Quake3World.com Forums
     General Discussion
        Random Thought #1


Post new topicReply to topic
Login | Profile | | FAQ | Search | IRC




Previous topic | Next topic 
Topic Starter Topic: Random Thought #1

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:04 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


You hear of people having out of body experiences all the time with little to no explanation other than the person was probably hallucinating.

Well, if the fabric of the universe is throughout the whole universe then it should make sense that your own concsiouness is a part of this fabric and since the fabric of the universe constitutes the whole universe why is it you're consiousness couldn't possibly expand into it? Perhaps this is the reason we have out of body experiences and perhaps it may be possible to even do it voluntarily.

Also if you die perhaps your consiousness doesn't die since it's part of this fabric...

I'm stoned as usual.




Top
                 

Do the chickens have large talons?
Do the chickens have large talons?
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 11141
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:08 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


That would make our poop part of this fabric




Top
                 

Who's that man, Mommy?
Who's that man, Mommy?
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 5316
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:08 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


undecidable

anyways: why did you start counting anew? you've allready been at #21




Top
                 

4days Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 8193
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:10 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


clearly not stoned enough, that was bordering on coherent




Top
                 

eminent
eminent
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 9004
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:12 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Because we are not acctually connected to the fabric of the universe (whatever that is), we are simply something that can create their own ideas, dreams, hulicinations, etc. Once the living body dies there is probally no more life after.

However I think that we might again regain consensus in a trillion^999 years, if matter cannot be created or destroyed and if the universe has no timelimit.




Top
                 

The Borked One
The Borked One
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4708
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:13 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


:icon26: *waits for tnf and the rest to come in and explain otherwise* Neat0 thought Kracus. Explain this though...say space does have a "stopping point", now this point can not be passed and there is no "other side" to this point. What would you think this boundary is composed of?




Top
                 

rep
rep
Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Posts: 6771
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:31 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Comparing the ethereal to the real is a daunting task, and a failure of an exercise. No science can possibly explain the world in which science is based on, so how could it suggest anything corporeal? Science is a flawed practice because it's purpose is to determine the why, yet there will always be yet another why as the remainder thereof.

"The universe was created by the big bang." vis-à-vis, "Why?" It's one of the basic principles that children understand completely; The quest for knowledge cannot be completed, and therefor is a futile endeavour - but children understand this not. Thus, they never stop asking, "Why?" Once they reach a certain age, even when given an answer. Science is an interpretation of reality... Reality is something we can never truly understand.



_________________
Image


Top
                 

Who's that man, Mommy?
Who's that man, Mommy?
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 5316
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:32 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


bork[e]:

border of the universe - the problem you face, thinking of a border, is that your conception of the vacuum, 'containing' all material, includes a dimensioning or volume.

but actually the universe could be described as a list of all existing objects.
in a very simplified version this would be a list of 6-tuples (3 coordinates for space, 3 for velocity; relative to some arbitrary origin of course), containting one entry for every atom.
using this model there would be no actual border...




Top
                 

Who's that man, Mommy?
Who's that man, Mommy?
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 5316
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:34 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


i agree with rep btw.




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:35 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


It's only futile if it never gets anywhere. As long as some kind of progress is made then it's worthwhile. When we truly fail is when we stop trying to figure the univers out.




Top
                 

Elite
Elite
Joined: 04 Jan 2001
Posts: 28249
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:36 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


*looks for ignore button*

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamit



_________________
And shepherds we shall be, for thee my Lord for thee, Power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command, we shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine patris, et fili, et spiritus sancti.


Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:45 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dmmh wrote:
*looks for ignore button*

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamit


You'll have to go manual I'm afraid.




Top
                 

He's Super
He's Super
Joined: 08 Sep 2001
Posts: 11253
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 02:59 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


I thought I would bring an icon to this thread




Top
                 

It felt good...
It felt good...
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 9558
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:03 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


rep wrote:
There is no spoon.


Hey thanx Morpheus.




Top
                 

Glayven?
Glayven?
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 13025
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:07 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
You hear of people having out of body experiences all the time with little to no explanation other than the person was probably hallucinating.

Well, if the fabric of the universe is throughout the whole universe then it should make sense that your own concsiouness is a part of this fabric and since the fabric of the universe constitutes the whole universe why is it you're consiousness couldn't possibly expand into it? Perhaps this is the reason we have out of body experiences and perhaps it may be possible to even do it voluntarily.

Also if you die perhaps your consiousness doesn't die since it's part of this fabric...

I'm stoned as usual.


Or maybe you're just some tosser working the phone and posting on the internet?




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:24 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Pext wrote:
bork[e]:

border of the universe - the problem you face, thinking of a border, is that your conception of the vacuum, 'containing' all material, includes a dimensioning or volume.

but actually the universe could be described as a list of all existing objects.
in a very simplified version this would be a list of 6-tuples (3 coordinates for space, 3 for velocity; relative to some arbitrary origin of course), containting one entry for every atom.
using this model there would be no actual border...


Actualy I touched on the fact that the universe has a border before and tnf dismissed that without really looking at it that much but, if you think about it it's not that bad an idea as far as ideas go anyway.

Say you have a small baloon that can baloon to a total size of earth when you fill it with air. Now take that baloon and make it so the exterior of the baloon only stretches out to the size of a baseball. There's still the same ammount of air in the baloon whether it's the size of a baseball or the size of the earth it's just more compressed in it's small size.

Now you have a balloon the size of a baseball in your hand with enough air to fill a baloon the size of earth. (whether it is possible to compress air this much is irrelevant it's just an analogy you'll understand later) Anyway, if the material the balloon is made suddenly changes so that it starts to expand to the size of the earth (cause that's how much air is in there) then you have how I muse that the universe has borders. The border of the universe is like the baloon and the pressure inside the universe is caused much the same way (but not quite) as the compressed air in the balloon.

However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.




Top
                 

Canadian Shaft
Canadian Shaft
Joined: 01 Mar 2001
Posts: 19998
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:27 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus,

When you say 'universe', how many dimensions are you speaking of?




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:30 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


What are you talking about? I'm talking about this universe, with three dimensions. :confused:




Top
                 

Who's that man, Mommy?
Who's that man, Mommy?
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 5316
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:30 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


:confused:

sry, but this is utter crap -

Quote:
the pressure inside the universe


what pressure :confused:

Quote:
And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related


what's the fabric of the universe :confused:

Quote:
And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


:confused:




Top
                 

Canadian Shaft
Canadian Shaft
Joined: 01 Mar 2001
Posts: 19998
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:32 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
What are you talking about? I'm talking about this universe, with three dimensions. :confused:


See this is where you start to go wrong.




Top
                 

Canadian Shaft
Canadian Shaft
Joined: 01 Mar 2001
Posts: 19998
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:33 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:38 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Ok pext those are good questions and here's my explanation.

I'm using the term pressure but it's not the correct term. See what I'm saying is that inside the universe is a fabric that contains the key to everything. It exists everywhere, even in nothing. However as nothing it has a property, just like it has different property in every OTHER type of matter. However in nothing it's property is to keep everything else together which is why nothing is EVERYWHERE something isn't. The reason it's everywhere is because there's pressure exerted on the boundaries of the universe on it's inside wall.

This pressure is much like that baloon I was talking about and caused for the same reasons which is why the universe is expanding, just like the baloon would if it could.

Another property of nothing is gravity. That's a lot more explaining though I'll let you see if you got what I mean first.




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:39 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?


What do you mean?




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:40 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Oh wait I know what you mean, actualy mass does play a part in the ammount of gravity that's exerted on that mass depending on it's size AND I even have a reason.




Top
                 

Canadian Shaft
Canadian Shaft
Joined: 01 Mar 2001
Posts: 19998
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:42 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?


What do you mean?


The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-09-2005 03:51 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?


What do you mean?


The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.


Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.

I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.

The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).

It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.

Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:




Top
                 

Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 04:06 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?


What do you mean?


The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.


Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.

I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.

The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).

It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.

Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:


i needed the nested quoting then

still think it sucks tho ;)



_________________
. : You knows you knows


Top
                 

The Borked One
The Borked One
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4708
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 04:15 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


I know jack shit about the universe and all that goes on, I know the basics that got me through high school and that's about it. It's a very interesting subject to learn about but what bothered me in school, (where I'm from anyway) is one teacher would be all for evolution while the other was all for the Big-bang. Going from one teacher to the next was quite frustrating, but cool to see both sides for the table.

I don't know, nor do I care what the truth really is. I would honestly rather read Kracus's and others ideas and theories of what is there than going to Stephen Hawking's site and reading the mathematical equations of why space is what it is. Not saying he doesn’t provide some extremely insightful material, but I’m not one to read through to much of he’s ideas.

Hell, who knows...Kracus may be spot-on while Einstein and Hawking are way in left field.
:icon19:

edit: maybe until raw get the quote thing straight we could resort to not using the god damn nested quote shit? :icon28:




Top
                 

Canadian Shaft
Canadian Shaft
Joined: 01 Mar 2001
Posts: 19998
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 07:08 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:
bork[e]:



However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.


What about mass?


What do you mean?


The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.


Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.

I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.

The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).

It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.

Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:


Yeah but you also think the universe is 3 dimensional. :lol:




Top
                 

Don't be koi
Don't be koi
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 2693
PostPosted: 02-09-2005 10:09 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


rep wrote:
Comparing the ethereal to the real is a daunting task, and a failure of an exercise. No science can possibly explain the world in which science is based on, so how could it suggest anything corporeal? Science is a flawed practice because it's purpose is to determine the why, yet there will always be yet another why as the remainder thereof.

"The universe was created by the big bang." vis-à-vis, "Why?" It's one of the basic principles that children understand completely; The quest for knowledge cannot be completed, and therefor is a futile endeavour - but children understand this not. Thus, they never stop asking, "Why?" Once they reach a certain age, even when given an answer. Science is an interpretation of reality... Reality is something we can never truly understand.



This is like a shit sandwich with all the dressings.

I'll break it down as best I can:

Science is hopeless because it will never explain everything.
We can never know everything.
Nothing is real.

That about right? Man, you just blew my mind. :icon29:




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-10-2005 02:46 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Yeah but you also think the universe is 3 dimensional. :lol:


Yeah ok :dork:

And what do you think o wise one?




Top
                 

Glayven?
Glayven?
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 13025
PostPosted: 02-10-2005 02:51 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Yeah but you also think the universe is 3 dimensional. :lol:


Yeah ok :dork:

And what do you think o wise one?


Look into String Theory and then come back later...or not.




Top
                 

PostPosted: 02-10-2005 02:54 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


yeah I'm not too keen on the idea of alternate universes. I won't argue that the theory isn't good but have they ever been able to do any tests on it?




Top
                 

Glayven?
Glayven?
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 13025
PostPosted: 02-10-2005 02:57 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


No...they can't prove it with tests....just with the math.

Check out NOVA's website about a show called "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. There should be some streaming links there. It's a 3 part series with 1 hour episodes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html




Top
                 

Glayven?
Glayven?
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 13025
PostPosted: 02-10-2005 02:59 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Kracus wrote:
yeah I'm not too keen on the idea of alternate universes. I won't argue that the theory isn't good but have they ever been able to do any tests on it?


One question...if you know nothing about the theory how come you won't argue it isn't good?




Top
                 
Quake3World.com | Forum Index | General Discussion


Post new topic Reply to topic


cron
Quake3World.com
© ZeniMax. Zenimax, QUAKE III ARENA, Id Software and associated trademarks are trademarks of the ZeniMax group of companies. All rights reserved.
This is an unofficial fan website without any affiliation with or endorsement by ZeniMax.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the author.