h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Don't know about the "best" part......

what do you mean never happened ?

I think you're confusing people who dress like the opposite sex [transvestites] with transexuals-people who have sex organs from both sexes. I recall my first personal exposure to 'trannies' [transvestites]. It was in Manhattan, I was 13 and a passenger in my brother's car. HE knew what they were [hookers, or is that hookHIMs?] and didn't tell me; this BEAUTIFUL BABE walked over to the car window while we were at a red light [so I locked the door, and my brother laughed], and in a deep, deep baritone the 'babe' asked if we'd like a date! Luckily the light changed and we took off. Ah yes, the days when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.


<Depends on how complicated a process "popping everything into existence out of nothing" actually is. Anyone care to try and quantify it?
no, that's a biggie math problem



I thought the big bang was the re-expansion of all the MATTER in the universe and that the empty space was already there. I always wondered what was there before the collapse of matter, and being infinite in size shouldn't there be big bangs going on all over? Hubble [the telescope] has shown some great photos but as for what's going on in them it's just more theory and conjecture.

No jeff, there's no space without matter.




Nothing is actually infinite in size. What are you saying is 'infinite in size' anyway? It isn't clear from your message.



Yep. That's science for you! Perhaps now you'll read "Conjecture and Refutation".

toxx

Hi Shifty

What I said. There never was a time when the world was just heterosexual manly men and womenly women. History is littered with examples of people who love people of the same sex, or who preferred the other's dress sense (literally). Get over it

A truly hetero world is just a Christian wet dream (ooh I'm going to suffer for that one ).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

A man who wears robes for strictly religious reasons, no, honestly....

christian anybody can be one,its just a label ?

<>

This is not a correct definition, Dr J. Transvestites are, as you say, people who dress in the manner usually accepted as that for members of the opposite sex. However, transsexual is a term that applies to someone who not only dresses like the opposite sex, but also truly feels as if, for example, 'he' is not really male, but rather female - and then actually has a sex change. Someone who feels this way but does not actually undergo a sex change is simply transgender. Or vice versa. Someone who has sexual organs of both sexes is, I believe, generally referred to as hermaphroditic, which is the correct biological term for that occurrence - the usual among worms and snails, by the way.

Check out:
A830413
A412570

'No jeff, there's no space without matter.'

Toxx, if space was created with the Big Bang, in what was it created?

And if time started with the creation of space, how did the Big Bang happen?

From http://www.rense.com/general61/ntel.htm
"Our best tools suggest to us that localized and specific sorts of creation are a continuous condition of the universe. Of the entire universal experience, human writings, even all human thought, record a minute fraction for one small planet in a system that appears visibly unlimited."

alji

pmsl

Hi Alji. Space was created in nothing. To suppose that it was originally created in space is clearly self-contradictory. To say that it is infinitely old is to misuse the mathematical concept of 'infinity'.



I have argued that it was brought about by the will of an eteral=timeless (and spaceless) being.

toxx

Hi Alji. Space was created in nothing. To suppose that it was originally created in space is clearly self-contradictory. To say that it is infinitely old is to misuse the mathematical concept of 'infinity'.



I have argued that it was brought about by the will of an eternal=timeless (and spaceless) being.

toxx

<>

Which reminds me of the fun I had as a child, trying to get my head around the concept of 'nothing'... it's literally impossible, which is why I think that that kind of question arises...

Although it does seem to me that you are correct, toxxin...

There are pitfalls in trying to imagine or 'picture' nothing. We're almost asking ourselves: "What kind of a something is 'nothing'?". Clearly, that's a mistake. It would, perhaps, be better to attempt the near linguistic equivalent: "Don't imagine anything" rather than "Imagine nothing".

toxx

Total cop out Toxx! What is the difference between the empty space separating the galaxies inside the universe and the nothingness outside the universe?

Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal.
So your eternal being can be ininite but the universe can not!

'To say that it is infinitely old is to misuse the mathematical concept of 'infinity'.'

No it's not! See 'More Information on Why "Infinity" Does Exist in the Context of A Topological Space' @ http://www.math.utoronto.ca/mathnet/answers/infyestop.html

'I have argued that it was brought about by the will of an eternal=timeless (and spaceless) being.'

A supernatural spirit?

alji

Hmmm. As far as I can make out from the link (though I could easily be mistaken) it seems to be referring to a certain mathematical use of infinity, rather than a real infinity.

The difference between the empty space separating the galaxies and genuine nothingness is that it isn't truly empty, nd that it stands in certain relation to actual objects.

<<'I have argued that it was brought about by the will of an eternal=timeless (and spaceless) being.'>>

Now that *is* a copout.

Noggin

The space separating the galaxies, even if it were empty, has properties such as curvature. It isn't simply 'nothing'. "Outside the universe" isn't a meaningful expression. Spatial relations apply only within the universe.

Alji. For both you and Noggin: the origin of time and space can't be something in time and space. Surely that's obvious! Hence the origin is either 'nothing' which, for me, means there's no such origin; or it's something which can exist without space and time. The latter makes more sense to me. Neither do I see a need to suppose that it is anything other than natural. Hence 'Natural Theology'.

toxx

'the origin of time and space can't be something in time and space'

Toxx, I don't believe there was an origin, I don't believe there was a Big Bang! And the curvature is due to mass not space!

'"Outside the universe" isn't a meaningful expression.' Cop out again!

'something which can exist without space and time' is supernatural Toxx. You can't have it both ways, either it's part of the universe and natural or it's outside the universe and supernatural!

alji

You'll need to argue more agaist the BB, Alji, as it is standard science and philosophically persuasive too.



Sure, but it is a *property* of space, which is what I said.

"Outside the universe" isn't a meaningful expression.' Cop out again!

'something which can exist without space and time' is supernatural Toxx. You can't have it both ways, either it's part of the universe and natural or it's outside the universe and supernatural!>

You're doing 'scientism' Alji! Science covers all material things, and space is limited by the matter-containing domain - the universe. Nevertheless, the immaterial is thinkable. Perhaps you mistake the immaterial for the supernatural, although there's more to the nature of things than those covered by science.

So my "something that can exist without space and time" is, for me, immaterial and eternal. But *not* supernatural.

toxx