It is true that many problems can be cause by pornography, but for what I believe to be by far the majority of people it's just a silly way to entertain onesself. Redbook, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal cause by far more pain and misery through their dispersal of warped femenine ideals, shallow morality, and stereotypically uninformed americana than a few naked people could ever cause. I have yet to hear of a library banning any of those titles. In fact, they actively pay for them. note: This is not to say that there isn't some valid content in the foremention magazines (even if it is a small minority)
Superficially it may seem nice for communities to create their own standards, but given further thought that assertion seems dubious. Colonial newengland seems to be a perfect example of how the narrowmindedness (a common product of small communities) can turn bad. I can't think of anything worse than witch burnings (and they didn't happen only in Salem). I don't mean to say that there will be witch burnings, but extremism can infect a small group of people with frightening ease and, atleast in my opinion, extremism in any direction is not a good thing.
I posted an almost identical argument earlier which elaborated on it a little more coming to the conclusion that I didn't really know what it meant. I think we're right.
Wormhole or not, the old adage about a line being the shortest distance between points is not at all outdated. The question really becomes how many dimentions are we dealing with and is the number even necessarily finite. The concept of the wormhole just ensures the existance of more dimentions than those we regularly percieve and implies that the shortest distance between two points is not a line in three dimentions but rather one in four or more. Please don't respond with: But isn't the fourth dimetion time?
Perhpas if you had made some indication as to what exactly the numbers where, I could "run" them. All sarcasm aside, I'm not exactly what you are reffering to. Objects which are moving away very rapidly definitively DO produce a red shift effect. I think what you are talking about is one of the gravitionally related consequences of general relativity. However, I could be all wet.
I think the distance and time figures probably came from a few integrations based on the measured red shift of the object, the assumed center of the universe, and, undoubtedly, a few other things. The changing accelerations, speeds, times, and distance are inherrant parts of these integrations. Both of those numbers work with each other to produce the data measured. So, to try and second guess them would be weird and redundant. Your question is sort of like the flamingo game (each is taller than the other).
As was pointed out, if you look far enough into the distance or the past or whatever, you aren't really looking at the center of the universe, so, at the point in time from which the light would have had to originate there wouldn't have been anything there. On the other hand, if you look at the center of the universe it's too close and the light originating from it (or any other EM wave for that matter) at the time of the big bang would have gone by a LONG time ago. Perhaps I'm way off on this, but since the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light, nor has it ever (except theoretically for a few microseconds or whatever shortly following the big bang itself) It is fundamentally impossible to see the big bang because, no matter where you are, the light has already past you. Following from this it would seem that the oldest things we see were the things that were moving fastest from the start of it all because they are the ones that got out far enough fast enough that they existed to put out radiation which we can pick up. In other words if it looks really old it must have been moving fast. So we can't see any slow moving old things. I don't know exactly what this means.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that many problems can be cause by pornography, but for what I believe to be by far the majority of people it's just a silly way to entertain onesself. Redbook, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal cause by far more pain and misery through their dispersal of warped femenine ideals, shallow morality, and stereotypically uninformed americana than a few naked people could ever cause. I have yet to hear of a library banning any of those titles. In fact, they actively pay for them. note: This is not to say that there isn't some valid content in the foremention magazines (even if it is a small minority)
Superficially it may seem nice for communities to create their own standards, but given further thought that assertion seems dubious. Colonial newengland seems to be a perfect example of how the narrowmindedness (a common product of small communities) can turn bad. I can't think of anything worse than witch burnings (and they didn't happen only in Salem). I don't mean to say that there will be witch burnings, but extremism can infect a small group of people with frightening ease and, atleast in my opinion, extremism in any direction is not a good thing.
I posted an almost identical argument earlier which elaborated on it a little more coming to the conclusion that I didn't really know what it meant. I think we're right.
Wormhole or not, the old adage about a line being the shortest distance between points is not at all outdated. The question really becomes how many dimentions are we dealing with and is the number even necessarily finite. The concept of the wormhole just ensures the existance of more dimentions than those we regularly percieve and implies that the shortest distance between two points is not a line in three dimentions but rather one in four or more. Please don't respond with: But isn't the fourth dimetion time?
Perhpas if you had made some indication as to what exactly the numbers where, I could "run" them. All sarcasm aside, I'm not exactly what you are reffering to. Objects which are moving away very rapidly definitively DO produce a red shift effect. I think what you are talking about is one of the gravitionally related consequences of general relativity. However, I could be all wet.
I think the distance and time figures probably came from a few integrations based on the measured red shift of the object, the assumed center of the universe, and, undoubtedly, a few other things. The changing accelerations, speeds, times, and distance are inherrant parts of these integrations. Both of those numbers work with each other to produce the data measured. So, to try and second guess them would be weird and redundant. Your question is sort of like the flamingo game (each is taller than the other).
BBiillions and BBIiiLLLions...
As was pointed out, if you look far enough into the distance or the past or whatever, you aren't really looking at the center of the universe, so, at the point in time from which the light would have had to originate there wouldn't have been anything there. On the other hand, if you look at the center of the universe it's too close and the light originating from it (or any other EM wave for that matter) at the time of the big bang would have gone by a LONG time ago. Perhaps I'm way off on this, but since the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light, nor has it ever (except theoretically for a few microseconds or whatever shortly following the big bang itself) It is fundamentally impossible to see the big bang because, no matter where you are, the light has already past you. Following from this it would seem that the oldest things we see were the things that were moving fastest from the start of it all because they are the ones that got out far enough fast enough that they existed to put out radiation which we can pick up. In other words if it looks really old it must have been moving fast. So we can't see any slow moving old things. I don't know exactly what this means.