Isaac Hayes Quits South Park

[Kizyr]

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
~Qur'an, 21:30 (Anbiya - The Prophets)

Yeah, I find the Big Bang theory to be very plausible within a religious context.

The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.
~Qur'an, 21:104 (Anbiya - The Prophets)

Perhaps the Big Crunch (and subsequent Big Bang(s)) are equally plausible.

The context for the chapter, by the way, is within a list of elements, natural and outcomes of human progress (from the orbits of the moon and planets, to knowledge of how to make chain mail, e.g.) that form the basis of belief in God based on reason and intellect. That's formed the core of my own beliefs, which is why I'm all about pushing for scientific progress. KF

[JWL]

I'm not surprised that Pope Pius XII said that. The Big Bang is certainly plausible, scientifically speaking, and it doesn't contradict anything in the Bible. The Book of Genesis states that God created the heavens and the earth; it doesn't explain how.

Einstein thought that if he figured out how to combine the four forces - Gravitational, Electromagnetic, Strong Atomic, and Weak Atomic - that he would meet God. If there was a Big Bang, I bet those four forces were combined in the center of the universe at the beginning of all things. In my opinion, the fact that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed, helps to support the idea of an intelligent being which has always existed.

After all, if matter has always existed, why would it suddenly start moving? And why would it form complex galaxies and lifeforms, apparently in violation of entropy? If I drop a block of ice off a building, it breaks into a million random jagged pieces - it doesn't break into the shape into a swan. I can't see some big, uncontrolled explosion actually producing something which is unbelievably ordered by random chance.

[phyco126]

Since we are on the topic of the Big Bang...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/1 ... index.html

Though I have always wondered, if everything was inside the universe, what is outside of it?

[Kizyr]

Though I have always wondered, if everything was inside the universe, what is outside of it?

There is no 'outside' of it.

"is" is a verb that refers to the existence of something. Existence is a function of being within the universe. Outside the universe, nothing "is".

Similarly, nothing was "before" the universe, since unless time exists, there is no before or after. KF

[JWL]

If the universe contains everything, then by definition, there is nothing outside the universe. This may seem like a circular argument, but since we define 'universe' as 'everything', it only makes sense.

That article is interesting. It states that following the (alleged) Big Bang, the universe expanded from marble size to "a volume larger than all of observable space" in a "trillionth of a second".

The speed of light in a vacuum is (supposedly) the maximum speed which anything can travel. That speed is 300 million meters per second. So, if my math is correct:

300 million meters/second x 1 second/1 trillion trillionths of a second = 0.0003 meters per trillionth of a second

In a trillionth of a second, light would only travel 0.3 millimeters. Unless the article is exaggerating about how quickly the Big Bang happened, then the universe expanded a heck of a lot faster than the speed of light.

And if that is the case, maybe "Hyperspace" "Warp Drive" or "Folding Space" might actually be possible eventually.

[Kizyr]

Bwa ha ha

I just found this:

BBC - South Park 'Battling' Scientology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4819826.stm

Parker & Stone's comments are utterly hilarious.
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!"
and
"Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"

These guys slay me. KF

[Werefrog]

Bwa ha ha

I just found this:

BBC - South Park 'Battling' Scientology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4819826.stm

Parker & Stone's comments are utterly hilarious.
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!"
and
"Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"

These guys slay me. KF

Yep, they're the anti- Ben Affleck/Matt Damon.

[phyco126]

Ah, but there is something beyond the boarders of the universe, and that is nothing. So to say that there is nothing, therefore makes it something? I dunno, my head hurts just thinking of it. For how can one imagine a complete void. What would it look like? Black? White? Seriously, it's just really hard to comprehend everything being here, and nothing being there. So the absolute void, is there to be a void? To give space for the universe to expand?

And JWL, I never thought of that. You are correct, as they say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (but what if you where going to speed of light and shot a bullet? Then would the bullet go faster than light, or would you hit it?)

[Kizyr]

Ah, but there is something beyond the boarders of the universe, and that is nothing. So to say that there is nothing, therefore makes it something?

A void isn't something, it's the absence of all something. Your theory still assumes that nothingness is some kind of physical object; it isn't, it's the absence of physical objects. And while it can be conceptualized in physical terms, just for understanding's sake, you can't really apply the same ideas to the physical universe as you would to an imaginary universe (it's like adding together terms using the square root of -1).

And JWL, I never thought of that. You are correct, as they say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (but what if you where going to speed of light and shot a bullet? Then would the bullet go faster than light, or would you hit it?)

That actually hints at how the theory of relativity was first formulated. Einstein (and I think others before him) noted that the speed of an object which emits light doesn't change the actual speed of light relative to the ground. Now, velocity is measured by distance / time; since the distance was the same, then that meant that time dilates as you approach the speed of light.

In other words, you can add up the velocities all simple-like at low speeds and still be correct enough. So walking 5mph on a train going 80mph means going 85mph relative to the ground. Walking 5mph on a train going at the speed of light means that you're going 5mph relative to the train, but relative to the rest of the world you're still going at the speed of light (because, outside that train, time is 'standing still' when you're at that high a speed).

There's a physics lecture I found online that explains some of that, including the specific formulas for adding velocities at high speeds.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virgi ... _vels.html

I don't really understand all of it, but it's the more complete version of what I was saying with relative velocities, plus background proofs. KF

[Roas Atrades]

Bwa ha ha

I just found this:

BBC - South Park 'Battling' Scientology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4819826.stm

Parker & Stone's comments are utterly hilarious.
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!"
and
"Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"

These guys slay me. KF

I know!

A friend of mine read the entire statment to me over the phone last night! I laughed my ass off!

There is a primary rule when picking fights in the entertainment industry...and my friend and I like to call it the "Don't Pick a Fight with Triumph" Rule. It basically says: never ever piss off, think you can take on, or pick a fight with the parody comics. They will make it their mission to make the rest of your career a living hell whenever possible.

All Hail Xenu! hahahahahahaha

[DragonmasterDan]

It's a bit of reading but pretty funny http://www.antisectes.net/42xenub-eng.pdf

[phyco126]

A void isn't something, it's the absence of all something. Your theory still assumes that nothingness is some kind of physical object; it isn't, it's the absence of physical objects. And while it can be conceptualized in physical terms, just for understanding's sake, you can't really apply the same ideas to the physical universe as you would to an imaginary universe (it's like adding together terms using the square root of -1).

I understand what you're saying, but still, what would that void consist of? If you where cast out of the universe, would you see white, black, what? To my understanding, there is no true void in the universe, so the only true void is outside the universe, or so goes the theory. I suppose it must be frustrating trying to tell me that 1+1 = 2 when I keep saying 1+1 = 3 .

Walking 5mph on a train going at the speed of light means that you're going 5mph relative to the train, but relative to the rest of the world you're still going at the speed of light (because, outside that train, time is 'standing still' when you're at that high a speed).

I remember reading something about that. It had to deal with space travel and time travel. If you go the speed of light from Earth to the next solar system, then go the speed of light from that solar sytem back to Earth, then while you aged 9 year or so (however many lightyears you traveled) everyone on Earth hadn't aged at all. Or something like that.

It's a bit of reading but pretty funny http://www.antisectes.net/42xenub-eng.pdf

Brilliant, funny, and outright wonderfully done. The author really should get a nobel, or politzer, or whatever that medal is.

[Sonic#]

I understand what you're saying, but still, what would that void consist of? If you where cast out of the universe, would you see white, black, what? To my understanding, there is no true void in the universe, so the only true void is outside the universe, or so goes the theory. I suppose it must be frustrating trying to tell me that 1+1 = 2 when I keep saying 1+1 = 3 .

Eh, it's not frustrating.

You're still wanting to interpret it as an object or substance though, able to be sensorily perceived. It's not.

Plus, I doubt you could even go outside the universe, since ... wouldn't the universe expand faster than you could reach its border (which I'm assuming is the amount of light since the big bang)? And even if you did manage to go faster than that, and go outside it, wouldn't your venturing forth expand the universe as well? For, essentially, the universe is what can be known, what is. When you exist in the void, you know yourself as there, referential to what exists.

You're trying to identify tangible senses to something intangible by definition. Nothing is unknowable except as the lack of something. A void would be the lack of everything.

[Kizyr]

I understand what you're saying, but still, what would that void consist of? If you where cast out of the universe, would you see white, black, what? To my understanding, there is no true void in the universe, so the only true void is outside the universe, or so goes the theory.

Yeah, Sonic# already explained it much. You're still trying to conceive of it as a tangible object.

For instance, color is a function of light reflecting off a surface. Light (like everything else) only exists within the universe. There is no color without light, therefore there is no color in a void. Of course, black is the color of the absence of light, so if you want to imagine "outside" the universe somehow, you could picture it as being black.

Still, then, it would only be a representation of a concept.

I remember reading something about that. It had to deal with space travel and time travel. If you go the speed of light from Earth to the next solar system, then go the speed of light from that solar sytem back to Earth, then while you aged 9 year or so (however many lightyears you traveled) everyone on Earth hadn't aged at all. Or something like that.

Right! Same idea behind that theory.

In all sciences, we make certain assumptions about the world in order to simplify things into what can be understood. When we're dealing with velocity, one assumption we make is that a measurement of time is a constant. That assumption holds under most circumstances (meaning that it doesn't bias the outcome of our conclusions), but once you hit higher speeds for longer intervals, the assumption of time as having a constant measurement breaks down. So, when you deal with any function of time (such as velocity, which is distance/time), then trying to calculate it changes when the assumptions have to change. KF

[DeathBeforeDenial]

Update on the whole South Park vs Scientology thing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... 0063c.html

Contrary to popular assumption, "South Park" fans have not seen the Chef sling his final serving of hash.
The character, who until last week was voiced by Isaac Hayes, is back tomorrow in the first of several new episodes of Comedy Central's top-rated show.

The episode, "The Return of Chef" (10 p.m.), has the school-cafeteria cook returning after a hiatus to the bucolic town that Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman call home. According to a brief description released by the network, the gang is happy "to have their old friend back, [but] they notice that something about Chef seems different. When Chef's strange behavior starts getting him in trouble, the boys pull out all the stops to save him."

Work on the episode began last week, after news broke of Hayes' decision to quit the show because it skewered the Church of Scientology, of which he's a member.

"There is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs and others begins," Hayes, 63, said in a statement last week.

A Comedy Central spokesman would not confirm or deny that Chef's voice in tomorrow's episode is provided by Hayes, but he did reiterate that Hayes is no longer involved with the show. However, it would not be difficult to weave together existing dialogue from Hayes. And it is not unusual for Parker and Stone to deliver episodes at the last minute.

It's unclear whether tomorrow's episode involves Scientology.

But Parker and Stone's penchant for topical sacred-cow-bashing is well-known. So it would not be a stretch to assume that "Chef Returns" is the latest salvo in the battle between "South Park" and the religion that counts Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its devotees.

Rumors swirled late last week that last Wednesday's scheduled rerun of "South Park," which caricatured Cruise and Travolta and had Stan being crowned the new savior by Scientology leaders, was pulled because of threats from Cruise. The network said the episode was yanked to make room for two Chef-centric episodes.

Parker and Stone are obviously enjoying the controversy.

"So, Scientology, you may have won this battle, but the million-year war for Earth has just begun," the duo said in a statement on the yanked episode. "Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail!"

The spokesman said it's "undetermined" if Chef will remain a character in the series.

Tomorrow's episode is the first of seven new half-hours of "South Park." The remaining seven will begin airing in October.

[Aquaignis]

Parker and Stone are laughing all the way.

If one was going the speed of light and fired a bullet what would happen? It probably wouldn't be smart to shoot it straight ahead. It would have to be fired at an angle. It would "zoom" back behing the firer as the bullet would go at its normal speed as the firer keeps going forward at the speed of light. Nevertheless, the bullet would probably impact the barrel anyway.

[Kizyr]

If one was going the speed of light and fired a bullet what would happen? It probably wouldn't be smart to shoot it straight ahead. It would have to be fired at an angle. It would "zoom" back behing the firer as the bullet would go at its normal speed as the firer keeps going forward at the speed of light. Nevertheless, the bullet would probably impact the barrel anyway.

No, that's not how it would work. That's like saying if you jump up on a train going 85MPH, then you'd fly backwards and hit the back wall at 85MPH.

Speed is always relative to something, and is distance / time (85MPH is 85 miles / 1 hour). Now, when you're going at low speeds (say, up until Mach 1) then it's fine to assume that time is the same for the person going fast and for everyone else. When you're going at high speeds, then time for the person travelling at high speeds is significantly different than time for everyone else.

So if you're going at the speed of light and you fire a bullet, it's not going to be any different for you. For an outside observer, everything around you travelling at light-speed would be happening at the same time--the bullet would fire, leave the chamber, and hit its object at the same instant in time.

You want any mathematical proofs behind this? KF

[phyco126]

Speaking of time travel and stuff, there is also that theory that a large object that has significant gravity warps space around it, causing some sort of time change (although it's slight.) It was one of Einstein's theories, which was prooven when NASA sent a satalight to take measurements of signals around Earth. I wish I remembered more though.

My dad also explained to me the theory of time travel by going the speed of light. Of course, no one can go the speed of light, so it's not like we can exactly tell if we are right or not .

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Speaking of time travel and stuff, there is also that theory that a large object that has significant gravity warps space around it, causing some sort of time change (although it's slight.) It was one of Einstein's theories, which was prooven when NASA sent a satalight to take measurements of signals around Earth. I wish I remembered more though.

Actually, any object warps space -- all objects with mass have gravity, and gravity warps space. Just that you need to be at least planet-sized before the gravity really starts to have a noticable effect (although they have detected it in labs using two copper spheres roughly the size of softballs, I believe). Still, you got the idea right -- just that you don't have to be huge to have an effect -- you only have to be huge to have a noticable effect.

Oh, and speaking of satellites detecting this effect -- the GPS satellites all contain software to compensate for this effect.

My dad also explained to me the theory of time travel by going the speed of light. Of course, no one can go the speed of light, so it's not like we can exactly tell if we are right or not .

Well, there are theories using wormholes and the like for time travel... but that's way out there in astrophysics, and I'm not an astrophysicist...

[Dragonlord911]

There is no way to go light speed. That speed would tear someone apart atom by atom, even with enershal dampeners(or whatever).