If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[ding]

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Taz]

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

 

[Taz]

Nobody knows what may have existed before the BB. Dingbat is just pulling your leg.

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

 

[ding]

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

 

[Taz]

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

 

[ding]

Nothing existed before space and time existed. Everyone but you knows this.

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

 

[ding]

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

No. I admit that you can’t follow logic.

 

[Taz]

Sane people know that they can't possibly know what might have been there before the BB. As an example, lot of real scientist theorize about multiple universes, and the math bears this out. Do you deny this possibility?

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

 

[Taz]

So what does saving animals that won't go extinct mean? The writer is a dummy?

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

No. I admit that you can’t follow logic.

That's because you're an idiot. You realize that, right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I dont know, it just seems hard to fathom that all this sprang from nothing.

There seems to be a lot of speculation about things that we cannot actually see, things that we cannot possibly measure. They say that everything is moving away from each other. Isnt it possible that things are just moving around in space?

If everything is moving away from the center of the universe, and there is a lot of stuff out there, you'd think that over 65 million years, our planet would have suffered some major collisions with other planets, stars, and other space debris. There is a lot of stuff flying around out there. In all that time, you would think the earth would have suffered a catastrophic collision by now.

Look at our moon, which is covered in impact craters. How is it our moon has been bombarded, yet the earth has come away relatively unscathed.

If you look at the spiral model, were hurtling around the sun at 60,000 mph, and all the planets, the sun, the moon and everything else are corkscrewing through the universe at something like 640,000 mph. All of this and yet there are no collisions, and our sun, moon, and all of the stars show up the same year after year with perfect synhcronisity, and have been doing so for as long as recorded history. Even the north star remains perfectly in place, without variation.

You'd think that with all of this motion, and everything flying around, that things would be more prone to being out of place, and over time, the night sky would change, and stars would appear that we haven't seen before, and some of the stars we have seen would no longer be there. If not by just random occurance, at least by things colliding into each other and being bumped out of place.

These things dont happen though. Everything still is as it was for as long as we can remember.

Also, if everything is moving away from the center of the universe, does that then mean the center is nothing but empty space? That all the planets, stars, and galaxies are really just an ever expanding ring that circles the center of the universe moving in an outward direction? That also brings the question, if that is true, how close to the edge of the universe are we exactly? Are we more toward the center, are we more toward the leading edge, or somewhere in the middle?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think someone earlier said that time is measured by the rate of expansion. If that is the case, does that mean at the very center of the universe time doesnt exists?

The center cant be expanding unless it also is creating new material to push everything outward. This would have to mean the center of the universe is not moving, and therefore not expanding. This would also mean that time doesnt exist there, if time is measured by expansion.

This would mean time has to come to a place as you get toward the center of the universe, and then just stop. How close would you have to get to the center for time to stop? Or does that mean that the closer you get to the centers time slows down until you get to a place where it's no longer existing. At the same time, wouldn't that mean that the further away you get from the center, time has to speed up?

Does time speed up continually, or only to a certain point and then remains constant? If it continually increases, then this means the closer you get to the edge of the universe, time really speeds up.

 

[ding]

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

Why would you assume they would be different? That would be illogical. Besides the entire basis for multiverse theory is that they do follow the same laws.

 

[ding]

No. That it is a story to be passed down to future generations. Same as the Tower of Babel which describes the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

No. I admit that you can’t follow logic.

That's because you're an idiot. You realize that, right?

I’m not the one assuming other multiverses follow different laws, Taz. That’s you.

 

[Taz]

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

Why would you assume they would be different? That would be illogical. Besides the entire basis for multiverse theory is that they do follow the same laws.

You don't know that, and I've heard scientists say that each universe could have different laws. And why not? Now you're trying to tell me that you know what's in every possible universe of a multiverse? That's foolish and you should know it.

 

[Taz]

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Seriously.

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

No. I admit that you can’t follow logic.

That's because you're an idiot. You realize that, right?

I’m not the one assuming other multiverses follow different laws, Taz. That’s you.

i'm saying it's possible because it is possible.

 

[westwall]

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

Are you seriously trying to figure out the details of an allegorical account of a real event?

I'm asking so if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's what this thread is about.

And I told you that you are reading an allegorical account of the flood literally. Do you not understand what that means?

No, it doesn't.

 

[westwall]

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

 

[james bond]

Sane people know that space and time had a beginning and that before that point nothing existed because there was no space and time for it to exist.

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

 

[Taz]

Real scientists theorize about different possibilities for what was before the BB and if there are multiple universes... which means they don't know. Maybe they should ask you, since you're the only one who knows?

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

 

[ding]

Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.