EVE Search - Why do I still have toes?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why do I still have toes?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:11:00 - [31] Originally by: Tippia Because otherwise you'd fall over. NP, got it covered, picked up a cane (and top hat, to go with the monocle) in the NeX store. -
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:34:00 - [32] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I see this a lot, people constantly confusing Universe and Galaxy. What our characters live within is the New Eden or "EVE" galaxy. That galaxy exists in THE Universe. And if the Universe or "a" Universe is infinite, then I would begin to wonder just how old it really is, or if it can even be measured with time. I believe it is more likely that _you_ are the confused one, as we know by the cosmic microwave background that the universe as we know it is 13.7 billion years. Even if you start talking about infinite universe (which isn't theoretically ruled out), that infinite universe would still be expanded from the same singularity. Actually we can only see as far back as the point where photons could fly free, however the theoretical infinite universe would have to have started as singularity that had no edges. (Can't have an universe both infinitely large and infinitely old, as that would mean you have an infinite amount of light coming from all directions) However they've been looking at the CMB and done some calculations on the fine structure, basically temperature differences, which suggests that a finite universe would be about 100 times larger than the observable universe. Some 1.3 trillion lightyears across. http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/ Strongly recommend people interested in astronomy subscribe to that podcast.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:37:00 - [33] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I see this a lot, people constantly confusing Universe and Galaxy. What our characters live within is the New Eden or "EVE" galaxy. That galaxy exists in THE Universe. And if the Universe or "a" Universe is infinite, then I would begin to wonder just how old it really is, or if it can even be measured with time. I believe it is more likely that _you_ are the confused one, as we know by the cosmic microwave background that the universe as we know it is 13.7 billion years. Even if you start talking about infinite universe (which isn't theoretically ruled out), that infinite universe would still be expanded from the same singularity. Actually we can only see as far back as the point where photons could fly free, however the theoretical infinite universe would have to have started as singularity that had no edges. (Can't have an universe both infinitely large and infinitely old, as that would mean you have an infinite amount of light coming from all directions) However they've been looking at the CMB and done some calculations on the fine structure, basically temperature differences, which suggests that a finite universe would be about 100 times larger than the observable universe. Some 1.3 trillion lightyears across. http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/ Strongly recommend people interested in astronomy subscribe to that podcast. People actually do confuse Galaxy with Universe though, happens a lot here. Fly safe, Die hard
Eternum Praetorian PWNED Factor The Seventh Day	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:43:00 - [34] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 24/07/2011 23:47:21 Who is this silly person saying that scientists are now saying the Big Bang is not the answer? Do you have anything resembling a reputable reference backing up this statement? Even super string theory adheres to the principles of a big bang, although they contribute it to the impacting of "brains" in place of a singularity.
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:52:00 - [35] Edited by: Victoria Arnolles on 24/07/2011 23:52:46 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Do you have anything resembling a reputable reference backing up this statement? Even super string theory adheres to the principles of a big bang, although they contribute it to the impacting of "brains" in place of a singularity. It's spelled "branes" (as in "membranes"); saying "impacting of brains" could give people the wrong idea Originally by: Meryl SinGarda People actually do confuse Galaxy with Universe though, happens a lot here. Can you give one example of it happening in this thread? (Other than yourself.)
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:54:00 - [36] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 23:57:39 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 24/07/2011 23:47:21 Who is this silly person saying that scientists are now saying the Big Bang is not the answer? Do you have anything resembling a reputable reference backing up this statement? Even super string theory adheres to the principles of a big bang, although they contribute it to the impacting of "brains" in place of a singularity. Big Bounce There's a link at the top of the page for the actual article, but this is what I'm talking about. Fly safe, Die hard
Miilla Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:55:00 - [37] SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE! SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE!
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:04:00 - [38] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Who is this silly person saying that scientists are now saying the Big Bang is not the answer? Do you have anything resembling a reputable reference backing up this statement? Even super string theory adheres to the principles of a big bang, although they contribute it to the impacting of "brains" in place of a singularity. Big Bounce Perhaps you should read more than just the title: "In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang." They're not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, just that there might be some other events leading up to the Big Bang.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:08:00 - [39] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 00:08:12 Originally by: Victoria Arnolles Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Who is this silly person saying that scientists are now saying the Big Bang is not the answer? Do you have anything resembling a reputable reference backing up this statement? Even super string theory adheres to the principles of a big bang, although they contribute it to the impacting of "brains" in place of a singularity. Big Bounce Perhaps you should read more than just the title: "In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang." They're not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, just that there might be some other events leading up to the Big Bang. I did, and it suggests that there was something before the "Big Bang." That this event was only one in a longer chain of events we may not yet know anything about. Also, Boy Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang Theory Fly safe, Die hard
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:12:00 - [40] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Big Bounce a.k.a Big Crunch There's a link at the top of the page for the actual article, but this is what I'm talking about. Exactly how does the Big Bounce theory in any way support your claim? The bouncing would set the conditions to the same as a big bang, plus explain the fine structures in the CMB, and there would be no 'universe' older than the 13.7 billion years. What came before would have degenerated into the stuff that made up the first second of the expansion of the universe. Aka, what was before photons could fly freely.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:14:00 - [41] Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 25/07/2011 00:14:48 Originally by: Miilla SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE! SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE! [H2] [Yellow] WHO WOULD EVER SAY NO TO LOLIS WITH CAMEL TOE???
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:14:00 - [42] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 00:18:03 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Big Bounce a.k.a Big Crunch There's a link at the top of the page for the actual article, but this is what I'm talking about. Exactly how does the Big Bounce theory in any way support your claim? The bouncing would set the conditions to the same as a big bang, plus explain the fine structures in the CMB, and there would be no 'universe' older than the 13.7 billion years. What came before would have degenerated into the stuff that made up the first second of the expansion of the universe. Aka, what was before photons could fly freely. Quote: If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang. A lot of crunching, banging and bouncing. Sounds like an interesting night out to me. And I'll add that it sounds to me, at least, as if (and this is my theory) that another Universe had existed before, just like ours. Had reached its expanding limits, crunched, bounced, banged and restarted. Kinda like a reset button. But, you know, you can keep being all defensive about what you believe. Fly safe, Die hard
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:21:00 - [43] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 00:18:03 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Big Bounce a.k.a Big Crunch There's a link at the top of the page for the actual article, but this is what I'm talking about. Exactly how does the Big Bounce theory in any way support your claim? The bouncing would set the conditions to the same as a big bang, plus explain the fine structures in the CMB, and there would be no 'universe' older than the 13.7 billion years. What came before would have degenerated into the stuff that made up the first second of the expansion of the universe. Aka, what was before photons could fly freely. Quote: If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang. A lot of crunching, banging and bouncing. Sounds like an interesting night out to me. And I'll add that it sounds to me, at least, as if (and this is my theory) that another Universe had existed before, just like ours. Had reached its expanding limits, crunched, bounced, banged and restarted. Kinda like a reset button. But, you know, you can keep being all defensive about what you believe. Yes, we already know you have no idea about the subject you are trying to cut-n-paste about.
Nehmen Geld	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:23:00 - [44] Edited by: Nehmen Geld on 25/07/2011 00:23:24 Three reasons; 1. As previously mentioned, toes are important. Standing up without them would be difficult and we have to stand up to keep our brains cool (assuming we spend SOME time on a planet). 2. Cloning is an anti-evolutionary technology. Every time I die my consciousness is reborn into an exact replica of my previous body. The clones don't evolve so neither do I. 3. Current science is wrong. EVE is right. :)
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:25:00 - [45] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I did, and it suggests that there was something before the "Big Bang." That this event was only one in a longer chain of events we may not yet know anything about. You said "they're not even sure if the "Big Bang" is the right answer" (post #7), while your source clearly says the Big Bang happened. That something led up to that event doesn't mean it didn't happen (in fact, it means it did happen). There are many theories about what might have started the Big Bang, but all agree on what happened once it started. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, Boy Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang Theory I'm sure he's a smart kid, but the story (as reported) seems a bit too simplified to be able to identify major problems with the theory (any problems would likely be due to the simplification; for instance there's no mention of different types of supernovae or of different generations of stars). In any case, it would take a bit more than some value of one element being off for us to overthrow our complete view of the universe; such an anomaly could likely be explained by tweaking some parts of the theory rather than throwing it out entirely. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda The key word, all long, has always been theory. There's a difference between the colloquial meaning of 'theory' and the scientific meaning. The Theory of Gravity will work whether you consider it "just a theory" or not.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:26:00 - [46] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 00:18:03 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Big Bounce a.k.a Big Crunch There's a link at the top of the page for the actual article, but this is what I'm talking about. Exactly how does the Big Bounce theory in any way support your claim? The bouncing would set the conditions to the same as a big bang, plus explain the fine structures in the CMB, and there would be no 'universe' older than the 13.7 billion years. What came before would have degenerated into the stuff that made up the first second of the expansion of the universe. Aka, what was before photons could fly freely. Quote: If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang. A lot of crunching, banging and bouncing. Sounds like an interesting night out to me. And I'll add that it sounds to me, at least, as if (and this is my theory) that another Universe had existed before, just like ours. Had reached its expanding limits, crunched, bounced, banged and restarted. Kinda like a reset button. But, you know, you can keep being all defensive about what you believe. Yes, we already know you have no idea about the subject you are trying to cut-n-paste about. You're wearing a monocle underneath those sunglasses, aren't you? Oh, holier than thou one, your facts hold much more weight than the theories based around them. Fly safe, Die hard
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:28:00 - [47] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 00:35:47 Originally by: Victoria Arnolles Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I did, and it suggests that there was something before the "Big Bang." That this event was only one in a longer chain of events we may not yet know anything about. You said "they're not even sure if the "Big Bang" is the right answer" (post #7), while your source clearly says the Big Bang happened. That something led up to that event doesn't mean it didn't happen (in fact, it means it did happen). There are many theories about what might have started the Big Bang, but all agree on what happened once it started. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, Boy Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang Theory I'm sure he's a smart kid, but the story (as reported) seems a bit too simplified to be able to identify major problems with the theory (any problems would likely be due to the simplification; for instance there's no mention of different types of supernovae or of different generations of stars). In any case, it would take a bit more than some value of one element being off for us to overthrow our complete view of the universe; such an anomaly could likely be explained by tweaking some parts of the theory rather than throwing it out entirely. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda The key word, all long, has always been theory. There's a difference between the colloquial meaning of 'theory' and the scientific meaning. The Theory of Gravity will work whether you consider it "just a theory" or not. And what about when scientists were absolutely sure the Universe was infinite? If we were still in that time, would you be here defending that with every fiber of your being, simply because you'd like to think everything you've read is right and fact? I wonder what the scientific theory will be in 10 years, 20 years. And I wonder what unthinking people like you will do then. Also, here's your definition of Scientific theory, since wiki seems to be the place for fact finding around here: Quote: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1] A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2] Fly safe, Die hard
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:39:00 - [48] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda And what about when scientists were absolutely sure the Universe was infinite? There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. Stuff like: "When was that?", "Did they?", "Don't they know?", "Define 'Universe' (Does it cover just the one we're in, or would a multiverse count?)", "Define 'Infinite' (is it bounded or unbounded?)". Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I wonder what the scientific theory will be in 10 years, 20 years. Since the Scientific Revolution, scientific theories get more and more refined as parts get proven not exactly right, but rarely our entire understanding of a field is proven completely false. Einstein proved Newton wrong, but Newton's laws can still get you to the Moon and back. Darwin wasn't exactly right, but current biological theories are built on what he wrote. When atoms were first proposed, they were thought to be fundamental particles - that has proven to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the atoms stopped existing. And so on, and so on.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:41:00 - [49] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda You're wearing a monocle underneath those sunglasses, aren't you? Oh, holier than thou one, your facts hold much more weight than the theories based around them. Yes, cause unlike you I know what is supported by good facts and what is pure speculation. First of all, we strongly suspect based on research the past few years that the universe we currently inhabit isn't going to stop expanding, thus we would have to be living in a very special universe that was the last one, one that didn't bounce. And the idea of time does not extend prior to the big bang, as time started at that point, and how the big bang happened does not in any way change how old the universe is. BTW, I'm glad you like my googles, and would like to inform you that I've bought a total of 25 through the NEX store.
Sadayiel Caldari Inner Conflict	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:44:00 - [50] I once got bored and wrote the mathematical definition of God, the universe and well existence. X(sub n) = (Equation) = Y(sub n) Here ya go existence explained by some crappy guy who failed at maths DEAR MONOCLE OVERLORDS JOIN TO FORCE CCP ADD LORGNETTE FOR THE OVERLADIES!!

Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 00:48:00 - [51] Originally by: Victoria Arnolles Originally by: Meryl SinGarda And what about when scientists were absolutely sure the Universe was infinite? There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. Stuff like: "When was that?", "Did they?", "Don't they know?", "Define 'Universe' (Does it cover just the one we're in, or would a multiverse count?)", "Define 'Infinite' (is it bounded or unbounded?)". Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I wonder what the scientific theory will be in 10 years, 20 years. Since the Scientific Revolution, scientific theories get more and more refined as parts get proven not exactly right, but rarely our entire understanding of a field is proven completely false. Einstein proved Newton wrong, but Newton's laws can still get you to the Moon and back. Darwin wasn't exactly right, but current biological theories are built on what he wrote. When atoms were first proposed, they were thought to be fundamental particles - that has proven to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the atoms stopped existing. And so on, and so on. And it will continue. Do you honestly think that we are at the peak of our knowledge about the Universe? Hell, I knew a guy once that believed the Universe to be encased in a bubble. He also went on to say that he believed that bubble to be made of chocolate. Sure, that's definitely not the case, but if we're talking multiverse here and let's just say that there are an infinite number of multiverses, maybe that's true in some crazy, chaotic dimension. Or maybe I read too much science fiction. Fly safe, Die hard
Taedrin Gallente Zero Percent Tax Haven	Posted - 2011.07.25 01:20:00 - [52] What I find interesting are the stars with an age of 350 billion years old, yet our very own universe is only expected to live for another 20 billion years according to most "ultimate fate of the universe" theories. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Angelina The Red	Posted - 2011.07.25 01:39:00 - [53] While i have a limited understanding of astronomical things like this, i do have a question? Why does the big bang theroy rule out stuff beyond what it would have expanded to? Why cant there be multiply singularities floating around hundreds of trillions of light yeas away from each other that move in such direction and speed that there masses simply dont exert enough gravitaional forces to ever bring them together? From what i understand the universes age is measure based on where we thought the big bang occured and some other things right?
Eternum Praetorian PWNED Factor The Seventh Day	Posted - 2011.07.25 02:35:00 - [54] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 25/07/2011 02:35:42 At some point people stopped observing a phenomena and then use math to explain/predict the forces involved (and their outcomes) and instead they just skip right to the math part without ever seeing anything physical. This is a dramatic change in paradigm starting to occur in our modern era and it is foolhardy. This is the new downfall of the new modern day "Math Religion" And it spawns bizarre theories that have absolutely no basis in the observable physical world.
Ariel Stonetalker	Posted - 2011.07.25 02:49:00 - [55] Originally by: Melchiades Seti Odd, since the guy who plays me (and holds a certain physical resemblance to me) lives in a universe estimated to be only about 15-16 billion years old. From the perspective of that person, the New Eden universe in its entirety is 0 billion years old. In fact, it's a lot closer to "a billionth of a billion" years old than even 1 billion. That said... The physics of New Eden cause spaceships to stop if they cut power, allow for zero-fuel propulsion at several thousand times c with essentially no acceleration, and have instantaneous communication across scores of AU. If ANY ONE of these things are possible, then the cosmologic theories of 21th century Earth are fundamentally wrong. Forget about the age of the universe; if it's possible to send matter from point A to point B at even as "slow" as speed as 0.002 AU/sec, they can't even be sure as to the size of the Milky Way. Oh, and one last thing: Quote: Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Human beings without toes do not reproduce more than human beings with toes, as they are thought to be ugly and undesirable. Absent an advantage in reproduction, no evolutionary change should be expected to propagate in a meaningful fashion. Even assuming that the apparent story of evolution is correct, we should conclude that the advent of sentience and civilization diminishes the advantage of significant evolution. It's hard to imagine an evolutionary advance that would be more advantageous than interacting with civilization.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.07.25 04:10:00 - [56] Originally by: Melchiades Seti Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? Because the human race is the only species that actively fights against evolution. Anything different is assumed to be a "defect" and selected against by social mores. Group-think ftw. --Vel Originally by: Blacksquirrel This is EVE. PVE can happen anywhere at anytime. Be prepared.
Dana Dawn	Posted - 2011.07.25 08:21:00 - [57] Edited by: Dana Dawn on 25/07/2011 08:21:43 Since the current stars could not have existed before the (last) big bang, the whole discussion about the universe being older is silly. If in our time the (last) big bang happened around 14 billion years ago, then that means that something extraordinary has happened if the age of these stars are a lot older. First interesting fact is that the universe has not suffered a heat death 100s of billion years from now. Second interesting fact is that these stars stay alive for such a long time. It means that the new eden wormhole must have linked to the future. And EVE does not play 10k years but at least 150G years in the future. From point of few of the people only 10k years have passed, which is not very long on the evolutionary scale for humans. It is the only reasonable explanation.
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.25 09:10:00 - [58] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda And it will continue. Do you honestly think that we are at the peak of our knowledge about the Universe? You weren't arguing that - you were saying that everything we know might turn out to be wrong. As I said, it's highly unlikely that that is the case; rather, we will refine our current theories on details and on extreme ends (at tiny scales and superhigh temperatures). Originally by: Angelina The Red Why does the big bang theroy rule out stuff beyond what it would have expanded to? In short: it doesn't; multiple universes existing ('multiverse') is a quite popular explanation among cosmologists.
Kaptain Kruncher	Posted - 2011.07.25 10:50:00 - [59] If you look like any of the people I have seen in pictures of Fanfest- you probably can't see your toes. Ignorance is bliss, so.....move along.
Goldman Suchs	Posted - 2011.07.25 10:50:00 - [60] NSFRF (Not Safe For Religious Fundamentalists): You have fingers and toes because they evolved from fish fins. They are unlikely to disappear because they are needed for balance and holding things, so there is an evolutionary pressure to maintain them.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE! SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE!

SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE! SAY NO TO CAMEL TOE!