PDA

View Full Version : Did "Angels" create the universe?



Dunash
2002-Mar-17, 07:58 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=274510

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-17, 08:52 AM
That's nothing, we sent out this announcement last year:

The Grapes of Wrath would like to announce the birth of Helen Ann Wrath, born 4/1/2001, 1.989 x 10^54 kg, 2.031 x 10^-32 m. She joins her brother, Cosmos.

She's a normal, active child, fully developed (she has all her TOEs).

Simon
2002-Mar-17, 08:48 PM
Well, it's a take on the anthropic principle I haven't seen before, but IMO it doesnt really change anything... no falsifiable predictions, no evidence other than itself. *shrugs*

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-18, 12:08 AM
All it does is move the question of origins back a generation or more... maybe.

After all, one of the multiverses had to be the first one in which intelligent creatures arose who became capable of spawning other universes. What's to say this isn't that one?

So far as I know, nobody in this cosmos has been cooking up new universes in their basement labs. Not yet, anyway.

DStahl
2002-Mar-18, 05:58 PM
I have a theory based on geometry, plus some persistent misspelling from the Middle Ages (darn those monks): the universe was created by angles, specifically a manifold of lines or 'straights' who got bent out of shape and 'went crooked' ie became anglic. Or is that Anglican? Anyway, this allowed spacetime to suddenly have 360 degrees in a circle, and so the universe was born.

[NB--I intend this as humor, not blasphemy, please do not call down lightning strikes on my home... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif]

--Don Stahl

Oh, did anyone else notice the link at the bottom of the news story--"British men are less fertile than hamsters"? No, I'm not making that up. Sheesh. Now that's sensationalist journalism...how many other animals are 'more fertile' than human men?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-03-18 13:07 ]</font>

David Simmons
2002-Mar-19, 06:17 AM
Isn't this quote from the link -"the laws of physics appear "fine tuned" for our existence" - just a high falutin' variation on the old joke?

I mean the one about how marvelous is God's providence in piercing holes in a cat's skin at the exact place for its eyes to see out?

Chip
2002-Mar-19, 03:57 PM
On 2002-03-19 01:17, David Simmons wrote:
Isn't this quote from the link -"the laws of physics appear "fine tuned" for our existence" - just a high falutin' variation on the old joke?

I mean the one about how marvelous is God's providence in piercing holes in a cat's skin at the exact place for its eyes to see out?


Another analogy to this problem:
Isn't it amazing that just enough news happens everyday to fill all the world's newspapers!? This is "proof" that newspapers create the news.

Actually, editors do. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.
2002-Mar-19, 05:20 PM
Another analogy to this problem:
Isn't it amazing that just enough news happens everyday to fill all the world's newspapers!? This is "proof" that newspapers create the news.
Actually, editors do. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Careful. That could spin off a whole new conspiracy thread. The mega-multinational media moguls are manipulating the world for ratings. Didn't you see that Bond flick? http://www.jamesbond.com/mmpr/ms/mmpr_ms_tnd.html#1

Roy Batty
2002-Mar-20, 12:19 AM
On 2002-03-18 12:58, DStahl wrote:
I have a theory based on geometry, plus some persistent misspelling from the Middle Ages (darn those monks): the universe was created by angles, specifically a manifold of lines or 'straights' who got bent out of shape and 'went crooked' ie became anglic. Or is that Anglican? Anyway, this allowed spacetime to suddenly have 360 degrees in a circle, and so the universe was born.

[NB--I intend this as humor, not blasphemy, please do not call down lightning strikes on my home... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif]

--Don Stahl

Oh, did anyone else notice the link at the bottom of the news story--"British men are less fertile than hamsters"? No, I'm not making that up. Sheesh. Now that's sensationalist journalism...how many other animals are 'more fertile' than human men?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-03-18 13:07 ]</font>


Angles? Sounds horribly Lovecraftian & Chuthullish to me.. Ieee!
btw not going to comment on the hamsters, Grrr /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

DStahl
2002-Mar-20, 12:46 AM
Oh yeah! I'd forgotton--the Hounds of the Angles, or something? Don't sweat the hamster thing, they're notorious sex fiends, and men of the USA are probable less fertile (whatever that means) than mata-mata turtles or something. Comparisons are invidious.

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-03-19 19:47 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-20, 01:36 PM
Hey, what about human females? Where do they get off, pumping out a mere one or two offspring at a time? Even the lowly house cat produces at least five or six per litter. And let's not even talk about fish!

Omega
2002-Mar-21, 12:49 AM
Hey, I like the one about the angles. (Immediatly starts worshipping the nearest circle)