Once upon a time....... THE END!!

[Koliedrus]

First of all, sorry for the bad news I'm about to impart. The information contained therein will change the way philosophers, scientists and theologians alike view existence.

Recent observations of the workings of the Universe indicate that we may finally know how it will end (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html) .

(I'll see about binding this thread to another I posted long ago. I think it's here.)

Read first. I'll comment along with you afterward.

(Edit: Until I locate the relevent thread, here's a link concerning immortality (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9902189) .
WARNING: your brain may crash if you read both of these links in short order.)

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.


[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 06-23-2001).]

[VenoM]

<FONT COLOR="Red">i'm sure, thru the chaos of it all, it will be a sight to die for =~)</FONT c>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.v3n0m.com/venomsig.bmp" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

If I've understood the current theories correctly, by the time the Universe has expanded into the Dark Era , an atom will be the larger than the current visible Universe. I don't mind telling you that my mind cannot completely grasp the concept.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this implies that the atoms in my body and everything around me are substantially larger than they were at this time yesterday.

The expansion of space-time is all-inclusive. The Past-Me is smaller than the Present-Me and the Future-Me is a giant.

I need a beer.

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.




[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 06-23-2001).]

[Buddha's Penis!]

i saw this cover but didn't read the magazine, as i figured that if it had any merit it would pop up somewhere where i would see it, and it did.

------------------
you don't know anything until you know everything.

[Skeet]

That means my weenis is growing! Yay!

So if atoms get bigger, does that mean they become more complex? Or EVERYTHING, even the smaller parts of atoms, and their smaller parts and so on...get bigger also.

So size changes, but complexity doesn't, which means everything is basicly the same, just closer to ending?



------------------
Soon to come, something that means nothing...

[Sirus]

Here's (imo) the most interesting part of the article. This involves the giant atoms theory, and basically sums up how we're going to end.

THE FATE OF THE COSMOS
That means that the 100 billion or so galaxies we can now see though our telescopes will zip out of range, one by one. Tens of billions of years from now, the Milky Way will be the only galaxy we're directly aware of (other nearby galaxies, including the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Andromeda galaxy, will have drifted into, and merged with, the Milky Way).

By then the sun will have shrunk to a white dwarf, giving little light and even less heat to whatever is left of Earth, and entered a long, lingering death that could last 100 trillion years—or a thousand times longer than the cosmos has existed to date. The same will happen to most other stars, although a few will end their lives as blazing supernovas. Finally, though, all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black.

But that's not the end, according to University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams. An expert on the fate of the cosmos and co-author with Greg Laughlin of The Five Ages of the Universe (Touchstone Books; 2000), Adams predicts that all this dead matter will eventually collapse into black holes. By the time the universe is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old, the black holes themselves will disintegrate into stray particles, which will bind loosely to form individual "atoms" larger than the size of today's universe. Eventually, even these will decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void. And that will be that—unless, of course, whatever inconceivable event that launched the original Big Bang should recur, and the ultimate free lunch is served once more.




------------------
A Purple Heart just proves that were you smart enough to think of a plan, stupid enough to try it, and lucky enough to survive. -Murphy

[Lady Sianna]

<FONT COLOR="purple">too much...brain crash-ing...

kol, i could use a beer too! http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/smile.gif

me 'ead is a wee bit woozy from this sultry texas summer...perhaps to sneak back into the thread once the sun takes its leave...or at least until after i'm sufficiently boozed! http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

keep 'em coming...</FONT c>

------------------
<FONT COLOR="red">there is a desert i long to be walking, a wide emptiness, peace beyond any understanding of it...Rumi </FONT c>

[AcidzCraze]

<FONT COLOR="blue">Oh man.. this definatly hurts... heh... Good post Kol, I have a lot of thinking to do...


</FONT c>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.e-a1.f2s.com/ac.jpg" border=0>
"Reality is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away" -Philip K. Dick

[Pianomahnn]

Ooooooo...

Brain is slowing oozing from my ear...

I get these weird feelings whenever I think of stuff like this. Anything dealing with the universe. I can't explain this feeling, but it's like a deep sense of being alone, lost, unaware, and just confused about what is really going on around me. Just think for it a minute. What is in front of you? I have a bannana and some water. There's my bannana and water, and then there are Octillions of stars. Bannana...Stars...Bannana...Stars...

The stars seem like a much more exciting thing to play around with. That must be what I get all weird.

I am lost. Booo Hooo

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER.

------------------
If you think you've done everything imaginable in life, you could always hug a crying child.
<IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0>

[Asmodeus]

It is almost comic what physisists can come up with when they are trying to get more grant money or to finally be granted their Phd(Piled Higher and Deeper).

They will find, if they crunch the numbers for another ten years(more likely a hundred in the least), and compare with their numbers now, that there is a cosmic anomoly that swings back and forth between the two extremes. Say for instance, one century-now- it looks like the universe is slowing down, but the next century-approximate- it is speeding up. The universe is not stable. The Big Bang did occur and it's reprocussions can still be felt in the cosmic warble(wobble).

Everything is drifting further and further apart, a little concept called momentum. And the object will continue to drift apart until the end of days or another cataclysm occurs.

------------------
Take me to your lizard.

[Skywalker]

*lites a smoke*

you sure fuked with my head there buddy...
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>If so, then someone may still be around to note that the universe, once ablaze with the light of uncountable stars, has become an unimaginably vast, cold, dark and profoundly lonely place.[/quote]
to think, everything will end up becoming nothing... whose gonna be that 'one'?

maybe when we die we join this darkness..
peace will finally be amongst us... someday
god damnit
i think this thread deserves some background music
Flight of the Navigator - The Ship Beckons

------------------
"Do or do not. There is no try..."

[This message has been edited by Skywalker (edited 06-23-2001).]

[Dog Breath]

If the molecules are expanding then there is no reference with which to measure the expansion of the universe. If they didn't expand the molecular bonds would have failed nanoseconds after it started to expand.
If there is no reference with which to measure the expansion of the universe then whether it is actually expanding or not makes no difference. If the molecules expand then the process is stable and will continue to infinity. There will be no "big crunch". Just an eventual smoothing out of energy due to entropy. The death of the universe will be when all matter and energy is evenly distributed throughout the universe so that nothing is unique and the milky way curdles.

------------------
Woof.
If it's so sick, why are you laughing?
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Pianomahnn]

That's a great movie. I remember seeing it for the first time down in Houston, TX when I was a only single digits old. Maybe 5 or 6. I should go out and rent it tomorrow.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

TWISTED SISTER!!!!

------------------
If you think you've done everything imaginable in life, you could always hug a crying child.
<IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.pianomahnn.com/wave.gif" border=0>

[King Bastard]

<FONT COLOR="Red">All this just goes to support my theory I formed as a child, that there are vast universes floating around in my toenail clippings.</FONT c>

------------------
Borne of sin, C',mon in... Andre Linoge; Storm of the Century

[Koliedrus]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Dog Breath:
If the molecules are expanding then there is no reference with which to measure the expansion of the universe. [/quote]

Sure there is http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/smile.gif

You're forgetting that fourth dimension. Ignoring TIME is dangerous.


------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[King Bastard]

<FONT COLOR="Red">But.. even given the factoring of Time into the mix, wouldnt all the calibrated references of measure (i.e. rulers and such) ALSO have all thier moluclues expanding at the same rates? or even differing ones... dependant upon your accepted theory? So then HOW in the hell would one work the equation?

Note to Kol, if the answer you give me is going to be a formula, dumb it down to a blue collar level, I suck at tru, logical math. but can grasp theorhetical stuf rather well. Odd, but it's how I'm wired.</FONT c>

------------------
Borne of sin, C',mon in... Andre Linoge; Storm of the Century

[disturbed]

Is this talking about things expanding slowly while towards the center, and they expand faster as they reach the outer, what is the center they are using?

and KB, i think that since the earth and everyone on it moves "as one" then we really see no difference than what we saw before, from a different point of view it might look bigger, but to us it looks the same.

i am quite sure i am dead wrong, but i can not figure out another way to word it.

------------------
Victims.. Aren't we all?

<IMG SRC="http://www.disturbedmonkey.net/sig.jpg" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

The most common analogy used to explain the expansion is by painting dots on a balloon.

The surface of the balloon is a two dimensional representation of three dimensional space. The curvature of the surface represents the four dimensional curvature of space-time.

Place yourself on any of the dots and as the balloon is inflated it will appear to you as though you're at the center of the expansion. The more distance there is between you and another dot, the faster it moves away from you.

You're absolutely correct concerning the impossibility of measuring the expansion of matter since EVERYTHING (even measuring devices) expand along with the rest of the universe. Measuring the difference in size from one moment to the next would have to take place from a fifth dimensional frame of reference. It's a bit like the old "ruler on a c-ship" thought experiment:

An astronaut packs a ruler, gets in his c-ship and heads for the stars. A "stationary" observer at the mid-point watches the ship accelerate to 98% c. As the ship accelerates, it is compressed along the horizontal axis (the direction of travel).

From inside the ship, though, EVERYTHING is compressed equally; even the ruler. Keep in mind that the compression is one of space-time, not simply matter. It's not like being squashed in a vice. The actual fabric of space-time changes.

You can't measure changes in space-time from within the sphere of influence. In the case of measuring how large an atom has become because of the expansion, it's impossible unless you can figure out a way to view the Universe from "outside". Can't be done at present, but we can think about it and do the math.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not even sure if my supposition about Past-midget-future-giant is true. I happened on the idea by chance.

Here's one thing about traveling near the speed of light that a lot of people miss:

Q: If I'm traveling close to the speed of light and shoot a laser straight ahead, can I watch the beam creep away from me slowly?

A: No. As you approach the speed of light, your local time slows as a function of your velocity. Since time is running slower for you, the beam will race away from you at 186,282.397 miles per second. It's just that your seconds take longer to tick away.

I've rambled enough for one post.

(Edit: One more tidbit - the speed of light I posted above is the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons interract with the medium through which they travel. The speed of light, say, in water is slower. If I remember correctly, a photon emitted at the core of the sun actually takes several thousand years to reach the surface before it can zoom off at top speed.)

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 06-26-2001).]

[MAC]

What's in the middle?

If it all started from a single point....
then exploded outward....
Then there is nothing in the center?
I suppose it would have to accelerate to keep from falling back to the center.
Like throwing a ball in the air.
Up Up Up Stop Down Down Down

Or, if you think like this, It started at a single point. Then it began to move away from that point in all directions (3d) until everything is uniformally spaced again at which time (technically) it all exists at a single point again.

The time reference in this scenario be the motion and not the distance.

Which means time is set and finite, like an oven timer clicking away in heaven.

*ding*


------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

Difficult to picture, I know. It wouldn't be worth talking about otherwise.

The hardest part of the balloon example is adding one dimension to the model. The "outward" expansion is where I have a tough time keeping my thoughts together for any length of time.

The Universe creates space as it expands. That I get. Inflate a balloon with air and the volume of the balloon is analogous to the expansion of space-time. If I've understood what I'm reading, the "air" is Dark Energy (Einstein's Cosmological Constant).

That's all well and good but I get stuck when I try to think about viewing the Universe from "outside". Just when I think I can picture it, my brain shuts down.

"What happend before the Big Bang?"

Hawking says it's like asking what's north of the North Pole. It has no meaning since time is a consequence of the Universe's creation just as space, matter, energy and all the laws that govern their existance and interractions.

Mentally, I can only picture existance if I subtract one dimension.

God's job must pay pretty good.

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Koliedrus:
"What happend before the Big Bang?"
[/quote]

Gen.1
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


He he. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

Accurate response!

Notice how it doesn't conflict with current observations.

Maybe I should have asked, "Where can I find the books written before Genesis?"

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

Well you can ask the big guy in person when you die. Both places should have a information booth. He he http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Dog Breath:
Well you can ask the big guy in person when you die. Both places should have a information booth. He he http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

[/quote]
Yeah, I know. But then I won't be able to pass the answers on to others. I'm pretty sure there's gonna be a quiz. I just hope I don't get called down for helping you cheat.

I'll keep searching for answers while I'm here.




------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

Didn't Einstein retract his "Cosmological Constant" Theory?

In my hypothesis about the speed of light the red shift would be explained by entropy acting upon the light emitted from distant galaxies giving them a lower amount of energy over time therefore shifting it's frequency to the red side of the spectrum and in some cases causing some of the very red stars to become invisible or shift them into the Infrared spectrum. Photons must be effected by gravitational pulls of the planets they pass. If they travel in a straight line the effect would be to slow them down rather than retaining their velocity by establishing an orbit.
I contend that the red shift is due to entropy rather than a doppler shift.

Chew on that bitch! http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Dog Breath:
Didn't Einstein retract his "Cosmological Constant" Theory?

In my hypothesis about the speed of light the red shift would be explained by entropy acting upon the light emitted from distant galaxies giving them a lower amount of energy over time therefore shifting it's frequency to the red side of the spectrum and in some cases causing some of the very red stars to become invisible or shift them into the Infrared spectrum. Photons must be effected by gravitational pulls of the planets they pass. If they travel in a straight line the effect would be to slow them down rather than retaining their velocity by establishing an orbit.
I contend that the red shift is due to entropy rather than a doppler shift.

Chew on that bitch! http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

[/quote]

In fact, the Cosmological Constant was described by Einstein as "the greatest blunder of my career."

That's why I'm having trouble considering the newer theories dealing with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I'm placing Einstein in the realm of genius and am having difficultly acknowleging that his greatest "blunder" may in fact have been one of his greatest insights before his death.

Your Entropy Hypothesis has merit. The error is that you're equating frequency with energy. Recall the dual nature of light.

Unless you have some fascinating math to back up your theory, I'll have to rely on the work of those who do this for a living.

I also respecfully request that you refrain from calling me "bitch".


------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Koliedrus]

Try this:

Think about a photon traveling past a massive gravitational source as a sprinter negotiating variable terrain.

The runner bounds off at full speed on pavement without hinderance. Suddenly the pavement gives way to thick mud. The runner is slowed substantially. The mud then gives way to smooth pavement again and the runner speeds off at top speed once again.

At the moment, I can't describe a photon's interractions with space-time any clearer. I blame my lack of sleep.

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

Yes in a way I am equating frequency with energy. I think the frequency is a result of the energy of the light. This is a hypothesis but it has logical foundations. I think the frequency of light is related to it's velocity. I think this could be accounted for by a doppler shift where all photons oscilate at the same frequency but as they aproach us at different speeds they apear to have different frequencies all the way up to gamma rays which I believe are just photons moving at speeds much higher than the speed of light. Violet light has a higher velocity than red that is why it has less deflection in a prism and why a gamma ray goes through a prism with no measurable deflection.

Of course this is all bullshit and I am just bouncing this idea off of you to learn more. Cosmology is not anything I have devoted any real study to.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

I stand corrected. Energy and frequency ARE directly related. I really should rest up before taking on this topic.

Allow me to use soundwaves as a reference assuming the speed of sound through air at sea level.

Low frequency sounds can be thought of as infra-red light. High-pitched sounds = ultra violet. Regardless of the frequency, the speed of sound doesn't change.

The doppler shift comes into play when either the source or the receiver is in motion with repsect to the other.

You're kicking some mental ass for a neophyte, DB http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

I salute you.

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Koliedrus:
I stand corrected. Energy and frequency ARE directly related. I really should rest up before taking on this topic.

Allow me to use soundwaves as a reference assuming the speed of sound through air at sea level.

Low frequency sounds can be thought of as infra-red light. High-pitched sounds = ultra violet. Regardless of the frequency, the speed of sound doesn't change.

The doppler shift comes into play when either the source or the receiver is in motion with repsect to the other.

You're kicking some mental ass for a neophyte, DB http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

I salute you.

[/quote]

OK but my arguement is that light speed is different for different frequencies of light. You already get that you just don't agree. Sound needs a medium to travel in and it's speed is dictated by that medium.

Where my hypothesis departs from conventional science is that I don't believe the speed of light is fixed. I believe we can't measure the speed of light so all we measure is the speed at which an object becomes light. Like the sound barrier per se when an object breaks the light barrier we can no longer measure it's velocity because it is pure energy from our perspective and all we see is the point at which it broke the light barrier. That is why yellow light and red light seem to travel at the same speed. I am guessing that red light travels faster than infrared and yellow light travels faster than red.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[disturbed]

Wasn't there some people at Harvard or somewhere that actually SLOWED the speed of light? I do not know the details. But here is a link to the story.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/science/current_stories/18.Feb.99/light.html




------------------
Victims.. Aren't we all?

<IMG SRC="http://www.disturbedmonkey.net/sig.jpg" border=0>

[Dog Breath]

Thanks D that was very interesting.



------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Koliedrus]

Light does travel at differnt speeds but just as your car has a top speed, so does light. The frequency doesn't alter its velocity.

For instance, radio waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum but their frequency is lower than infra red. On the other end of the spectrum, gamma rays also travel at the speed of light in a vacuum but their frequencies exceed ultra-violet.

In other words, construct a satellite that has two emitters; one Radio and one Gamma Ray

Send a pulse from both emitters at the same time and they will arrive at some distant receiver at exactly the same time. The differenct is that the radio waves will have spread out over a great area of space because of the negligable amount of energy required to produce them while the highly energetic Gamma beam will retain its integrity for a much greater distance.

Hmmm. Now that I think about it, the comparison of high-energy radiation may be applied to high-density mass.

If a feather and a lead weight fall at the same speed on the moon, can the feather be likened to radio-waves while the lead is akin to Gamma rays, I ask in myself.

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[TimeSlipping Mark2]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Sirus:
Here's (imo) the most interesting part of the article. This involves the giant atoms theory, and basically sums up how we're going to end.

THE FATE OF THE COSMOS
That means that the 100 billion or so galaxies we can now see though our telescopes will zip out of range, one by one. Tens of billions of years from now, the Milky Way will be the only galaxy we're directly aware of (other nearby galaxies, including the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Andromeda galaxy, will have drifted into, and merged with, the Milky Way).

By then the sun will have shrunk to a white dwarf, giving little light and even less heat to whatever is left of Earth, and entered a long, lingering death that could last 100 trillion years—or a thousand times longer than the cosmos has existed to date. The same will happen to most other stars, although a few will end their lives as blazing supernovas. Finally, though, all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black.

But that's not the end, according to University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams. An expert on the fate of the cosmos and co-author with Greg Laughlin of The Five Ages of the Universe (Touchstone Books; 2000), Adams predicts that all this dead matter will eventually collapse into black holes. By the time the universe is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old, the black holes themselves will disintegrate into stray particles, which will bind loosely to form individual "atoms" larger than the size of today's universe. Eventually, even these will decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void. And that will be that—unless, of course, whatever inconceivable event that launched the original Big Bang should recur, and the ultimate free lunch is served once more.


[/quote]


Whoh. Do you mean I only have a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years to live until the universe ends? Ah shit................ http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Death is only the end of the beginning.........

[Koliedrus]

I feel lazy. Here's something for reference (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html) .

Read and learn. It will definitely take some of this weight off my shoulders. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Dog Breath]

Sorry Kol you don't have permission to be lazy.
If you weren't here we wouldn't have more than 1% as many discussions about science. You are the forum professor and it is your job to teach. I have learned a great deal from you and my object is to think outside of the box and yank on your philosophical anchors to see if any of them are loose.
Only when we challenge our paradigms do we ever learn anything new. I am resisting the urge to settle into the comfortable conventional theories. Sometimes we crackpots hold the key to a room not yet discovered.
Thanks for the link, I will do my best to pervert the information there to hit you with some more bullshit cleverly disguised as science. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif
I see that there is compelling evidence that the speed of light is "constant" in a vacuum but all of the evidence I have seen that "Proves it" starts out with the postulate "Light travels in a vacuum at "c" therefore.......

I know this is over simplifying it but you cant use "?" (the cosmic constant for eggs) to prove the existence of eggs.

?+1= ?1 ?1-1=? therefore ?=? So eggs exist.

Now we have to come up with the cosmic constant for "chicken" and we can put that whole thing to rest. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>