Melodicmarc t1_j9r7hs7 wrote

I don't think that makes sense. Ripples expand from a single point outward, much like an explosion with a burst of energy. The big Bang wasn't necessarily that. My favorite metaphor for the universe expanding is it is like a loaf of raisin bread in the oven. Imagine you are one of the raisins. As the bread rises and expands, every raisin gets further from each other. So rather than the universe expanding outward from a central point (like an explosion) and us riding a ripple along that explosion, what really is happening is everything is expanding away from everything else. Every galaxy is slowing getting further and further from us. And if you were to go to another galaxy, then every galaxy would still be slowing expanding further and further from us. The space between everything is what is really expanding.


Melodicmarc t1_j79sric wrote

I’ll take a different approach for you. No matter how the universe came to exist, it’s pretty unbelievable. It’s almost impossible to fathom that the universe just came from nothing (which I believe is what you’re suggesting). But to me it’s equally unfathomable that there was just always a universe. And if you objectively think about it, it’s just as unfathomable that there is a higher power that created it all. Whatever the origin of the universe is, it’s too crazy to even comprehend. So just because it seems really wild that the Big Bang happened, any other explanation is equally as wild and bizarre. However if you’re talking about the actual big bang and not necessarily the origin of the universe, there’s mountains of scientific evidence to suggest it’s what happened, as I’m sure you can see in the other comments.


Melodicmarc t1_j1vmvaw wrote

Reply to comment by Destructopoo in art future by nickmakr

So the intent of NFT's are used to show ownership of the original digital image right? Just as a signature by the original painter on a piece of art shows they created it? I think a digital signature of ownership of a digital image is a valuable. I think the scam of buying and selling NFTs like they are stocks is incredibly dumb. FYI this is where I am getting my information from:

You're correct in that art in itself isn't a scam. Art is great, and only a small portion is used as a scam by the very rich to inflate value and launder money, which that video goes into detail about. Which is why I thought NFT's was a good comparison to that. Comparing art to houses is a bad comparison, because once again houses hold actual value in materials and owning a piece of land. Value in art is based entirely off what humans perceive it to be. A painting won't get you far on a cold winter night, but a house will.


Melodicmarc t1_j1vet7r wrote

Reply to comment by Destructopoo in art future by nickmakr

Okay let’s make sure we have the same understanding of what an NFT is here. My understanding is an NFT is essentially a digital signature to show ownership of a digital image? Is that correct? If that is the case, then I don’t see why physical art would hold any more value than digital art? Maybe that’s what we should be discussing.

I was not trying to downplay the value of art. There is a bunch of beauty in art. But also a lot of art is a big scam by rich people. Watch this video:


Melodicmarc t1_j1v44gv wrote

Reply to comment by Themasterofcomedy209 in art future by nickmakr

I’d argue that in both cases (except with historical famous paintings), there is an object with no value except perceived value. The painting is just a physical form of “art” whereas the NFT is a digital form of “art”. Both cases don’t really have any value beyond the perceived artificial value.