mjrpes wrote:What is the point to these random thoughts? Yes Kracus, it would be kind of neat to do X, but most of your random thoughts are useless discussion topics because they are so highly hypothetical. "It's crazy, man, there could be like this whole universe hiding under my fingernail." What's worse it that you try to tie it in with your limited knowledge of physics and the universe... so all your attempts to defend your ideas fall flat on your face and you look like a fool. Could you at least do some research on the subject beforehand so that you can give a minimal defense of whatever idea it is that you are positing?
There is nothing in what I posted remotely mentioning any of my past random thought threads. It may be a similar topic but only because I like to think about this topic once in awhile and I thought this was rather interesting for a single reason.
If it is possible it means this universe is only as deterministic as the universe will allow. Meaning that making the connection with the outside of this universe means you really do have free will. However, even if the idea is NOT possible it still means that you have free will. Just being able to think of it is enough, because the limits of the free will have been tested it's limit which is only limited by this universe. But we are free to do what we want within that limit, even try to break it, no matter whether it's futile it's the attempt that makes us free.
This is from another thread...but Kracus the following kind of addresses why so many of your random thoughts are hard to respond to...
"Found a great quote that addresses almost all of Kracus's random thoughts and the frustration you feel as a person educated in physics trying to answer them:
"You could spend a lifetime - in antiquity, some did - wondering what happens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that previous mysteries are not solved; instead, they're rendered irrelevant."
Substitute "previous mysteries" with Kracus's random thoughts..and you see what I mean. Kracus, it isn't that your posts are always just plain wrong (although in terms of physics many are), the thing is, in light of what we already know, they are just irrelevant (like the "when is Russia?" type of question)"
Jesus christ people I'm just discussing something here... If you have something to say go ahead, if you're going to say read this book then yeah fuck off.
It's not to say I don't want to hear what you have to say on the topic I'm just discussing it. I'm not flaming anybody here just keep civil. GKY hasn't crashed here yet.
Been hooked on Mercury for the PSP. I have to be careful, every time I move on the couch too fast I pull on the stitches in my lower back, causing me a lot of discomfort.
Been hooked on Mercury for the PSP. I have to be careful, every time I move on the couch too fast I pull on the stitches in my lower back, causing me a lot of discomfort.
you move with the controller when you play games don't you?
noob!
Last edited by saturn on Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kracus wrote:Jesus christ people I'm just discussing something here... If you have something to say go ahead, if you're going to say read this book then yeah fuck off.
It's not to say I don't want to hear what you have to say on the topic I'm just discussing it. I'm not flaming anybody here just keep civil. GKY hasn't crashed here yet.
What's the point of discussing something when you don't understand the fundamentals, the questions you ask are plain stupid.
"What if this, what if that" Doesn't work like that, so who cares.
Kracus wrote:Jesus christ people I'm just discussing something here... If you have something to say go ahead, if you're going to say read this book then yeah fuck off.
It's not to say I don't want to hear what you have to say on the topic I'm just discussing it. I'm not flaming anybody here just keep civil. GKY hasn't crashed here yet.
I DIDN'T SAY READ A BOOK YOU TWAT. THE PROBLEM IS YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY ARE OFTEN TIMES WONDERING ABOUT QUESTIONS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE SOLID ANSWERS TO...LIKE THE QUESTION 'WHAT LIVES ON THE BOTTOM OF THE EARTH?' IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN VALID BEFORE WE KNEW EARTH WAS ROUND, BUT AT THIS POINT, WE KNOW THE QUESTION IS INVALID.
Many of your points are invalid for the same reason. They are simply irrelevant. If you want to know why they are irrelevant, you either have to accept the information given to you by people who know more (which you won't do) or read books to learn on your own (which you also won't do).
So, the discussions you often try and start are as pointless as wondering what lives on the bottom of the flat earth...they just sound a little more complicated...but they are, often, no less irrelevant. And this isn't picking on you...if you had a thought that wasn't irrelevant...if you had one that did ask a legitimate question based on true understanding, I'd be glad to be part of the discussion.
tnf wrote:This is from another thread...but Kracus the following kind of addresses why so many of your random thoughts are hard to respond to...
"Found a great quote that addresses almost all of Kracus's random thoughts and the frustration you feel as a person educated in physics trying to answer them:
"You could spend a lifetime - in antiquity, some did - wondering what happens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that previous mysteries are not solved; instead, they're rendered irrelevant."
Substitute "previous mysteries" with Kracus's random thoughts..and you see what I mean. Kracus, it isn't that your posts are always just plain wrong (although in terms of physics many are), the thing is, in light of what we already know, they are just irrelevant (like the "when is Russia?" type of question)"
That last post was posted before I saw this post. Yeah I see what you mean. I didn't realize that the idea a universe that basicly just reverts in on itself eternaly was already disproved.
tnf wrote:This is from another thread...but Kracus the following kind of addresses why so many of your random thoughts are hard to respond to...
"Found a great quote that addresses almost all of Kracus's random thoughts and the frustration you feel as a person educated in physics trying to answer them:
"You could spend a lifetime - in antiquity, some did - wondering what happens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that previous mysteries are not solved; instead, they're rendered irrelevant."
Substitute "previous mysteries" with Kracus's random thoughts..and you see what I mean. Kracus, it isn't that your posts are always just plain wrong (although in terms of physics many are), the thing is, in light of what we already know, they are just irrelevant (like the "when is Russia?" type of question)"
That last post was posted before I saw this post. Yeah I see what you mean. I didn't realize that the idea a universe that basicly just reverts in on itself eternaly was already disproved.
Ok then.
Sorry for the all caps blast.
It's not that people are against discussing things with you personally (well some probably are), but discussions need to be relevant. And to come up with questions that aren't already answered can require some background knowledge. That's why I encourage books all the time. It's how you eventually formulate your own questions, etc. - by first establishing a solid fundamental understanding of things.
Kracus wrote:Jesus christ people I'm just discussing something here... If you have something to say go ahead, if you're going to say read this book then yeah fuck off.
It's not to say I don't want to hear what you have to say on the topic I'm just discussing it. I'm not flaming anybody here just keep civil. GKY hasn't crashed here yet.
I DIDN'T SAY READ A BOOK YOU TWAT. THE PROBLEM IS YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY ARE OFTEN TIMES WONDERING ABOUT QUESTIONS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE SOLID ANSWERS TO...LIKE THE QUESTION 'WHAT LIVES ON THE BOTTOM OF THE EARTH?' IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN VALID BEFORE WE KNEW EARTH WAS ROUND, BUT AT THIS POINT, WE KNOW THE QUESTION IS INVALID.
Many of your points are invalid for the same reason. They are simply irrelevant. If you want to know why they are irrelevant, you either have to accept the information given to you by people who know more (which you won't do) or read books to learn on your own (which you also won't do).
So, the discussions you often try and start are as pointless as wondering what lives on the bottom of the flat earth...they just sound a little more complicated...but they are, often, no less irrelevant. And this isn't picking on you...if you had a thought that wasn't irrelevant...if you had one that did ask a legitimate question based on true understanding, I'd be glad to be part of the discussion.
See that's my point though. Why wouldn't you just say that it's impossible because the universe can't revert back to itself? Why is that so difficult for you? Instead you have to go into some drawn out explanation of why you think I'm an idiot and then go tell me to read some textbook on science? I don't fucking get people like you.
That last post was posted before I saw this post. Yeah I see what you mean. I didn't realize that the idea a universe that basicly just reverts in on itself eternaly was already disproved.
Now, we can discuss this.
There is still a debate as to the ultimate fate of the universe - will it end in a big crunch or as a runaway universe? Recent observational data (from the early 2000's I believe) has shown that the expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up. In light of this evidence, it seems possible that we might have a runaway universe...
But if gravity does 'win out' - the expansion will eventually slow down and reverse...and everything will come back to a single point. Remember, too, that this crunch will not involve matter all coming back to a single point in the center of the universe...this crunch would involve the UNIVERSE ITSELF shrinking back to a single point. Now, could another big bang occur after this crunch?
As for the re-playing of this universe, though, probably not.
Kracus wrote:btw I'm assuming that's what you're trying to say back there.
actually kracus, that was a general comment. I hadn't yet read this thread closely, but see my comment that addresses your post directly. That rant was to try and explain why so many 'educated' (in the realm of science) people get so frustrated with your random thoughts and subsequent responses.
Kracus wrote:
See that's my point though. Why wouldn't you just say that it's impossible because the universe can't revert back to itself? Why is that so difficult for you? Instead you have to go into some drawn out explanation of why you think I'm an idiot and then go tell me to read some textbook on science? I don't fucking get people like you.
The universe is not governed by predictability at the subatomic level. So, I don't know that we could assume, based on the observed properties of subatomic particles, even with identical starting conditions at the start of the 'big bang', that we could get another identical reality to this one playing out.
That last post was posted before I saw this post. Yeah I see what you mean. I didn't realize that the idea a universe that basicly just reverts in on itself eternaly was already disproved.
Now, we can discuss this.
There is still a debate as to the ultimate fate of the universe - will it end in a big crunch or as a runaway universe? Recent observational data (from the early 2000's I believe) has shown that the expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up. In light of this evidence, it seems possible that we might have a runaway universe...
But if gravity does 'win out' - the expansion will eventually slow down and reverse...and everything will come back to a single point. Remember, too, that this crunch will not involve matter all coming back to a single point in the center of the universe...this crunch would involve the UNIVERSE ITSELF shrinking back to a single point. Now, could another big bang occur after this crunch?
As for the re-playing of this universe, though, probably not.
Ah so it's is theoreticaly possible then.
On a similar subject it'd be interesting to see if you could send a message back in time. I think I've figured out how to do it.
Take a telescope and find a fixed spot in the sky billions of years away and look up. If you can somehow send a visible signal that travels faster than the speed of light you would theoreticaly be able to see this signal before you sent it and depending on how far away you sent it you would be able to see it further back in time.
