That would be consistant. Everything has an opposite.

But would it be enough to stop a man made universe implosion?

Because that will happen long before any possible universe dying forecasts come to fruition

But as with most things it will be reborn.

It is the nature of all things

There is one other thing to consider though.

Everything has an opposite.

Im not sure what you are asking.

I think we are singing from the same hymn book more or less, but are coming from two different angles.

They are testing things without full knowledge of the possible variables involved.

Testing near to the sun may give them more of an idea but in my opinion it still wont give them enough knowledge of possible variables which may be completely unrelated to the sun, Earth and the space between it.

Humans make mistakes. It is the only certainty in life.

We are to naive and inexperienced to mess with things on that level.

You gain experience through making mistakes and learning from them.

At the level they are experimenting at, most mistakes will prove fatal.

There is no safety guard, no safety goggles or even a plan B that can protect us.

It is not a case of 'if' it will happen.

It is when

It depends on the date and whether both people are wanting it.

It might have been a while since they had physical contact and so it becomes a natural progression.

Society is changing. There used to be a time when a bloke wouldnt want a relationship with a woman who was deemed easy because she put out on a first date.

Nowadays it is scarcer. Many women expect sex on a first date. In fact some wont go for a second date if they have been, in their eyes, sexually unwanted.

My friends often comment on this.

They show a woman respect and get kicked to the curb because of it.

But your whole hypothesis is built on the premise that our soul/lifeforce/energy, isnt alive.
I believe that it is.

You could have a point there, but do you think that would be enough?

nice cartoon, it made me laugh.

Its strange you brought that up because it takes me to a topic I was discussing with a friend yesterday.

I apologise now because I know its off topic but the discussion I had went as follows:-

My friend said that the Meteor would pass within 20000 miles of us and would miss us.

I argued that we may as well dedicate the whole day to having fun and seeing loved ones.

Because it was my contention that if a meteor was going to hit us and wipe us out, or near enough to that.

Then all governments would collaberate and invent a story that it would be close but miss us.

They would no doubt pick something like 20000 miles.

By the time we realised we had been duped it would be to late

why is it called office space, when it is on Earth?

As for the universe being destroyed.

Probably is my answer.

They are playing with things they only have a limited understanding of.

Their whole hypothesis goes on the theory that this planet has all of the necessary things in it to create a big bang.

I understand how they came up with that but believe it is naive to say the least.

Naivity and messing about with creation do not go hand in hand.

One thing that is for certain though is that all Humans make mistakes.

Not a good start I would say.

It will be a quick finish though

I dont see it as a miracle.
I just believe it is a natural state of evolution.
Just like when a caterpiller turns into a butterfly.

Who is to say the caterpiller ( if it had self awareness), wouldnt think of the crysallis as death.

We know it turns into a butterfly and therefore its not much of a leap of faith to think we do the same.

The last point you made, I dont believe is a fact.

I dont believe we become all knowing after death.

I do believe that the knowledge is accessible though and that your previous body (life) experiences enable you to ask the right questions.

Might have been true a decade ago, but with hands free, who can tell

would love ever be real if it was only virtual?

Interesting topic.

Initially I was going to play devils advocate and say, the person who has to ask if they are the dominant one inevitably isnt.

Then I remember the old saying 'hes the boss of the house, when I let him'.

Some people believe they are dominant but their decisions have become the ones their partner would have made.

To me, its all about strengths and weaknesses. A good relationship is one where either partner makes the decision based on their strength in that area.

For instance, I have no interest in cosmetics whatsoever and nor do I ever wish to have. Why then would I make a judgement on them?

I always believed that two people in a strong relationship become greater than the whole.

If one person is to dominant then it has the opposite effect and impedes the growth of the other and by default the relationship.

That is not to say a bloke should lose his masculinity, nor should a woman lose their feminity.

Both aspects should be cherished

sad (because I cant think of one to top that )

Frankie goes to Hollywood

within the constraints of the human body I agree.

But afterwards, I believe it would make an interesting calculation.

Thought is infinite as is gaining knowledge.

Maybe the only restrictions you would have are thinking of the questions.


Another theory of course is that your energy is one with the universe and all of its secrets are immediately unlocked so that you dont need to ask the questions

It depends totally on whether it is short term or not.

Yeah because life does not cease. Only the form it takes does.

It was such a good question thats why

yule