On the one hand, your argument seems sensible: look to the present.
On the other hand, ownership in general is a little strange. This is my rock. This is my tree. This is my beach. This is my ocean. It doesn't really make sense to me when I look at property this way.
I see property rights as valuable in that they help create order (I'm still thinking about whether this is true or not--flashback to "The Gods Must be Crazy").
If I take my argument to its logical extreme, I find myself asking whether my body, my life, my soul (if one exists) belongs to me.
I was also worried about bacteria adapting to alcohol etc.
From my research and discussions with doctors etc I've come to learn that bacteria adapt to antibiotics because these agents are very precise and destroy a very narrow type of microorganism, whereas alcohol, chlorine bleach, and all other cleaning agents wipe everything out. There has been no (to my knowledge) increase in resistance to bleach used in the kitchen for instance. It would be like gaining resistance to fire. The properties of these antibacterial agents is just too violent against the cell for evolution to do anything about it.
I'm sure this could have been said better, but basically antibacterial soap will not create super-deadly strains of bacteria, whereas continued use of antibiotics has and will.
When I started working at the school where I still work we were in two separate office buildings separated by more than 100m. I eventually ran coax through the wall via a light fixture, along a fence for about 100 feet into a tree to the roof (where it was held down by a sack of river rocks attached to some plywood) over the roof down a rain gutter and under the door. The building landlord was actually ok with this setup. It was mostly hidden except for the hop from the building to the fence and the whole tree to roof span.
So light travels along the sphere, not through it? How is such a structure infinite? If the expansion is accelerating (as other posts have suggested) how could light catch up to us?
The issue I'm having is that it seems pretty convenient that we're seeing light from a specific time (say the beginning of the universe). That would seem to involve some clever manipulations of either time or space. That would seem akin to saying that if I look real hard I would be able to see the sun when it was created.
Thanks for your replies. I'm hoping to understand this.
With the finite circle, don't all my comments just apply to the diameter? Middle = small diameter? And with this analogy, we're talking about a sphere where the leading edge is the edge of the sphere are we not? I'm trying here.
I'm having trouble picturing "an infinite length" is indeed something like this exists.
Very fun explanation. I have some questions/confirmations if you don't mind (and before I get any further, I'm just having a hard time with the idea that we can see the very beginning of the universe. If we're talking about objects that are really really old, but not the oldest, I'm ok with that):
1) We're assuming the universe expands/expanded at faster than the speed of light (overall) 2) And that initially, the ant was at the middle of everything. 3) If this is true, then for the ant to not reach the edge, the universe would have to be expanding on the edge (not just relative to the ends of the elastic) at faster than the speed of light or the ant would overtake the expanding universe would it not? 4) If the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light (which is unlikely) and we are able to see the beginning of the universe then the expansion must have dropped us off along it's expansion (which seems true -- we're not at edge as far as my night sky is concerned) so that light from early objects can reach us. 5) For this to all make sense one of the following must be true (as far as I can make out): a) The universe expanded on its edge at much faster than the speed of light so that when we were "dropped off" all of our local galaxies would have time to form before the really fast ant could catch up. b) We were just dropped off.
I really want to accept the elastic idea, but unfortunately, that only works after the universe has expanded. When we talk about the Big Bang (I'm assuming that this is the background assumption for this balloon idea that I'm responding to) we start with a singularity from which everthing sped away from. At this point there is no elastic. The ant moving at the speed of light from this event (or bodies really close in time to this event) wouldn't be able to emit light in such a way for us to see it after hanging around our star for a few eons.
"That's not true. For instance, if the universe is infinite, we will never be able to see most regions of it at any time, because light won't have reached us."
Not true if the universe is infinite which by the balloon analogy it's not. That's what I was responding to.
The universe can expand and slow down. I think what you meant is that the universe is now thought to be accelerating it's expansion.
They aren't talking about "background radiation", they are talking about stars.
Thanks for replying, but I'm still not getting it.
I understand that we're seeing "old" light. What I don't understand is how we could be seeing light from the beginning of the universe.
This would mean that either:
The universe is slowing from a speed originally faster than the speed of light so that this light could catch up
or
The universe is expanding at just under the speed of light so that this light is reaching us just after the current form of the universe was originated
What am I missing?
I'm fine with being able to see something of ever part of the universe if it's expanding slower than the speed of light. What I'm not ok with is being able to see objects at the "dawn of time". Seems to me that one of the following is true: 1) If the universe is expanding slower than the speed of light, we should be able to see all regions of the universe at some earlier point, but doubtfully so close to the beginning of the universe.
2) The expansion of the universe is slowing (from a speed at or above the speed of light) and the objects on the other side of the "balloon" are now becoming visible.
I don't understand how even if we are on opposite sides of this expanding balloon (or whatever other expansion analogy you want to pick) how this can exceed the speed of light. I can't see another way for light from the birth of our universe to reach us only now.
There are games that use bio-feedback. You can buy biofeedback devices and sometimes these are bundled with games. One game I know is called innertube I think and you're in a tube controlling a ship trying to pass over diamonds. The more agitated you are the slower the ship goes, the calmer you are the faster the ship goes and the more intense the music gets.
I don't understand why aside from some basic proper server configuration checks (reverse lookup, etc) why users can't manage their spam (like ThunderBird, Yahoo mail, etc) and not have any message blocked. I love scanning my spam folder and finding messages that were incorrectly flagged. I understand that some users aren't up to the task, but at least make it an option (with the default being to have restrictive filtering if that's a priority for the ISP).
I've also had trouble sending mail to AOL, both through an ISP and through standalone servers. I'm glad I'm not in a Comcast area.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, ownership in general is a little strange. This is my rock. This is my tree. This is my beach. This is my ocean. It doesn't really make sense to me when I look at property this way.
I see property rights as valuable in that they help create order (I'm still thinking about whether this is true or not--flashback to "The Gods Must be Crazy").
If I take my argument to its logical extreme, I find myself asking whether my body, my life, my soul (if one exists) belongs to me.
I was also worried about bacteria adapting to alcohol etc.
From my research and discussions with doctors etc I've come to learn that bacteria adapt to antibiotics because these agents are very precise and destroy a very narrow type of microorganism, whereas alcohol, chlorine bleach, and all other cleaning agents wipe everything out. There has been no (to my knowledge) increase in resistance to bleach used in the kitchen for instance. It would be like gaining resistance to fire. The properties of these antibacterial agents is just too violent against the cell for evolution to do anything about it.
I'm sure this could have been said better, but basically antibacterial soap will not create super-deadly strains of bacteria, whereas continued use of antibiotics has and will.
Read the first page and then any pages on that site after that had an error message.
I would have grabbed the article text. Maybe someone else can post it if they get through for others that get bugged.
When I started working at the school where I still work we were in two separate office buildings separated by more than 100m. I eventually ran coax through the wall via a light fixture, along a fence for about 100 feet into a tree to the roof (where it was held down by a sack of river rocks attached to some plywood) over the roof down a rain gutter and under the door. The building landlord was actually ok with this setup. It was mostly hidden except for the hop from the building to the fence and the whole tree to roof span.
So light travels along the sphere, not through it? How is such a structure infinite? If the expansion is accelerating (as other posts have suggested) how could light catch up to us? The issue I'm having is that it seems pretty convenient that we're seeing light from a specific time (say the beginning of the universe). That would seem to involve some clever manipulations of either time or space. That would seem akin to saying that if I look real hard I would be able to see the sun when it was created. Thanks for your replies. I'm hoping to understand this.
With the finite circle, don't all my comments just apply to the diameter? Middle = small diameter? And with this analogy, we're talking about a sphere where the leading edge is the edge of the sphere are we not? I'm trying here. I'm having trouble picturing "an infinite length" is indeed something like this exists.
Very fun explanation. I have some questions/confirmations if you don't mind (and before I get any further, I'm just having a hard time with the idea that we can see the very beginning of the universe. If we're talking about objects that are really really old, but not the oldest, I'm ok with that):
1) We're assuming the universe expands/expanded at faster than the speed of light (overall)
2) And that initially, the ant was at the middle of everything.
3) If this is true, then for the ant to not reach the edge, the universe would have to be expanding on the edge (not just relative to the ends of the elastic) at faster than the speed of light or the ant would overtake the expanding universe would it not?
4) If the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light (which is unlikely) and we are able to see the beginning of the universe then the expansion must have dropped us off along it's expansion (which seems true -- we're not at edge as far as my night sky is concerned) so that light from early objects can reach us.
5) For this to all make sense one of the following must be true (as far as I can make out):
a) The universe expanded on its edge at much faster than the speed of light so that when we were "dropped off" all of our local galaxies would have time to form before the really fast ant could catch up.
b) We were just dropped off.
I really want to accept the elastic idea, but unfortunately, that only works after the universe has expanded. When we talk about the Big Bang (I'm assuming that this is the background assumption for this balloon idea that I'm responding to) we start with a singularity from which everthing sped away from. At this point there is no elastic. The ant moving at the speed of light from this event (or bodies really close in time to this event) wouldn't be able to emit light in such a way for us to see it after hanging around our star for a few eons.
Where did I go wrong?
"That's not true. For instance, if the universe is infinite, we will never be able to see most regions of it at any time, because light won't have reached us." Not true if the universe is infinite which by the balloon analogy it's not. That's what I was responding to. The universe can expand and slow down. I think what you meant is that the universe is now thought to be accelerating it's expansion. They aren't talking about "background radiation", they are talking about stars. Thanks for replying, but I'm still not getting it.
I understand that we're seeing "old" light. What I don't understand is how we could be seeing light from the beginning of the universe. This would mean that either: The universe is slowing from a speed originally faster than the speed of light so that this light could catch up or The universe is expanding at just under the speed of light so that this light is reaching us just after the current form of the universe was originated What am I missing?
I'm fine with being able to see something of ever part of the universe if it's expanding slower than the speed of light. What I'm not ok with is being able to see objects at the "dawn of time". Seems to me that one of the following is true:
1) If the universe is expanding slower than the speed of light, we should be able to see all regions of the universe at some earlier point, but doubtfully so close to the beginning of the universe.
2) The expansion of the universe is slowing (from a speed at or above the speed of light) and the objects on the other side of the "balloon" are now becoming visible.
I don't understand how even if we are on opposite sides of this expanding balloon (or whatever other expansion analogy you want to pick) how this can exceed the speed of light. I can't see another way for light from the birth of our universe to reach us only now.
*thinks about it more*
Nope, doesn't make sense to me.
There are games that use bio-feedback. You can buy biofeedback devices and sometimes these are bundled with games. One game I know is called innertube I think and you're in a tube controlling a ship trying to pass over diamonds. The more agitated you are the slower the ship goes, the calmer you are the faster the ship goes and the more intense the music gets.
I've also had trouble sending mail to AOL, both through an ISP and through standalone servers. I'm glad I'm not in a Comcast area.