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)
Melchiades Seti	Posted - 2011.07.24 20:30:00 - [1] I chanced to "show info" on a star one day. The game, so rich in detail, had many facts about the sun, including its age. It said 67 billion years. 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. I looked at some more stars. Some were over 350 billion years old! This means I live in a time hundreds of billions of years later than the person who plays me. Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Something on which to think in my travels amongst the stars.
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.07.24 20:39:00 - [2] You would know the answer to your question if you just paid a slight bit of attention to your robe-clad neighbours. -
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.07.24 20:43:00 - [3] Edited by: Akita T on 24/07/2011 20:44:19 Canonically, EVE is only around 10k years in the future Then again, the showinfo is bonkers. P.S. The "EVE wormhole" could have been a transdimensional wormhole into a much, MUCH older universe _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 20:59:00 - [4] you know we are created in the image of god, maybe feet with toes is the highest form of evolution :)
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:11:00 - [5] 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. But, judging from your post, I would think that you meant galaxy, like a lot of the other people that I see confusing these two words. Speaking of galaxies, I would crawl through a million wartargets, pirates, Sansha slaves and electromagnetic clouds to be able to fly into the Milky Way Galaxy. Fly safe, Die hard
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:24:00 - [6] Edited by: dexington on 24/07/2011 21:27:27 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda 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. Age of the universe
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:25:00 - [7] Originally by: dexington Originally by: Meryl SinGarda 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. Age of the universe Bad request. And all of these things are theories. Scientists are saying now that they're not even sure if the "Big Bang" is the right answer. Take your wikipedia and shove it. Fly safe, Die hard
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:26:00 - [8] 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. The universe we live in is slightly less than 14 billion years old. You can go on all day about other universes or what existed before this universe happened, fact is that the EVE galaxy must be in the same universe as us, since we went there, found exactly the same type of stuff there and could live there. That means stars in the EVE galaxy, just like all other stars in all other galaxies in our universe cannot be older than 14 billion years (even less than that, since first generation stars wouldn't last that long).
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:27:00 - [9] Originally by: Victoria Arnolles 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. The universe we live in is slightly less than 14 billion years old. You can go on all day about other universes or what existed before this universe happened, fact is that the EVE galaxy must be in the same universe as us, since we went there, found exactly the same type of stuff there and could live there. That means stars in the EVE galaxy, just like all other stars in all other galaxies in our universe cannot be older than 14 billion years (even less than that, since first generation stars wouldn't last that long). You use "is" and "cannot" as if these are all solid facts. Fly safe, Die hard
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:30:00 - [10] Edited by: Victoria Arnolles on 24/07/2011 21:35:35 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda And all of these things are theories. Scientists are saying now that they're not even sure if the "Big Bang" is the right answer. Depends on what question your asking. If it is "where did the part of the universe we can see come from" all evidence points at a tiny point almost 14 billion years ago. Where did that point come from? Dunno. Was that point all that existed? Dunno. Did we come from that point? Absolutely. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda You use "is" and "cannot" as if these are all solid facts. They're as solid facts as you'll ever encounter in science. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda I have learned never to just accept something without asking more questions. *******s. A vast majority of scientists (in fields relevant to this topic) supports the facts I just mentioned. These facts are based on observation and theories based on these facts work beautifully, so there's no reason to question the facts. There are no questions you (or I) could ask which they haven't thought of yet.

Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:35:00 - [11] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:36:37 Originally by: Victoria Arnolles They're as solid facts as you'll ever encounter in science. At least right now they are, in the year 2011. Originally by: Victoria Arnolles Bullocks. A vast majority of scientists (in fields relevant to this topic) supports the facts I just mentioned. These facts are based on observation and theories based on these facts work beautifully, so there's no reason to question the facts. There are no questions you (or I) could ask which they haven't thought of yet. Also, if you're not asking questions, then you obviously aren't thinking, are you? Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. Fly safe, Die hard
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, if you're not asking questions, then you obviously aren't thinking, are you? Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. You are also one of the people who believe the universe is infinite... you need to go to the library and read a book, you got a lot of catching up to do.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:45:00 - [13] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:47:18 Originally by: dexington Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, if you're not asking questions, then you obviously aren't thinking, are you? Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. You are also one of the people who believe the universe is infinite... you need to go to the library and read a book, you got a lot of catching up to do. I believe that you've got some reading comprehension to cover. Please, scroll up. Also, sorry Melchiades Seti. I didn't mean for this to turn into what it is now. Lesson learned, you challenge the beliefs and theories of any person and they'll go all stubborn and blinders on you. Fly safe, Die hard
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:46:00 - [14] Edited by: Misanth on 24/07/2011 21:47:26 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:36:37 Originally by: Victoria Arnolles They're as solid facts as you'll ever encounter in science. At least right now they are, in the year 2011. Originally by: Victoria Arnolles Bullocks. A vast majority of scientists (in fields relevant to this topic) supports the facts I just mentioned. These facts are based on observation and theories based on these facts work beautifully, so there's no reason to question the facts. There are no questions you (or I) could ask which they haven't thought of yet. Also, if you're not asking questions, then you obviously aren't thinking, are you? Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. You should've hooked on my RP response instead of keeping this serious argument.. ..but since it's an entertaining topic; let's bring maths and probability in this too, shall we? The odd chance of life springing up out of nowhere, in the Earth-scenario taught by evolutionists, is less likely (pure maths) than aliens or a God or hell even an EVE-gate is. Big Bang just makes it a whole lot more advanced. And while most alot of theories can't be proven, technicly, like the structure of atom cores etc, we can still see parts of it in microscope - and predict it's structure based on behaviour, by proven facts in other cases. That is quite different from the Big Bang, or hell even life spawning out of volcanoes and frogfishes. There's no facts, and logic speaks for it, it's just a theory as much as anything else. And more appealing to believe in, than aliens or a deity. So, let's get back to the EVE RP. Being Amarrian the answer to your question is quite simple. Deity ftw, alot more appealing than believing in a low-chance random event, or some random galaxy-travellers. /me stuffs the hood with tinfoil -
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. ****ing magnets, how do they work?
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Melchiades Seti I chanced to "show info" on a star one day. The game, so rich in detail, had many facts about the sun, including its age. It said 67 billion years. 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. I looked at some more stars. Some were over 350 billion years old! This means I live in a time hundreds of billions of years later than the person who plays me. Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Something on which to think in my travels amongst the stars. Why wouldnt you have toes? Youre of the same genetic stock that populates the planets(Dust). And Toes are really handy for moving around over diverse terrain. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:49:00 - [17] Originally by: dexington You are also one of the people who believe the universe is infinite... you need to go to the library and read a book, you got a lot of catching up to do. She's probably too busy asking questions instead of reading the answers to those questions in books. A recent one which I quite liked was Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, it's mainstream and accesible. For a more technical perspective, I can recommend Abraham Loeb's How Did the First Stars and Galaxies Form and for a quite speculative approach Marcus Chown's The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead. If anyone else has any suggested reading on the subject, I'd love to hear about it :)
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:49:00 - [18] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:50:28 Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Sorry, but I guess I'm one of the few that don't just accept things because a bunch of guys in white coats told me to, or because a guy in a black coat stood atop an altar and read from a book. **ing magnets, how do they work? Magnets and something we can only see through a telescope are two entirely different things. Take your old meme and please go back to World of Warcraft or 4chan, whichever came first. And with that, I leave this argument. The stubbornness of the people arguing here, in this thread, is exactly why it's taking so long to evolve. Fly safe, Die hard**
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:53:00 - [19] Edited by: dexington on 24/07/2011 21:53:36 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Originally by: dexington You are also one of the people who believe the universe is infinite... you need to go to the library and read a book, you got a lot of catching up to do. I believe that you've got some reading comprehension to cover. Please, scroll up. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda 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.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:54:00 - [20] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:57:46 Originally by: dexington Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Originally by: dexington You are also one of the people who believe the universe is infinite... you need to go to the library and read a book, you got a lot of catching up to do. I believe that you've got some reading comprehension to cover. Please, scroll up. Originally by: Meryl SinGarda 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. Did you miss the part where I said "if." For crying out loud EVE players. And because you're next rebuttal will be just as shallow-minded, I believe that everything exists in theories. You can sit there with your tea and monocle and thump books all day long - and I'm not saying I disagree with everything - but, again, if you simply except everything, you're as bad as the rest of them. (p.s. I read, among other things involving words) /end Fly safe, Die hard

dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:56:00 - [21] And what point would there be in assuming the universe is infinite, when we know it's not...
Vain Eldritch Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:57:00 - [22] Because my dear, without your toes you'd fall over. Evolution has the habbit to only remove useless genetic traits (like the desire to join a conservative political party) or self-destructive genetic traits (like the desire join a conser... you get the idea). ______________________________ Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas.
Augustus Giovanni	Posted - 2011.07.24 21:58:00 - [23] What environmental pressure would select against toes in EVE?
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:05:00 - [24] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/07/2011 20:44:19 Canonically, EVE is only around 10k years in the future Then again, the showinfo is bonkers. P.S. The "EVE wormhole" could have been a transdimensional wormhole into a much, MUCH older universe Given that a number of physical laws* have radically changed in the EVE universe, this is as good an explanation as any. All of Newtons Laws of Motion spring to mind immediately Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always* to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Ingkala	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:14:00 - [25] 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. The universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old.
Melchiades Seti	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:31:00 - [26] Actually I've enjoyed reading the entire thread. :) Maybe toes will be more finger-like. Imagine the possibilities. Whichever, I hope whatever replaces them can't get gout! That doesn't belong in any galaxy or universe.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:33:00 - [27] Originally by: Melchiades Seti Actually I've enjoyed reading the entire thread. :) Maybe toes will be more finger-like. Imagine the possibilities. Whichever, I hope whatever replaces them can't get gout! That doesn't belong in any galaxy or universe. Floating brains, that's it :P Fly safe, Die hard
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:39:00 - [28] Originally by: Melchiades Seti Maybe toes will be more finger-like. Imagine the possibilities. would be fun if we evolved back into monkeys, that would just prove it was bad idea to leave the trees in the first place :)
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:42:00 - [29] Originally by: dexington Originally by: Melchiades Seti Maybe toes will be more finger-like. Imagine the possibilities. would be fun if we evolved back into monkeys, that would just prove it was bad idea to leave the trees in the first place :) Fish, we were fish-frogs man! -
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.24 22:45:00 - [30] Because otherwise you'd fall over. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP

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.

Thutmose I	Posted - 2011.07.25 12:20:00 - [61] I noticed this same exact problem a while ago when doing surveys on G, then I was only looking for data on planets, but decided to see if it mentioned surface gravity of the stars as well, BTW, in Eve, I determined that the value of G is between 6.6510^-11 and 6.710^-11 (with appropriate units), which is fairly close to the correct value, so I assume they used the right maths for generating the surface gravity numbers for planets, so why not give the right ages? note: this was done spring of 2009, so before they edited the planets, so they may have gone and messed up that data as well.
Skippermonkey Tactical Knightmare Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2011.07.25 12:44:00 - [62] Originally by: Augustus Giovanni What environmental pressure would select against toes in EVE? slaver hounds - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EVE: TESTING GROUNDS FOR WoD & DUST SINCE 2011
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 13:27:00 - [63] Originally by: Victoria Arnolles 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. You're still talking? Holy crap. "Highly unlikely..." Ugh, give me a freakin' break. I would laugh myself to death if, tomorrow, scientists and astrologists came to the media and exclaimed that we are just 1 Universe along a chain of past Universes that have existed much longer than this imaginary thing we call time. Why would I be laughing? Because then I could come back to this thread, get the last word and watch you type a large string ellipses. Keep clutching old and current ideas, because this is surely how science evolves. You're right, I'm wrong. I should stop thinking altogether, put down the books, stop looking to the sky and be complacent. We are very close to knowing how everything works and there isn't anymore reason to wonder. Pfft. Your limited thinking is part of the human problem.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.25 13:32:00 - [64] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda "Highly unlikely..." Ugh, give me a freakin' break. I would laugh myself to death if, tomorrow, scientists and astrologists came to the media and exclaimed that we are just 1 Universe along a chain of past Universes that have existed much longer than this imaginary thing we call time. Why would I be laughing? Because then I could come back to this thread, get the last word and watch you type a large string ellipses. It's really hard to follow your logic, you say you don't believe the theories currently accepted by the scientific community, for whatever reason you may have. Still if they were to suggest new theories tomorrow you would happily accept them as the absolute truth.
Meryl SinGarda Caldari Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team	Posted - 2011.07.25 13:44:00 - [65] Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 13:46:30 Originally by: dexington Originally by: Meryl SinGarda "Highly unlikely..." Ugh, give me a freakin' break. I would laugh myself to death if, tomorrow, scientists and astrologists came to the media and exclaimed that we are just 1 Universe along a chain of past Universes that have existed much longer than this imaginary thing we call time. Why would I be laughing? Because then I could come back to this thread, get the last word and watch you type a large string ellipses. It's really hard to follow your logic, you say you don't believe the theories currently accepted by the scientific community, for whatever reason you may have. Still if they were to suggest new theories tomorrow you would happily accept them as the absolute truth. Another part of the problem. Reading comprehension. Not many people possess this. I am exhausted by this topic. If it at some point during this painful discussion I mentioned that I hold absolute disbelief in every scientific theory available - either I was typing and stringing different ideas and theories together that I have gathered and partially getting lost amidst the upset I have caused in the very small world of a few people, or you need glasses. edit: Or perhaps you have just perceived the things that I have said to be what you think they are, because you don't understand them. I don't know, I don't care anymore. Trying to get people to think outside of their box is like punching a fully operational garbage disposal, metallic teeth first.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.25 13:52:00 - [66] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda If it at some point during this painful discussion I mentioned that I hold absolute disbelief in every scientific theory available - either I was typing and stringing different ideas and theories together that I have gathered and partially getting lost amidst the upset I have caused in the very small world of a few people, or you need glasses. I don't think you have upset anyone, amused is probably the word you are looking for.
Victoria Arnolles	Posted - 2011.07.25 13:52:00 - [67] Edited by: Victoria Arnolles on 25/07/2011 13:53:21 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda "Highly unlikely..." Ugh, give me a freakin' break. I would laugh myself to death if, tomorrow, scientists and astrologists [sic] came to the media and exclaimed that we are just 1 Universe along a chain of past Universes that have existed much longer than this imaginary thing we call time. Why would I be laughing? Because then I could come back to this thread, get the last word and watch you type a large string ellipses. Actually, that would not be in conflict with the Big Bang model; you fail to grasp what the Big Bang is all about: the Big Bang model describes the early stages of the expansion of our universe, and it doesn't matter what happened before or what caused it (if anything). Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Keep clutching old and current ideas, because this is surely how science evolves. You're right, I'm wrong. I should stop thinking altogether, put down the books, stop looking to the sky and be complacent. Ironically, the cyclical model of the universe is older than the other theories mentioned in this thread. The other theories have been developped mainly because the cyclical model does not account for ever-expanding universes (as we're likely in).
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.25 14:01:00 - [68] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda ...And it will continue. Do you honestly think that we are at the peak of our knowledge about the Universe?... The reason of skirmish in this topic is your wrong psychology. You use same ****ed ideas as those **ed fans of UFO/astral/ancient supercivilizations/atlantis/voodoo/magic/ghosts/yeti/homeopathy and so on. Say, isn't that nice to feel yourself so smart and openminded, unlike those stupid and closeminded scientists and their brainless followers? I sure it does. But guess what, asking a question and making an answer is not the same thing. So asking questions wount make you smart. "One fool can ask more questions, than a 100 wise men can answer", as it says. And that thing in you makes people oppose you here, not their blind devoteness to the word of Science. You call people closeminded but you are the one. Or just a frenzied iconoclast. So, back to your idea. Do you awake in the morning and ask yourself is it realy you? Is this your face/name/home/dog/mom/planet/Universe? Do you ask yourself that everyday? If you do - go visit a doctor. You don't? So you don't think, isn't it? =) It is obvious you need a reason to start questioning. You don't question your identity before you get the reason to it, so why scientists have to start questioning good theory with no reason? And science is a fact based thing. So noone questions a theory until there is a fact opposing it. And all facts are supporting current view on the age of Universe, and you have a right to question that view only if you have new facts or revisioned old ones. No facts? - GTFO. And Science always open to the new views and revisioned old ones - that's why a Big Bang theory is called a THEORY, you silly =) ----------------------------------------------- p.s. sorry for mistakes, I'm not from English speaking country p.s.s. no offence meaned at all, that's just me being nerdish ***** =)
Justice Starcatcher Volatile Nature	Posted - 2011.07.25 14:20:00 - [69] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edit: While I am atheist, I have learned never to just accept something without asking more questions. I see people doing this a lot, whether they're religious or not. Stop accepting things as they're fed to you and continue to ask questions. Meryl, yes everything can be questioned. Philosophers question whether we even exist! But, it doesnÆt change the fact that my boss expects me to be at work on time Monday morning. It would be fun to spend every day daydreaming about all the questions in the world, but life is too short. We have to make assumptions and rely on other peopleÆs conclusions if we hope to get anything done, and choose those questions that are important to us. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume I have to pay my taxes, I assume my wife will kill me if I screw the girl in the next office. I find it ironic youÆre asking us to have an open mind, but then make the absolute statement ôIÆm an atheistö (aka there is no God). Maybe you should be still asking some questions?? Anyways, I think CCP missed a decimal point. I just divide the star ages by ten and they make sense.
BellaDonna Nyghtshade Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2011.07.25 14:22:00 - [70] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, if this is true, who's image was used in the creation of the eventual extraterrestrials we'll most likely come in contact with? That is, if, any extraterrestrials we find out there resemble something that the 'human' mind can actually comprehend. This was brought up very recently in an otherwise hilarious movie....and completely ignored, which was sad. "Paul" said, after hiding in the loo of the caravan, "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ME?" and the issue was dropped as if that settled the matter. In actuality, your second sentence answered the question much more neatly. Scripture as we know it is silent as to the existence of life on other worlds. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. "Paul's" folks could have been just as easily created by the very same God and read from a literal parallel of our 'human' scriptures by the simple reasoning that we, in our limited intelligence ( compared to God's ) can only comprehend a narrow range of reality....and as we all know, reality is never the same total sum as actuality. And before the anti-religious begin foaming at the mouth and hurling epithets, my reasoning is no less valid that your denial. Grin!

dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.25 15:02:00 - [71] Originally by: BellaDonna Nyghtshade Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Also, if this is true, who's image was used in the creation of the eventual extraterrestrials we'll most likely come in contact with? That is, if, any extraterrestrials we find out there resemble something that the 'human' mind can actually comprehend. This was brought up very recently in an otherwise hilarious movie....and completely ignored, which was sad. "Paul" said, after hiding in the loo of the caravan, "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ME?" and the issue was dropped as if that settled the matter. In actuality, your second sentence answered the question much more neatly. Scripture as we know it is silent as to the existence of life on other worlds. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. "Paul's" folks could have been just as easily created by the very same God and read from a literal parallel of our 'human' scriptures by the simple reasoning that we, in our limited intelligence ( compared to God's ) can only comprehend a narrow range of reality....and as we all know, reality is never the same total sum as actuality. And before the anti-religious begin foaming at the mouth and hurling epithets, my reasoning is no less valid that your denial. Grin! Being made in the image of god is open to some interpretation, it would be our physical appearance but some seem to think it means human nature. Fact is that people all over earth don't look that much alike, and the human body is fare from perfect, there are so many small imperfections like males having nipples, etc. It's not impossible to accept other intelligent beings as also created in the image of god, if you wanted it to be so, you can always interpret being made in the image of god as being an intelligent being.
Captain Brickwalle	Posted - 2011.07.25 16:20:00 - [72] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 24/07/2011 21:23:43 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. But, judging from your post, I would think that you meant galaxy, like a lot of the other people that I see confusing these two words. Speaking of galaxies, I would crawl through a million wartargets, pirates, Sansha slaves and electromagnetic clouds to be able to fly into the Milky Way Galaxy. Originally by: dexington you know we are created in the image of god, maybe feet with toes is the highest form of evolution :) Also, if this is true, who's image was used in the creation of the eventual extraterrestrials we'll most likely come in contact with? That is, if, any extraterrestrials we find out there resemble something that the human mind can actually comprehend. Actually its New Eden Cluster... if you think that a few thousands stars is a galaxy you are even worse off than the original poster.
Ana Vyr Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.25 16:42:00 - [73] Edited by: Ana Vyr on 25/07/2011 16:47:19 Edited by: Ana Vyr on 25/07/2011 16:46:22 With regard to losing our toes, I think the theory went something along the lines that individual toes are vestigial on modern man's foot. Eventually we'd evolve to have a single fleshy pad in place of the 4 little toes, and a big toe. We need toes for balance, but we don't need 5 individual toes for that as we no longer have an opposable "thumb" on our feet. A single, wide toe, kinda like as if you taped your four small toes together wuold serve the same purpose. Most people can't even move their toes truly independantly anymore without significant training/practice. I can move each toe, sure, but I can't just move toe number 3 on its own. I can still move the toe beside my big toe on it's own, but only slightly and it takes concentration. Given all that, whether right or wrong, there doesn't seem to be any significant evolutionary pressure for this to happen, but that's similar to other things like our appendix's ceasing to function, or the tendancy for us to lose our body hair over generations. We've grown taller, on average over the centuries, but that can be attributed to selection (taller folks are more attractive). There's an argument that says human beings stoped evolving through natural selection when we became civilized and started protecting the weak among us, so evolutionary pressures (if there still are any for our species) are coming for different reasons. edit-typos
Nth Ares	Posted - 2011.07.25 17:23:00 - [74] What a thread. Has anyone paused to consider that the numbers might be a typo? 6.7 billion years, not 67? 35 billion, not 350? There could also be some linguistic confusion as to what the term "billion" means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales.
Generals4 Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.25 17:48:00 - [75] Originally by: Melchiades Seti I chanced to "show info" on a star one day. The game, so rich in detail, had many facts about the sun, including its age. It said 67 billion years. 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. I looked at some more stars. Some were over 350 billion years old! This means I live in a time hundreds of billions of years later than the person who plays me. Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Something on which to think in my travels amongst the stars. Because that's how the State wants you to be. Obviously.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.25 17:59:00 - [76] Originally by: Ana Vyr With regard to losing our toes, I think the theory went something along the lines that individual toes are vestigial on modern man's foot. Eventually we'd evolve to have a single fleshy pad in place of the 4 little toes, and a big toe. We need toes for balance, but we don't need 5 individual toes for that as we no longer have an opposable "thumb" on our feet. A single, wide toe, kinda like as if you taped your four small toes together wuold serve the same purpose. Most people can't even move their toes truly independantly anymore without significant training/practice. I can move each toe, sure, but I can't just move toe number 3 on its own. I can still move the toe beside my big toe on it's own, but only slightly and it takes concentration. Just because you can't move your toes independently, does not mean they are going to grow into one toe, some change to the human dna would be required. Physical attributes has less value in the current society, having more advanced feet is no guaranty for the offspring to be better adapted to their habitat.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 08:25:00 - [77] Edited by: Edel Held on 26/07/2011 08:25:17 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda ...And before the anti-religious begin foaming at the mouth and hurling epithets, my reasoning is no less valid that your denial... It is not. Flying Spaghetti Monster is created to illustrate this thesis is wrong(sorry pastafarians). If that thesis were true, than any, and I mean ANY stuped unprovable idea could be equally true or false. And that would be a madhouse. Can you prove there's no Santa Claus? No? So anyone, who trully believes in his existens are as right as those believing in god, isn't it? =) As those who believe that their god commands them to **** kids and eat human flesh... That's why common sense tells to follow simple idea that the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts existence of something. That's the reason the presumption of innocence exists, for example. So, if you trully believe in anything that has no proof, you have to be fair and believe in EVERYTHING that has no proof.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 09:18:00 - [78] Originally by: Edel Held So, if you trully believe in anything that has no proof, you have to be fair and believe in EVERYTHING that has no proof. What is the reasoning behind that?, is that not the same as saying if you love one cat you need to love all cats, and if you hate one dog you need to hate all dogs.
Cyaxares II	Posted - 2011.07.26 09:19:00 - [79] maybe people in New Eden just like (maybe even love) toes and feet in general would at least explain why the Gallente have toes
Kehro Urgus Gallente Ab Obice Saevior	Posted - 2011.07.26 09:50:00 - [80] Originally by: Cyaxares II maybe people in New Eden just like (maybe even love) toes and feet in general would at least explain why the Gallente have toes I'm waiting for toe rings to be added in the Nex shop.

Isabelle Evotori	Posted - 2011.07.26 10:23:00 - [81] well actually you need your toes to balance. So they'll stay there because they have a reason....
ThirdEyeBlenny	Posted - 2011.07.26 10:54:00 - [82] This could well be "The Thread That Saved General Discussion" Carry on.
Dalloway Jones	Posted - 2011.07.26 11:15:00 - [83] Did the OP go to school in the south or midwest somewhere where they teach intelligent design instead of evolution? Could someone please explain to him that there really isn't a circumstance which would cause mankind to evolve to not have toes. Humans are able to manipulate their environment and surroundings in such a way that evolution doesn't work for us quite the same way as it does other life forms.
Thorn Galen Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.07.26 11:16:00 - [84] We evolved away from trees because the splinters became a real issue.... We need our toes. Reason is most people would not be able to count beyond 20 if we did not have our toes. I've just managed to master counting on 1 hand, so 5 is my limit. What's yours ? On a more serious note, this thread is a real treat and definetly one of the best going at the moment. We should not expect other sentient beings to look or think like us, that is just a very human-centric way of thinking. We're carbon-based life-forms, other life-forms might be just silica-based, or some other base, something totally unknown to humans. As to the age of the Universe? Current estimates average around 13.7 Billion years. I think there's still huge surprises in store for Humanity and the Scientists among us. The Great Architect of the Universe has a real sense of humour and one answer always brings up more questions. We haven't even solved gravity yet and Academia speak of Dark matter/energy ? Makes me chuckle, there must be a grand "force" behind it all. Superstrings, Parallel universes, folding space, wormholes, blackholes. All fascinating. What does the Universe "fit" into ? What is outside of that ? Will we one day discover that our "universe" is an experiment running in an aquarium in some Alien laboratory ? You should know by now what the answer to everything is....You need a copy of the Hitchhikers Guide. Cheers Thorn Galen __
Dalloway Jones	Posted - 2011.07.26 11:32:00 - [85] Please forgive me. I just read the other posts in the thread and my comment above was made when I thought it had to do with evolution. It seems I was mistaken and it has veered into a totally different direction. Carry on.
BellaDonna Nyghtshade Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2011.07.26 12:07:00 - [86] Originally by: Edel Held .........if you trully believe in anything that has no proof, you have to be fair and believe in EVERYTHING that has no proof. You are funny! Thanks for the laugh. Oh, wait, you were SERIOUS?!?!? BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAh
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 12:21:00 - [87] Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 12:21:41 Originally by: Dalloway Jones Did the OP go to school in the south or midwest somewhere where they teach intelligent design instead of evolution? Could someone please explain to him that there really isn't a circumstance which would cause mankind to evolve to not have toes. Humans are able to manipulate their environment and surroundings in such a way that evolution doesn't work for us quite the same way as it does other life forms. The OP has a point, if you accept the premise that the stars in eve's part of space are 350B years old and the eve population have been living there for just a small procent of that time, which was his original assumption. Then it's more then likely that humans would have evolved into a more adapted being, maybe without feet. Life on earth is estimated to have started some 3.5-4B years ago, simple animals 500M-700M years ago, genus homo some 2-3M years ago. If it took life on earth some 3.5B years to come from simple cells to the humans that populate the earth today, i don't think you should underestimate what 3.5B years of human evolution would turn us into, feet are probably not the only thing that would change.
Midrahh	Posted - 2011.07.26 12:41:00 - [88] Edited by: Midrahh on 26/07/2011 12:41:49 Originally by: Meryl SinGarda Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 25/07/2011 13:46:30 Originally by: dexington Originally by: Meryl SinGarda "Highly unlikely..." Ugh, give me a freakin' break. I would laugh myself to death if, tomorrow, scientists and astrologists came to the media and exclaimed that we are just 1 Universe along a chain of past Universes that have existed much longer than this imaginary thing we call time. Why would I be laughing? Because then I could come back to this thread, get the last word and watch you type a large string ellipses. It's really hard to follow your logic, you say you don't believe the theories currently accepted by the scientific community, for whatever reason you may have. Still if they were to suggest new theories tomorrow you would happily accept them as the absolute truth. Another part of the problem. Reading comprehension. Not many people possess this. I am exhausted by this topic. If it at some point during this painful discussion I mentioned that I hold absolute disbelief in every scientific theory available - either I was typing and stringing different ideas and theories together that I have gathered and partially getting lost amidst the upset I have caused in the very small world of a few people, or you need glasses. edit: Or perhaps you have just perceived the things that I have said to be what you think they are, because you don't understand them. I don't know, I don't care anymore. Trying to get people to think outside of their box is like punching a fully operational garbage disposal, metallic teeth first. What I've gathered from your incoherent babbling is that you believe that all of our knowledge of the universe as it stands now could one day change completely once new discoveries are made, and that we shouldn't just blindly believe everything, yes? If so, congratulations, you've discovered how any person with a brain thinks. Not one person is going around parading that they completely understand everything about our universe, blinding following "men in white coats" and things are never going to change. Your only issue is that you're incapable on understanding why we currently accept what we do, and instead opt to ask questions with quite obvious answers that for some reason you deny. I'm sure you think you're quite the genius, but honestly, you don't have even the slightest clue.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.07.26 12:44:00 - [89] Do you want to **** a freak with a single pad instead of toes? If yes, then you're part of the homo superior race.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:17:00 - [90] Originally by: dexington What is the reasoning behind that?, is that not the same as saying if you love one cat you need to love all cats, and if you hate one dog you need to hate all dogs. I'm talking not about cats, I'm talking about the way you think. That thing should be constant, isn't it? Or you use different ways of thinking on different issues? Sadly,you do. Of course I understand that I'm saying about the way it should be for humans, not the way it is for bald smart apes we are. Imagine the proffessor in some University criticizing the work of his student for the lack of proof and then going to the church and listening to the priest with no doubt about the truth of his words. Isn't that hypocrical? But that's the way a lot of people do. And that proves that human intelligence has been developed through the course of evolution as handy tool of survival of apes. The intelligence of a person is not a defining element of his identity. But for the Human being intelligence is one of the cores of his identity(I hope someday we'll evolve to that). So, I think it is shameful to live this way, so that's why I said "you have to be fair" =)

PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:17:00 - [91] With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 1) Quantum Mechanics does not explicitly forbid a wormhole from existing. In other words wormholes do not contradict the current known laws of physics, but they've also never been observed. 2) If a wormhole exists, it could in theory connect any two points of space-time. The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. Given the above, one could assume (or modify eve lore) that the original EVE wormhole linked terran space from w/e year to EVE space hundreds of billions of years later, which explains why you still have toes. Maybe.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:20:00 - [92] Originally by: BellaDonna Nyghtshade BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAh I'm glad I made you happy =)
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:23:00 - [93] Originally by: PotatoOverdose With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 300bil years - I wonder if its even possible for the stars to live that long?
De'Veldrin Minmatar Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.07.26 14:00:00 - [94] Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: PotatoOverdose With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 300bil years - I wonder if its even possible for the stars to live that long? According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), so yes, it is possible that some stars could survive that long, but they would be the smallest and dimmest of the lot (roughly half the size of the sun or smaller). Fortunately, the Universe is constantly making new stars, so unless the universe went out completely, there'd be some crop of stars to look at, even if they weren't the same ones. (Putting aside the idea that we live in an ever expanding universe that will eventually suffer from a thermo-dynamic heat death for the sake of the argument about an in-game universe)
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 14:20:00 - [95] Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future.
Nerodon Gallente Incapsulated Reality	Posted - 2011.07.26 16:09:00 - [96] Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. If you consider the limits of information travel (Which is basically the light speed barrier), in theory, faster than light communication is impossible due to causality violations (This can happen in many ways, such as Ship goes into wormhole, and comes back to tell the tale). Maybe the wormhole moves its travelers instantaneously, but must project them at a future time relative to the distance in order to preserve causality. That would be the effective equivalent of moving at light speed to the destination, which could take a VERY long time depending on where you want to go, as well as compensate for the ever accelerating expansion of the universe. This may be science fiction, but would make sense, without going into heavy math.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.26 16:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Nth Ares What a thread. Has anyone paused to consider that the numbers might be a typo? 6.7 billion years, not 67? 35 billion, not 350? There could also be some linguistic confusion as to what the term "billion" means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales. Million would make a lot more sense.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:32:00 - [98] Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:51:00 - [99] Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =) It is entirely possible. My last university astronomy course was in 1997. After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:54:00 - [100] Originally by: Nerodon Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. If you consider the limits of information travel (Which is basically the light speed barrier), in theory, faster than light communication is impossible due to causality violations (This can happen in many ways, such as Ship goes into wormhole, and comes back to tell the tale). Maybe the wormhole moves its travelers instantaneously, but must project them at a future time relative to the distance in order to preserve causality. That would be the effective equivalent of moving at light speed to the destination, which could take a VERY long time depending on where you want to go, as well as compensate for the ever accelerating expansion of the universe. This may be science fiction, but would make sense, without going into heavy math. I'm not sure i follow you, wormholes would allow faster then light travel if you compare the wormhole distance from point a to b with the normal distance. I still don't see how that would make you travel into the future.

dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:09:00 - [101] Originally by: De'Veldrin After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published. It is probably red or brown dwarfs, of which the smallest are believed to be able to burn for up to 10 trillion years, but they are not you typical star.
PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:30:00 - [102] Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. I'm afraid you've gotten it quite backwards. In point of fact traveling into the future is quite trivial. Special Relativity tells us that time dilation occurs at either extreme velocities or locations with excessive gravitational forces in play. Say your Traveling at 0.9c to Alpha Centauri. You would reach it in just over 4 years earth time. But for you in your spacecraft mere weeks would have passed. So from your perspective you get into a rocket on August 1st, 2011, Travel 2 weeks , and arrive on Alpha Centauri on August 1st, 2015. If you were to make the trip at .999999c you could get into your rocket on August 1st, 2011, travel for mere seconds (assuming you can somehow survive the acceleration) and come out on Alpha Centauri August 1st, 2015. You would have traversed 4 years of earth time in seconds which is what most people think of as traveling to the future. Its even easier with a black hole or neutron star. A particle or person near a black hole experiences the passage of time at a slower rate. So if you orbit a blackhole for a month, years may have passed on earth, so when you leave said orbit you will come out far into the future. Traveling BACK in time is more along the lines of science fiction, though theoretically possible depending on the inertial structure of the universe (however this is well beyond our current means to ascertain) and more specifically some form of quantum gravity, but traveling into the future at an accelerated rate happens every day for particles near black holes.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:46:00 - [103] Potato, that's not travelling into the future. You arrive at the same point in time as everyone else that exists at that point in time. You only travelled at a different relativistic pace, so to speak, which allowed you to appear to live longer compared to everyone else. It's not time travel, you still travelled as linearly as everyone else, the only differences were relative. There is no monocle.
Nimrod Nemesis Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:59:00 - [104] Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis on 26/07/2011 18:59:36 Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =) It is entirely possible. My last university astronomy course was in 1997. After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published. Most stars we're aware of are, currently, only a few billion years old (less than a dozen). However, their lifespan is roughly inverse to their mass. The most massive red giants only last a few million years, while a red dwarf (the lowest mass) could hypothetically persist for trillions (yes, trillions) of years and that's a hell of a lot longer than the universe, as we understand it, has existed. The oldest star we are currently aware of is somewhere between 13 and 15 billion years old. It is one such dwarf star, quit a bit smaller than the sun.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 19:01:00 - [105] Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 19:02:39 I see what you mean, relativistic time dilation in theory would enable you to travel into the future, but i don't think this would be an assumed effect of traveling through a wormhole. Then again you may be right, we'll probably never how the real answer ;) As for traveling back in time, the same theory is used. If you accelerate one opening of the wormhole to relativistic speed and bring it back, entering the the wormhole using the non accelerated opening would send you back in time.
PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 19:35:00 - [106] Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:41:59 Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:41:01 Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:36:55 Originally by: Ingvar Angst Potato, that's not travelling into the future. You arrive at the same point in time as everyone else that exists at that point in time. You only travelled at a different relativistic pace, so to speak, which allowed you to appear to live longer compared to everyone else. It's not time travel, you still travelled as linearly as everyone else, the only differences were relative. Eh? So your saying if I loop around the solar system at .9999999999999999999999999999c for a few seconds in my time and come out of my looping in the year 10 billion while being only a few seconds older, that doesn't constitute "time travel"? I must admit I'm quite curious about you definition of time travel now. Edit: Traditionally, when one thinks of a time machine, its classically something along the lines of pushing a button and a few seconds later appearing in the distant future (or past). My scenario(s) create this effect (the future part at least) exactly. Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 19:02:39 As for traveling back in time, the same theory is used. If you accelerate one opening of the wormhole to relativistic speed and bring it back, entering the the wormhole using the non accelerated opening would send you back in time. "It is thought that it may not be possible to convert a wormhole into a time machine in this manner; the predictions are made in the context of general relativity, but general relativity does not include quantum effects." Source. That version of a time machine has generally been refuted iirc. There has been another one posted recently but it requires that the universe have certain inertial properties that we are, as yet, unable to determine.
Emiko Luan Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.26 20:15:00 - [107] Wow some people honestly still don't know how evolution works in this thread? I personally wish CCP would just come out and say that the new eden cluster is a fluid so we could keep our beloved newtonian physics. on the op New Eden could be in the far "future" relative to our frame of reference, it could be a different universe too (which would explain the space drag, different rules of physics) maybe the excess particles in space feed the stars for longer than our universe's average. Notice though, that the stars in eve are all very small, it could be a long lived dwarf cluster. - @dexington - you should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. Unless being a hipocrite isn't a problem for you, but then we get to the issue of trusting people that have unpredictable standards for what reality is. Then again, considering how many people believe they will get double their isk back from people in Jita... --- +Welcome to my world+
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 20:45:00 - [108] Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true.
Nimrod Nemesis Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:19:00 - [109] Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true. What the hell is going on in this argument? I don't even... I assume bold has something to do with the flying spaghetti... err, Jesus. Am I getting warmer?
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:34:00 - [110] Originally by: Nimrod Nemesis Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true. What the hell is going on in this argument? I don't even... I assume bold has something to do with the flying spaghetti... err, Jesus. Am I getting warmer? I was referring to beliefs in general, not specifically religious beliefs.

Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:47:00 - [111] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda While I am atheist, I have learned never to just accept something without asking more questions. I see people doing this a lot, whether they're religious or not. Stop accepting things as they're fed to you and continue to ask questions. Asking questions and having a different opinion doesn't actually make you look smarter. Almost all serious scientists agree on the age of the universe. It is even possible to make an approximate calculation of the age of the universe for a freshman college student, using the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, as observed by COBE. Asking questions is good, knowledge allows you to ask better questions. No knowledge leaves you into obscurantism and makes you look... dumb
Dalloway Jones	Posted - 2011.07.27 05:27:00 - [112] Originally by: dexington The OP has a point, if you accept the premise that the stars in eve's part of space are 350B years old and the eve population have been living there for just a small procent of that time, which was his original assumption. Then it's more then likely that humans would have evolved into a more adapted being, maybe without feet. Life on earth is estimated to have started some 3.5-4B years ago, simple animals 500M-700M years ago, genus homo some 2-3M years ago. If it took life on earth some 3.5B years to come from simple cells to the humans that populate the earth today, i don't think you should underestimate what 3.5B years of human evolution would turn us into, feet are probably not the only thing that would change. The OP does NOT have a point. Humans aren't going to adapt to not have feet no matter how many billions of years go by. Unless by some freak of nature all of humanity is wiped out by some plague except for a small group of people with an immunity to said plague who also happen to have flippers instead of feet. Please have a small inkling of how evolution works before you say things like 3.5 billions of years from now our feet are going to change. There needs to be some biological advantage to not having feet. Something that would cause people without feet to have a marked advantage over their footed brethren. Something that would cause those with feet to not survive to breeding age or not to be chosen as a mate because of some perceived flaw. Humans would also have to lose their sentience in order for normal rules of evolution to apply.
Klask Atriund	Posted - 2011.07.27 05:37:00 - [113] Don't know if anyone has said this yet but, evolution doesn't work like that
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.27 09:29:00 - [114] Originally by: Dalloway Jones Please have a small inkling of how evolution works before you say things like 3.5 billions of years from now our feet are going to change. There needs to be some biological advantage to not having feet. Something that would cause people without feet to have a marked advantage over their footed brethren. Something that would cause those with feet to not survive to breeding age or not to be chosen as a mate because of some perceived flaw. Humans would also have to lose their sentience in order for normal rules of evolution to apply. You believe that human are at a evolutionary apex, i don't believe we are the last link in the evolutionary chain. Besides saying out feet is going to change, is not the same as saying we are not going to have feet.
Aineko Stryer Minmatar Aineko Accelerando Labs	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:04:00 - [115] Actually there is strong proof, that our genome is actually changing faster, since we¦ve settled down. Especially genes, that influence brain developement seem to change at high speed.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:42:00 - [116] Originally by: dexington You believe that human are at a evolutionary apex, i don't believe we are the last link in the evolutionary chain. Besides saying out feet is going to change, is not the same as saying we are not going to have feet. Without a doubt humans will continue to evolve. But you've completely missed the point... there needs to be a reproductive advantage to losing (or turning off) the coding that produces feet, or to changing that coding such that those with "different" feet outbreed those with feet as we know them. If no pressures come along and favor mutations resulting in different feet, those genes won't spread and change the population as a whole. There is no monocle.
Not-Apsalar	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:55:00 - [117] Originally by: Melchiades Seti I chanced to "show info" on a star one day. The game, so rich in detail, had many facts about the sun, including its age. It said 67 billion years. 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. I looked at some more stars. Some were over 350 billion years old! This means I live in a time hundreds of billions of years later than the person who plays me. Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Something on which to think in my travels amongst the stars. Do you walk? Yes. You "Walk in Stations". The same humans also live on planets, participate in wars(DUST), etc. Thus, you need toes for agility and balance, like ones that primates developed very early on. If all humans were permanently in pods, humanity would evolve to lose its unnecessary features. Also, I imagine there is a great deal of genetic engineering to control this type of evolution/de-evolution(which is really just DNA mutation).


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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!