Art_Vandelay

In any case, it's older than Aisha was.

My position is that the concept of god is completely arbitrary. You can no more demonstrate that intelligence is required to begin a universe than you can that a toaster is.

I think those are two different beasts. A universe that is causally related to ours has to have something more in common than one that isn't. i.e the arrow of time. Which presents another problem. If our arrow of time is exclusive to our universe and resultant of the big bang that created our universe, how can a different universe share it? Unless our big bang begat more than just one universe. In which case there is a categorical difference between one of our 'cousin' universes, and a universe that began with a different big bang in a different part of the meta-universe.

Semen is not the same as testosterone, and blocking your vas deferens with all your might wont stop the release of hormones, and if anything will only do you harm. And you're also assuming that extra testosterone is necessarily a good thing. The relationship between hormone levels and well-being is not linear. Any time you hear the phrase 'anecdotal evidence' or 'subjective truth', alarm bells should be ringing. This is scienceforums.net, not newagefantasyforums.net

I assume the answer to this is yes, but I'm not sure why. Do electrons exert/interact with gravitational force directly? They are referred to as 'point-particles' and are not made of other particles, and are also force-carrying particles, correct? But then they also have a minute amount of mass.. so does that mean they have a higgs boson? That might be a whole other tangent, but why does an electron have mass at all, and are there any practical applications for the kinds of equations that involve it? I know I've missed something along the way

Then in a sense, is it as good as non-existent? There are two factors here. The first being that another universe, totally seperate from ours, will have no relation to our passage of time. So you can't really say that it occurs before, or after, or concurrently to our universe, since what we know as time only began with this universe. Is this correct? The other is the concept of 'nothing', as described by Lawrence Krauss. That is, the idea that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. We mere mortals cannot comprehend 'nothing', and there is nowhere in the observable universe that consists of 'nothing'. I would take that a step further and say that there is no such thing as non-existence. At least in a literal sense. I kind of lost my train of thought while I was trying to word this.. Do you guys understand what I'm getting at?