's happening in the universe?

And if so, is that fated to happen? Or can I change it?:P
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:31 am

"Quantum gravity is expected to be necessary in order to understand situations where classical general relativity breaks down. In particular in cosmology one has to deal with initial singularities, i.e., the fact that the backward evolution of a classical space-time inevitably comes to an end after a finite amount of proper time. This presents a breakdown of the classical picture and requires an extended theory for a meaningful description. Since small length scales and high curvatures are involved, quantum effects must play a role. Not only the singularity itself but also the surrounding space-time is then modified. One particular realization is loop quantum cosmology, an application of loop quantum gravity to homogeneous systems, which removes classical singularities. Its implications can be studied at different levels. Main effects are introduced into effective classical equations which allow to avoid interpretational problems of quantum theory. They give rise to new kinds of early universe phenomenology with applications to inflation and cyclic models. To resolve classical singularities and to understand the structure of geometry around them, the quantum description is necessary. Classical evolution is then replaced by a difference equation for a wave function which allows to extend space-time beyond classical singularities. One main question is how these homogeneous scenarios are related to full loop quantum gravity, which can be dealt with at the level of distributional symmetric states. Finally, the new structure of space-time arising in loop quantum gravity and its application to cosmology sheds new light on more general issues such as time."


That's the Abstract from Loop Quantum Cosmology by Martin Bojowald.

You should probably call him and tell him to stop researching though since we already know everything about how the universe will behave. I believe he's on permanent staff at Penn State.
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:33 am

I would like to have the sex w/ Jessica Capshaw in her timecop outfit.
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

I must be pretty wise cuz I sure know there's a helluva lot I don't know :wink:

PDH

penile prisoner

Postby PDH » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:05 am

MistaT73 wrote:no,no,no,no....You have simply acted out your own free will.

You may have prevented him from accomplishing his goal, but he still had the ability to make his choice.

You can't take that away from someone.


That's what I said.

So, if this wouldn't prevent free-will then you don't have to worry about it.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:20 am

MistaT73 wrote:How many times has someone said in anger "I'm gonna KILL that mother fucker!!"

Should we all be arrested on site?


Never said that :lol: Maybe you need anger management :P

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:21 am

oh this thread got boring. never mind :-D

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chap22, FaceBook [Linkcheck] and 47 guests