No I think we're actually saying the same thing. I was saying that by that argument nothing with mass can actually be defined by size. I used the term length because we were still talking about a coastline.

Also, to make another point, space (as we know it) is most definitely populated with a fabric of being. (Einstein called it Space-Time)
But what I think is important to notice about it is that light can travel through it, objects can travel through it, heat through it, radiation, gravity has effects through it... it's a medium through which something can travel and exist. Therefore, space itself is not nothing. We've known that for a long time, but you'd actually be surprised at how many people still think space is the absolute void of anything at all. And I think it's important to understand that the universe we live in and all the spaces in between are actually "something". And all that something had to come from somewhere.

The only problem I see with that theory is that you can measure the expansion of the universe, and using simple logic and knowledge of gravity, know that the further massive bodies are away from each other, the less gravitational force they exert on one another, so gravity couldn't be the cause of a crunch. I'm not aware of any other force that could cause a crunch, but I could be mistaken.

This is crazy to think about. To think that if time is infinite and will never end then maybe it never "began" and just always was.

http://i690.photobucket.com/albums/v...eadExplode.gif

Time won't exist unless there's something to move through it... Change rate gauges time. Time is just the movement between now and then. I don't think time is a separate, independent factor at all, like some cosmic clock that all realities are synched to.... I think it's just the progression of things changing. The perception of that change is merely dependent on the prospector.

Okay, I have a one. More a riddle/problem so to speak. It's so simple but it can fuck with your head. Especially for overthinkers.

There are 3 people. They have all rented a room at a hotel. The fee for the hotel room is $30. Therefore, they each contribute $10 to the cost of the hotel room. During their stay, their electricity is cut for a period time. To compensate for this, the hotel manager, takes $5 from the $30 dollars which he received and gives one his workers the $5 to pay the 3 people sharing the room. The employee thinking that $5 would be too cumbersome to split, decides to keep $2 for himself and gives each of the 3 people in the room $1. Now, since they received $1 dollar each, it is correct to say that they payed $9 dollars each for the room right? And the employee kept $2. Now doing the math, $9 x 3 = $27 +$2 = $29. Where did the other dollar go?

Ok I'm going to take a guess, and I may be completely wrong in doing so, so don't call me out as a total idiot if I'm wrong. Please? :shycouch:

Isn't the problem in the equation? In that it should be: $9 x 3 = $27 + $3 = $30 because the customers are getting $3 back, not $2?


So, the break down is:

The customers pay $27
.........$25 goes to the owner
..........$2 goes to the employee

The customers have $3 left over from the money they got back

Yeah, it's as simple as that. The equation in the problem is fallacious and adds in the employee's +$2 for no real reason.

The problem I think is in the wording of the riddle and how they phrase things to distort what the problem really is. This seems for the most part to be correct though.

Yea that's kind of like one of those riddles that starts with "Ok.. you're the bus driver....."