|
|
| Are you a true Gaian? (read post before voting) |
| Yes |
|
76% |
[ 40 ] |
| Nope |
|
23% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:45 am
well if the universe is defined as the mass of everything, then yes, the universe isn't infinate. however if it is defined as to include all of reality, including the volume of the void that the universe is expanding into, then yeah, it could be infinate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:04 am
Kalorn well if the universe is defined as the mass of everything, then yes, the universe isn't infinate. however if it is defined as to include all of reality, including the volume of the void that the universe is expanding into, then yeah, it could be infinate. If it includes that void, doesn't it contradict the definition of void? If void is nothingness, then, what is the point of including a lot of nothing? Essentially, including such nothing is merely an ad hoc adjustment and further it adds no value to the universe; thus, why include it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:17 pm
chaoticpuppet Kalorn well if the universe is defined as the mass of everything, then yes, the universe isn't infinate. however if it is defined as to include all of reality, including the volume of the void that the universe is expanding into, then yeah, it could be infinate. If it includes that void, doesn't it contradict the definition of void? If void is nothingness, then, what is the point of including a lot of nothing? Essentially, including such nothing is merely an ad hoc adjustment and further it adds no value to the universe; thus, why include it? Maybe it isn't nothing, I mean its there isn't it? People can go to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:53 pm
SyphaBelnades chaoticpuppet If it includes that void, doesn't it contradict the definition of void? If void is nothingness, then, what is the point of including a lot of nothing? Essentially, including such nothing is merely an ad hoc adjustment and further it adds no value to the universe; thus, why include it? Maybe it isn't nothing, I mean its there isn't it? People can go to it. People cannot go to said void for two reasons, it is not there (because if it were, it would be something, which a void is not, a void is nothing), and secondly, they would die before they reached it, possibly they would even die before they reached it, if they traversed the distance at the speed of light. So, if this void is something, then it is no longer a void. If people can reach it, then it is not far enough away as to where people cannot yet not reach it, and if people can reach it, then it is not a void.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:09 pm
chaoticpuppet SyphaBelnades chaoticpuppet If it includes that void, doesn't it contradict the definition of void? If void is nothingness, then, what is the point of including a lot of nothing? Essentially, including such nothing is merely an ad hoc adjustment and further it adds no value to the universe; thus, why include it? Maybe it isn't nothing, I mean its there isn't it? People can go to it. People cannot go to said void for two reasons, it is not there (because if it were, it would be something, which a void is not, a void is nothing), and secondly, they would die before they reached it, possibly they would even die before they reached it, if they traversed the distance at the speed of light. So, if this void is something, then it is no longer a void. If people can reach it, then it is not far enough away as to where people cannot yet not reach it, and if people can reach it, then it is not a void. i think you are right; i choose the wrong word. instead consider a vacuum. if there was an infinitely volumous vacuum that was inclusive in the definition of universe, then the universe would be infiniate, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:22 pm
chaoticpuppet SyphaBelnades chaoticpuppet If it includes that void, doesn't it contradict the definition of void? If void is nothingness, then, what is the point of including a lot of nothing? Essentially, including such nothing is merely an ad hoc adjustment and further it adds no value to the universe; thus, why include it? Maybe it isn't nothing, I mean its there isn't it? People can go to it. People cannot go to said void for two reasons, it is not there (because if it were, it would be something, which a void is not, a void is nothing), and secondly, they would die before they reached it, possibly they would even die before they reached it, if they traversed the distance at the speed of light. So, if this void is something, then it is no longer a void. If people can reach it, then it is not far enough away as to where people cannot yet not reach it, and if people can reach it, then it is not a void. But we can measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, right? Isn't that just measuring something in terms of nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:59 pm
Kalorn including the volume of the void that the universe is expanding into, Is the universe expanding into an already existing area, though? (Keeping in mind that the last time I saw current concepts on this was about 5 years ago, but...) From what I understand, at least one major hypothesis on the expansion of the universe held that the universe, in three physical dimensions, is like the skin of a balloon in two dimensions. It is finite but unbounded. You can inflate a balloon, and it expands; but it's not expanding "into" any space, from the point of view of the balloon. Likewise, the universe may be a giant (well, technically, last I heard it was 11-dimensional) balloon that's slowly inflating. Just like the ancient Greek model of the universe: there was the world, the elements, the sun, the planets, the stars, etc. All on concentric spheres. But then you got to the last sphere. "What's outside there?" The question was meaningless, because there was no "outside the last sphere."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:34 pm
Yes, I love and revere the earth. Without her, nothing would exist in this space. My beliefs are inextricably intertwined with Gaea and the life stream. The whole thing is a little mottled and hard to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:54 pm
I think I've always beleived in the earth as a living being- it actually hadn't occurred to me that it could be any other way until a few months ago.
I think that, since everything that dies goes back to the earth, and the earth in turn hosts everything under the sun (literally), how could it- she be anything other than alive? Besides, how can I not appreciate the planet I live on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:59 pm
I've never thought of it but i could definately consider myself to be a Gaian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:29 am
I am very Gaean. :3 The world is our mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:13 pm
My dad is a Gaian..... Its pretty cool.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:52 pm
Well, although I believe that the earth is sacred, I believe it is not Gaia, but Geb, as the sky is Nut and the air between is Shu. Instead of the earth being our mother, I believe it is our Father, as Geb is the earth and Father of Aset, Wesir, Set, Heru the elder and Nebthet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
