# Civilization Among The Other Planets



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 13, 2011)

So if we were to find a civilization on another planet that was technologically similar to ours, would they look identical? For example, would their communication systems that rely on radio waves conists of circular dishes? Assuming they used fossil fuels, would their cars be similar? A vehicle with 2/4 doors, 4 rubber tires, and a combustible engine in the front?

I guess what l'm really asking is, have we harnessed the potential of our resources and natural laws the most efficient way? Provided they had about the same natural resources as we do?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2011)

Awesome thread idea. I often think about this, the anthropic principle (of which I'm a fan) states that it's probable many other civilizations exist throughout the universe, some much older than ours, and some much more advanced than ours. I think many of its inhabitants would be carbon based (since carbon is such an abundant element throughout the universe), but could be silicon based or some other element. Since the laws of physics are consistent throughout the universe, I think some technology would progress similar to the way ours did. I think many would have progressed as we have, a little faster or a little slower, but some may have exploded without the hindrances that we have faced. I certainly don't think we've evolved as a civilization in the most efficient way possible


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 13, 2011)

The radio dishes, probably yes. They're engineering expressions of Euclid in action.
Cars? That's tougher. A sapient technological species about as advanced as we are might have very different transportation needs/wants. 
In re efficiency, I doubt we're being very efficient at all ... this comes from the constant dynamic between individual and community. It's like government ... all the ways that work, work quite poorly. 
My hope is that we survive and thrive long enough to get into space in a way that matters ... send seedships to nearby solar systems. By then we won't need planets at all. The Kuiper belt is prime real estate. Jmo. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

I think about this stuff all the time. Alright, check this out.
Statistics, that is what we base things on. Science is even, "Which thing happened the most amount of times, that one is proven." So basically anything we believe in, is based on how statistically favored or possible it is.
We only know of 9 planets (minus Pluto now, so 8. Plus Colbert took part in funding a telescope that outdid the hubble, but I'm not going to count that because it hasn't been completely analyzed, and I don't think they noticed every possible thing noticeable yet I don't think.)
So we know of 9 planets, and we know that the sun is a star. The same as the stars in the sky. Maybe a little different from some, but all stars still. Statistically, what we know is: Every star is a sun, Every sun has 9 planets, 1 out of every 9 planets HAS LIFE. Statistically, even if you take out the "Every sun has 9 planets" part. It is STATISTICALLY true, that 1/9 of planets has life.

And further than that, we should not accept that water is the base for all life. That is not necessarily true. As long as something appeared on whatever mystery planet we're talking about, that was similar to plants or fungus. There is a possibility for something similar to animals. This is not at all to say that they would be anything like a human, or any animal on earth. Because in a different atmosphere, with different conditions, anything could work like water and support an earth like system. And who's to say there isn't a way for much, much different life forms to appear. 

First off about their technology. Their communication would probably be SOOOO different from us. They will have evolved from something so much different than us, that trying to decipher their communication will be as hard as understanding what a plant has to say about what it feels. So we won't even recognize their base mediums for/or usage of anything. 
And I'm not sure as far as the wheel. Spheres work just as good. So a civilization could have come up with the base invention of sphere instead of wheel and already be completely diverse, and advanced from ours in that way. And there could be planets with all kinds of crazy stuff going on involving the mixture of two planets information and technology. The universe is going to be even more of an adventure and discovery than when they found The America's. Like Columbus ain't got shit on whoever meets the first alien.


http://finshaggy.blogspot.com


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> Since the laws of physics are consistent throughout the universe,



what if they were further advanced then us and made fun of our theories and laws? What if they had better resources on their planet then on ours? Do you think that would lead to a more advanced civilization? 




> I think many would have progressed as we have



i think so as well, but dont you think that some may be composed differently then us? i mean we are a product of our environment right? It is crazy to think about cause the possibilities are endless, and just yesterday i was reading a new discovery of 50 or so planets about 35 light years away, some 10x bigger others the same size as Earth. Im pretty sure if there is water in any form, there could be life and as long as they are within the "goldie lox" zone, the rate is increased.\



> I certainly don't think we've evolved as a civilization in the most efficient way possible



I would have to disagree, i think we have evolved into far more efficient beings then our ancestors at this point along the time line... what i do think is that with all these new genetic disorders and abnormalities, that our species is evolving, into what, im not sure yet.. maybe later we will evolve into being immune to cancer or AIDS or banish it permanently from our gene pool... Also, i think obesity will be a major factor within our gene pool that will have an impact on how and what humans will look or be like in the future.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> Statistically, what we know is: Every star is a sun, Every sun has 9 planets



there are stars with more and some stars with less, im pretty sure of that, but you do make a rather interesting point.




> So we won't even recognize their base mediums for/or usage of anything.



i would have to disagree. If they are much more advanced then they should be able to decipher ours and come to a conclusion on how we can interpret theirs. Language and communication is about semantics so i would think there would be some similarities.



> The universe is going to be even more of an adventure and discovery than when they found The America's.



it sucks because i wish i could be around for those discoveries, but all things must come to an end... i would really like to know what happens to the Earth after we are gone say maybe 100,000 years from now or 1,000,000 years from now.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Every sun has 9 planets http://finshaggy.blogspot.com


I'm no cosmologist, but l don't think this is necessarily true...where did you hear this? Not trying to be a dick, out of genuine curiosity...?



Finshaggy said:


> Their communication would probably be SOOOO different from us. http://finshaggy.blogspot.com


Interesting idea...how so? Like, if not via electricity or radio waves, what other mediums/channels do you think they would employ?



Finshaggy said:


> Like Columbus ain't got shit on whoever meets the first alien. http://finshaggy.blogspot.com


Now THAT is funny haha...l agree, and props to you sir!


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I would have to disagree, i think we have evolved into far more efficient beings then our ancestors at this point along the time line... what i do think is that with all these new genetic disorders and abnormalities, that our species is evolving, into what, im not sure yet.. maybe later we will evolve into being immune to cancer or AIDS or banish it permanently from our gene pool... Also, i think obesity will be a major factor within our gene pool that will have an impact on how and what humans will look or be like in the future.


I think what he was trying to say oly is that, the fact we are able to clone, smash atoms, and map the human genome, yet we still war over small things like theology...if this is what he was implying l would have to agree.

However, you make some excellent points yourself...all of you guys do! Nice to hear everyone's opinion and see people like myself that like to ponder these things, even though we'll probably never get to witness any of it


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> I think what he was trying to say oly is that, the fact we are able to clone, smash atoms, and map the human genome, yet we still war over small things like theology.



i know the point he was making, i just think there are more things to think about then what scientific advancements like in technology, and im not trying to be a dick. i think our problem with obesity will play a major role in our gene pool make up


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i know the point he was making, i just think there are more things to think about then what scientific advancements like in technology, and im not trying to be a dick. i think our problem with obesity will play a major role in our gene pool make up


That l concur with...but, do you think obesity is more race related? Or a societal issue?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Oly:More likely for everyone to get HIV positive, and the AIDS getters to die off, than to remove AIDS from the gene pool. Unless we find a cure we will all get HIV, and it will be like the plague.Until HIV positive, but AIDsS Immune people are left. There is already a tribe in Africa that is 100% HIV positive and not a single one of them ever gets AIDS anymore.

Oly: I was just saying that they may be more advanced than us. There is no way to tell if anyone came whether they would be more or less advanced. And still even if they figured out how we interpret things they might not be able to connect to us in a friendly, conversational or similar way. We understand bears and sharks to a pretty good extent, but they still eat us all the time. And humans are definitely not any friendlier than a bear. At least a bear has the good manners to growl and charge for warning. A human will pretend be your best friend and blow your brains out in front of your family house. There may be some similarities between us and them. But there will be MANY more differences.

Oly: How old are you, you might be here. Maybe not for aliens to actually come, but to witness a shift in the right direction to open channels to universal connectivity.

Lightning:Not TRUE. Statistically, based on what we have seen of suns and planets. Which (until the Colbert funded telescope) Was 1 star has 9 planets. That's what we "know".

Lightning:I just meant different in like, they might not use vocal cords or sign language in any recognizable form or maybe at all. But still further, they could use waves that we haven't even harnessed. Or use waves we have harnessed in new ways. Think about it, we can only see a particular spectrum of light. There are more that we know of, but cannot see (xrays), and more most likely that haven't even been discovered yet.
We only know certain ways certain waves work, and more wave based society may know how to use xrays to endless possibility since it can pass through things. Or who knows what else they could be using. Anything, we just harnessed the power of light coded information though FIOS.
And say they communicate through chemical transfer like plants, that would open up a WHOLE NEW system of communication. Imagine if plants were inventing things to further their networking skills. That would be crazy. Another planets species will be even more unimaginable than that.

Lightning:Thank you.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

i do not think obesity is a racial thing because i have seen at least one obese person of each race... Societal could be a factor because of the influences your parents, grandparents, random family members, friends could have over your decision making. I do believe that obesity stems from a mix of environment and genetics, which most can agree on and i would think genetics are also influenced by race, so i take my first comment back. One thing you can add is the lack of education that the USdOE has failed to give within all schools. I also believe that as we become more modern and family based, the lack of discipline that parents tend to not instill in there kids nowadays plays a role as well.. what i mean by discipline is parents do not respond to bad behavior like they should... Most do not even pay attention to what their kid is doing till they fuck themselves up. This lack of integrity and discipline tends to play out for the rest of that kids life, so do you think a kid with that up bringing will actually put in the work to be healthy? Probably not, most cases yes, some no, there are always exceptions. 

So i would say it is a mix of both things that have lead to this pandemic known as "Globesity!"





LightningMcGreen said:


> That l concur with...but, do you think obesity is more race related? Or a societal issue?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i know the point he was making, i just think there are more things to think about then what scientific advancements like in technology, and im not trying to be a dick. i think our problem with obesity will play a major role in our gene pool make up


Evolution is generally Darwinian not Lamarckian. Obesity has no effect on our genes. Besides, biological evolution is incredibly slow and especially where technological evolution is concerned, it is left in the dust. We adapt much more quickly than is possible genetically. 

Interesting point you make about disease though. It appears some of the same genes that allowed some people to survive major plagues like The Black Death and smallpox may in fact confer some natural immunity to HIV. However viruses and disease will always be our lords and masters. No matter how good we get in being able to fight them, nature will find a way and remind us who's in charge. 



> it sucks because i wish i could be around for those discoveries, but all things must come to an end... i would really like to know what happens to the Earth after we are gone say maybe 100,000 years from now or 1,000,000 years from now.


 QFT!


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Yeah, obesity isn't even racially specific to humans. There are chunky everything. I even saw a fat shark picture last night. Society has an impact (commercials are a BIG one). 

And I actually think a child given the chance to fuck up, is MORE likely to work against it. Like, someone who is tricked into smoking weed will be less tolerant of it in the future than someone who has never tried it, right? Because the curiousity factor became a fear factor.

Obesity will not play a major role in our genetics, it will play a major role in killing off obese people. They will die sooner, reproduce less, and in hard times they won't make it as long. (They've got extra blubber for the body to eat though.)


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

So then, it would be safe to assume that, the civilizations who make it long enough to reach and colonize the depths of outer space, will be healthier than us? I would hope so...it's bad enough being in the fat and greedy country known as the USA, l'd hate for earth to be seen the same way on the galactic scale


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Fat and greedy only works on a credit system or "money" type system. A lot of species would probably have picked something to trade that is more important than gold, paper and credits; like oxygen, water, women or food. Something. Or maybe even food preservative, or salt like the vikings (they treated it like gold almost). And you have to be involved in actual activity to get those things. Other planets would have more or less people on them also. So property would be nonexistent or more of an issue.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Statistics, that is what we base things on. Science is even, "Which thing happened the most amount of times, that one is proven." So basically anything we believe in, is based on how statistically favored or possible it is.
> We only know of 9 planets (minus Pluto now, so 8. Plus Colbert took part in funding a telescope that outdid the hubble, but I'm not going to count that because it hasn't been completely analyzed, and I don't think they noticed every possible thing noticeable yet I don't think.)
> So we know of 9 planets, and we know that the sun is a star. The same as the stars in the sky. Maybe a little different from some, but all stars still. Statistically, what we know is: Every star is a sun, Every sun has 9 planets, 1 out of every 9 planets HAS LIFE. Statistically, even if you take out the "Every sun has 9 planets" part. It is STATISTICALLY true, that 1/9 of planets has life.


I appreciate your speculation about alien life, I find the subject interesting as well, but I question what you mean by the above. To say "Which thing happened the most amount of times, that one is proven" is not a fair description of science, unless we are narrowing our description to include only experimental results based on observation. We do not simply say "This coin drops to the ground 100% of the times I let it go, therefore gravity is true." So any approximation that 1/9 planets supports life is not a reflection of science at all. It is also not a reflection of statistics, since we know of the existence of many many planets, specifically 677 extrasoloar planets to date. So to be true statistically you would have to again narrow the confines of statistics to include only the planets in our solar system, which is fine, but not a valid way to suppose the chance of life in the universe.

The problem of estimating life in the milky way is tackled by the drake equation, it seems you might be interested in it. There are far too many unknows to depend on an accurate answer, so at this stage we can only identify the variables we need to know to arrive at the answer.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> So then, it would be safe to assume that, the civilizations who make it long enough to reach and colonize the depths of outer space, will be healthier than us? I would hope so...it's bad enough being in the fat and greedy country known as the USA, l'd hate for earth to be seen the same way on the galactic scale


Healthier than we are (if they're between the stars already)? Quite possibly. I just hope that they do not find us to be ... delicious. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

I took the unknowns and replaced them with the usable knowns, I think that's why you are confused. And without those 677 planets, the math works out perfect. And I can't include those because they haven't been fully examined, and I'm sure they didn't notice every one that was seen by the telescope. And I'm sure they didn't see plant life and stuff if that's all that was on a planet.

That is a very fair description of science. You preform an experiment, something happened. You try it again, something happened. Try it again, again, again. What is considered the end result proving or disproving your hypothesis? Whichever one was repeated the most times, or even whatever happened EVERY time. Right?

The Scientific Theorem is only meant to include experimental results based on observation by human or machine. Science does not allow that which has never been observed to be proven. It is only a theory, until you can recreate the scenario and prove your theory fits, by showing people. Like even Einstein had to get a picture of light bending around the sun to prove relativity. Noone would accept it until he did.

The coin example is EXACTLY how science is handled. We accept gravity, because we see things fall all the time. Even though gravity has been disproven, some science STILL accepts it. Because it worked over and over so many times before.

It is a reflection of STATISTICS...So math not science.

WE STATISTICALLY CAN ONLY NARROW IT DOWN TO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. WE HAVE NO MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THAT. SO WE *HAVE* TO NARROW IT THAT WAY.

I wasn't including planets that have been found past the Hubble telescope, because all of those planets have not been fully examined yet, and I'm sure they all haven't even been found.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

What is QFT!?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> What is QFT!?


I figured it meant Quite True. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

Haha l was wondering the same thing lol


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> That is a very fair description of science. You preform an experiment, something happened. You try it again, something happened. Try it again, again, again. What is considered the end result proving or disproving your hypothesis? Whichever one was repeated the most times, or even whatever happened EVERY time. Right?


Wrong. Statistically improbable things happen all of the time but that doesn't change scientific theories. You don't prove your hypothesis, only disprove it. The more it stands up to testing, the more likely it is probably true. 


> The Scientific Theorem is only meant to include experimental results based on observation by human or machine.


There are no theorems in science, only math. 


> Science does not allow that which has never been observed to be proven. It is only a theory, until you can recreate the scenario and prove your theory fits, by showing people. Like even Einstein had to get a picture of light bending around the sun to prove relativity. Noone would accept it until he did.


Science doesn't prove anything. A theory is still a theory even with observational evidence. Einstein had a lot of acceptence prior to observational support. Pictures of starlight bending did not prove Einstein correct, what it did was offer a way to test whether he could be right or wrong. It was as much a way to prove his theory incorrect as it was to support it. However, the status of the theory did not change, it still is to this day a theory, one we know is not completely right because it is in conflict with another very successful theory, the standard model. 


> The coin example is EXACTLY how science is handled.


It is not even close to how science is done, let alone exactly. 


> We accept gravity, because we see things fall all the time.


We accept there is such a thing as a force we call gravity because things fall all of the time. This in no way has anything to do with Newton's law of gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity, both give mathematical models of gravity. 


> Even though gravity has been disproven, some science STILL accepts it. Because it worked over and over so many times before.






> It is a reflection of STATISTICS...So math not science.


Yes, statistics is math, not science. 


> WE STATISTICALLY CAN ONLY NARROW IT DOWN TO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. WE HAVE NO MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THAT. SO WE *HAVE* TO NARROW IT THAT WAY.


Only you seem to want to narrow it down to our solar system. We know about many extra-solar planets and it is changing our idea of the statistical probability that a star has planets and which kind. 


> I wasn't including planets that have been found past the Hubble telescope, because all of those planets have not been fully examined yet, and I'm sure they all haven't even been found.


Go smoke some more.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> What is QFT!?


 Quoted for truth


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> Obesity has no effect on our genes.



i would have to disagree with you on that mp, there are common link's within a family tree that ties obesity.

Excess body fat or body mass relative to height aggregates in families. It is commonly recognized that this familial aggregation of human obesity is accounted for in part by a significant genetic component. Thus the genetic heritability of the obesity phenotypes accounts for &#8764;2540% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variances. There is also growing evidence that single-gene effects can be detected under appropriate conditions. The focus of research has now shifted to candidate genes and DNA markers of various obesity phenotypes. To date, linkage results have been published from the Pima Indian Study, the San Antonio Family Heart or Diabetes Studies, the Paris Cohort of Obese Siblings, the University of Pennsylvania Family Obesity Study and the Quebec Family Study. The only genomic scan (with &#8764;600 markers) reported to date is that from the Pima Indian sibling study. In that study, the strongest evidence for linkage with body fat was with markers on chromosome 11q, 6p and 3p. Evidence for linkage with markers on 7q was obtained in all family studies with the only apparent exception being the Pima Indians. Our own results from the Quebec Family Study suggest that there are linkages between body fat, as assessed from hydrodensitometry, and markers on 1p32p22. Other linkages have been reported in the past but they are generally based on smaller sample size and weaker evidence. © 1997 American Society for Nutritional Services Genetics of Human Obesity: Recent Results from Linkage Studies

I know its a bit old, but nevertheless, it is evidence that there is a correlation between the two. More recent studies are more inconclusive do to some variable, either not replicating the tests properly or human error. They do however agree that there is a strong relation between one's genes and hereditary traits and one's likely hood to be obese. Most of these tests are done within families to see if there is a link and i would say after seeing the evidence and several studies, i would say that obesity will soon be linked to several or just one chromosome within our DNA.




> QFT!


is that "quite fucking true"?


> Interesting point you make about disease though. It appears some of the same genes that allowed some people to survive major plagues like The Black Death and smallpox may in fact confer some natural immunity to HIV. However viruses and disease will always be our lords and masters. No matter how good we get in being able to fight them, nature will find a way and remind us who's in charge.


yes, like the people who get sickle cell and become immune to malaria. I remember discussing that in my anatomy and physiology class with my professor, i think that shows a common trait within the two diseases and i think a lot of research should be done on smallpox and its interaction with HIV if it hasnt been done already. Although i dont think that is possible since smallpox has been pretty much eradicated off the planet and is probably only owned by the government.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

Ok, sooo...if l have a child now, being a tall and slender 6'4", and 150lbs, and have a child with a woman of an average body type (we'll say 5'8" and 140lbs)...then, we both exercise, gain weight at least in muscle mass, and become the peak of physical perfection, and we have another child, that their two body types will be different?

If so, could the same principal apply to IQ levels?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> So if we were to find a civilization on another planet that was technologically similar to ours, would they look identical? For example, would their communication systems that rely on radio waves conists of circular dishes? Assuming they used fossil fuels, would their cars be similar? A vehicle with 2/4 doors, 4 rubber tires, and a combustible engine in the front?
> 
> I guess what l'm really asking is, have we harnessed the potential of our resources and natural laws the most efficient way? Provided they had about the same natural resources as we do?


it would depend on the planet. hearing may be different based on atmosphere density and composition. sight may be different because of distance from their sun, atmospheric conditions, whether theyre prey or predator. smell may be different because of different substances being smelled, how they use smells to communicate(we use pheromones, they might use smell to talk or something). taste would most likely be different because it is specialized to the type of food one eats. sense of touch would be the same, but may work differently i think.
i dont think they would necessarily be human shaped, but it is a possibility. the location of our eyes, ears, nose, limbs, etc. are basically the same in most animals. we have most of our sensory organs(except touch) close to our brain. this is important because the senses can send massive amounts of information(especially sight), and the shortest route is the best. of course touch cannot be placed in one area, so its the only sense thats not 'close' like the others are. so for these reasons, i think their senses(whatever they may be) will be close to their processor(brain). this location could theoretically be where our stomach is, to protect it from injury(think of how many head injuries happen to humans). there are many factors that could make up this puzzle haha

they could also be more advanced than us, with different specialties. maybe they have a better arm/hand system. maybe they have two opposable thumbs on each hand or something. maybe their brain can calculate information in a different way that we cant even imagine. just look at what the octopus' brain can do with its skin. unexpected things like that are sure to pop up.

their communications systems may not even use radio waves. maybe they can see in the radio frequency and prefer to use the visible light spectrum for communication, because visible light doesnt harm them. it would also depend on the composition of the atmosphere and what materials they have readily available. maybe they have a shitload of gold there and use that for circuits. gold is the best conductor, so it would probably work better than ours(if they had equal designs).

what if their atmosphere is made of methane instead of oxygen? then oxygen would be the explosive gas. things like this would change the way they use and make fuels and machines. i cant really comment on the car thing since cars are specifically designed for humans. even our pet dogs dont really fit right lol. we cant expect something from another planet to be able to sit in a chair or turn a steering wheel like we do. it could be like a podracer where you just have two thrust levers, one for each side. also they may not use rubber tires because their roads may be made of different materials, and they are using what is available on their planet. maybe the rubber molecule doesnt exist there.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Mindphuk:But it is still true, even if you have had an experiment prove your hypothesis false. In the end, whatever happened the most times, or every time. Is what makes it true or false.

I was wrong about the scientific theorem. Scientific Theory I meant, where you test your hypothesis. That is how science is tested and things are found true.

NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.

Again NOOO, He was seeking a picture to prove his math RIGHT not wrong. It makes 0 sense that he would be so adamant to find out if he was wrong, he was convinced he had the equation that solved the universe. Not that he "might", that he DID.

And the starlight did prove him correct. That is the one thing every one was waiting on, and once provided it changed everything. The physicists in the room even looked up to the picture of Newton and apologized, for flipping his world upside down. And that was the place where those things are decided. He may not be accepted by everyone, but he is accepted by science as correct.

It is EXACTLY how science is handled. Explain to me why the theory of gravity was accepted, please explain it to me. And Newtons idea of Gravity is the same as the widespread accepted one. Do not separate the two.

We teach children about gravity, and accept that gravity has a speed. Even though Einstein changed all that.

I was talking about statistics the whole time that I was mentioning statistics. I'm sorry if you were looking for science, but I was talking math and how probable this is.

Exactly my point. IT IS CHANGING our idea of the statistic probability, not HAS CHANGED. Which is why I decided not to include it.

I will go smoke more. You too. Were on Roll it up.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> it would depend on the planet. hearing may be different based on atmosphere density and composition. sight may be different because of distance from their sun, atmospheric conditions, whether theyre prey or predator. smell may be different because of different substances being smelled, how they use smells to communicate(we use pheromones, they might use smell to talk or something). taste would most likely be different because it is specialized to the type of food one eats. sense of touch would be the same, but may work differently i think.
> i dont think they would necessarily be human shaped, but it is a possibility. the location of our eyes, ears, nose, limbs, etc. are basically the same in most animals. we have most of our sensory organs(except touch) close to our brain. this is important because the senses can send massive amounts of information(especially sight), and the shortest route is the best. of course touch cannot be placed in one area, so its the only sense thats not 'close' like the others are. so for these reasons, i think their senses(whatever they may be) will be close to their processor(brain). this location could theoretically be where our stomach is, to protect it from injury(think of how many head injuries happen to humans). there are many factors that could make up this puzzle haha
> 
> they could also be more advanced than us, with different specialties. maybe they have a better arm/hand system. maybe they have two opposable thumbs on each hand or something. maybe their brain can calculate information in a different way that we cant even imagine. just look at what the octopus' brain can do with its skin. unexpected things like that are sure to pop up.
> ...


Man, you have really put some thought into this one...haha much appreciated, and amazing points! Whatever it is you're smokin on, THAT'S the shit l want LOL


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Lightning:I don't think that stuff would effect your baby at all. You had the potential to be healthier the whole time in your genes. You just weren't doing the work. Your DNA is your DNA either way. Depends how it mixes with your partners.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Man, you have really put some thought into this one...haha much appreciated, and amazing points! Whatever it is you're smokin on, THAT'S the shit l want LOL


ive been smoking meth for the past four days. you definitely dont want any. 


(jk) and thanks


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lightning:I don't think that stuff would effect your baby at all. You had the potential to be healthier the whole time in your genes. You just weren't doing the work. Your DNA is your DNA either way. Depends how it mixes with your partners.


actually theyve been seeing recently that the way you live can affect your genes. mutation can occur for a variety of reasons. like radiation(not really sure if just the DNA causes this though). i think there was an article i read on sciencedaily.com. im too lazy to search for it


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

i just read cannabineer's post on the first page and it got me thinking. maybe they dont need transportation. maybe they can fly! although this would take up a lot more energy if they also had a big brain to feed


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> Ok, sooo...if l have a child now, being a tall and slender 6'4", and 150lbs, and have a child with a woman of an average body type (we'll say 5'8" and 140lbs)...then, we both exercise, gain weight at least in muscle mass, and become the peak of physical perfection, and we have another child, that their two body types will be different?


this could be true, but there are many variables. ie., your grandparents, greatgrandparents, aunts uncles. it all depends really, 



> If so, could the same principal apply to IQ levels?



no, IQ is dependent upon the person and their mental capacity. Just look at some types of savants... some are mentally retarded, yet can play a piece by mozart or Beethoven after only hearing it once... a person with a high IQ to me would not be able to replicate that no matter how high their IQ was.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> can fly! although this would take up a lot more energy if they also had a big brain to feed


look at birds... they have adapted their breast muscles to become more aerobic in order to maintain those great migrations they have each year... I think if flying were in our past evolutionary history, we would be well adapted by now for far flight.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

But we would have become like penguins when electricity was invented.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

I wish that was the argument right now, instead of it's destroying the planet. We could just be like "Drop this lifestyle or your kids won't be able to fly."


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I wish that was the argument right now, instead of it's destroying the planet. We could just be like "Drop this lifestyle or your kids won't be able to fly."


All l wana know is, with all the hype of technological advances in the 90's, we should've all had jet packs by now...where the fuck is mine??!


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

Didn't you see the robot chicken?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

[video=youtube;xsCJ2nYZsz0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsCJ2nYZsz0[/video]
This kinda.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 14, 2011)

I can't find the real video. But basically because jet packs would have caused a genetic defect, where everyone genetically inclined to buy a jet pack would be dead.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But it is still true, even if you have had an experiment prove your hypothesis false. In the end, whatever happened the most times, or every time. Is what makes it true or false.


I see where you are coming from, but I think you just haven't taken the time to fully consider and understand the scientific method. Science is much more careful and precise than what you are describing. If a theory is proven false, it is false. You seem to be saying that is a theory is shown to be right 99 times, and wrong 1 time, it's still right. If we were not concerned with that one time, we would have stopped at 99. That one time shows us that the theory needs adjustment or in some cases abandonment. This concept of self correction is woven into the very fabric of science.



> I was wrong about the scientific theorem. Scientific Theory I meant, where you test your hypothesis. That is how science is tested and things are found true.
> 
> NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.


Technically, arriving at scientific fact is how things are found not to be false, in which case they are an approximation of the truth. I realize this doesn't sound like a distinction worthy of mention, but science is precise in it's goals and it's methods. Scientific facts always come with conditions and error bars, however tiny.




> Again NOOO, He was seeking a picture to prove his math RIGHT not wrong. It makes 0 sense that he would be so adamant to find out if he was wrong, he was convinced he had the equation that solved the universe. Not that he "might", that he DID.


The scientific method demands that he be concerned with finding out if he was wrong. The way we do this is to design tests, experiments which can falsify the theory. We do not design tests simply to supply confirming evidence. We design tests which the explanation can fail or pass, and either result is desirable. For a theory to be accepted it must not only posses the ability to supply replicable results, it also must have considerable power to explain and to predict.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

why penguins? if you think of it, penguins need cold, so maybe obese humans would have evolved into penguins in order to accommodate for the cold... 

but still, penguins do not fly, but they can swim a lot. swimming depending on the type of swimming, either sprinting or distance requires aerobic and anaerobic muscle physiology, so i still think penguins are well adapted for long water swim even though they cannot fly.





Finshaggy said:


> But we would have become like penguins when electricity was invented.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Mindphuk:But it is still true, even if you have had an experiment prove your hypothesis false. In the end, whatever happened the most times, or every time. Is what makes it true or false.
> 
> I was wrong about the scientific theorem. Scientific Theory I meant, where you test your hypothesis. That is how science is tested and things are found true.
> 
> NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.


You don't prove theories. Ever. Theories are the highest levels of knowledge in science. Theories are made up of facts and laws but never become a 'fact.' 


> Again NOOO, He was seeking a picture to prove his math RIGHT not wrong. It makes 0 sense that he would be so adamant to find out if he was wrong, he was convinced he had the equation that solved the universe. Not that he "might", that he DID.


Of course he was convinced he was right. That's why it was so important to choose something in his theory that could be tested because if you can't tell other scientists how your theory can be proven wrong, then it really isn't a good theory. Falsification is an important step in the scientific method. Falsification means showing how something can be WRONG. 


> And the starlight did prove him correct. That is the one thing every one was waiting on, and once provided it changed everything. The physicists in the room even looked up to the picture of Newton and apologized, for flipping his world upside down. And that was the place where those things are decided. He may not be accepted by everyone, but he is accepted by science as correct.


You are using the word prove in a colloquial sense, then yes, he was proven correct. However, I 'm talking in a strict scientific sense, the shift in the star supported the theory but it was not proven. I'm trying to teach you something here and instead of listening, you're arguing. We don't prove things in science. Science is about levels of confidence. 



> It is EXACTLY how science is handled. Explain to me why the theory of gravity was accepted, please explain it to me.


Why what theory of gravity was accepted and by who? 


> And Newtons idea of Gravity is the same as the widespread accepted one. Do not separate the two.


What is the widespread accepted one? Aristotle's view? Galileo's? Newton?
Do you understand the difference between the fact that we observe things fall to the earth and we call it gravity (or gravitation) and the theory of what gravity is? BTW, Newton did not propose a theory of gravity as in what creates the force, where it comes from, etc. The law of gravitation merely tells us mathematically how objects with mass behave. 


> We teach children about gravity, and accept that gravity has a speed. Even though Einstein changed all that.


Gravity has speed? The *acceleration* caused by gravity on earth is a measurement. It is based on the mass of earth. Gravity does not have speed. I hope we teach our children better than your understanding. 


> I was talking about statistics the whole time that I was mentioning statistics. I'm sorry if you were looking for science, but I was talking math and how probable this is.


Heis and I were only trying to correct your misstatements about what is and isn't science. Yes, go ahead and talk about probability and statistics all day long. Science may use those as tools, but we were only taking exception to your comment about that this was what science is. 


> Exactly my point. IT IS CHANGING our idea of the statistic probability, not HAS CHANGED. Which is why I decided not to include it.


Change is good. You made it sound like there is a single correct answer not an ever changing range of answers depending on the numbers you decide to plug in, the only way we can handle statistical problems like this. Heis and I were just pointing out more variables, ignoring them because we haven't found out everything about them yet or because they can't be seen by Hubble or whatever you were trying to say didn't make sense. Remember, Heis wasn't arguing with you, he was offering up some good things to think about like the Drake equation. He was pointing out some things you said that were incorrect. You answered him back with the same incorrect ideas about science. That's the only reason I stepped in here. I don't like to see the fundamentals of science butchered, whether it's by a religious anti-evolutionist or a well-meaning stoner that is interested in science but still gets it wrong. Please watch this video

[video=youtube;ItxVLu8J_d0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxVLu8J_d0[/video]



> I will go smoke more. You too. Were on Roll it up.


I made honey oil for the first time so that's where I'm at.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Mindphuk:
But we don't even test most things more than once, in multiple conditions. Like I've never seen a Quantum Physics theory displayed two different ways, they figure out one way to do it. "That worked, so what we thought based on that is true." Like they have never shown that splitting atom thing to work with anything but gold foil. What if we use aluminum foil, because it didn't happen this time is it not true. ACCORDING TO SCIENCE: Nope, it's true. All because it worked with the gold.

And thank you, the Scientific Method is what I meant. I couldn't remember it. But we're still talking about scientific fact here. And my "theory" did come with conditions, which I described.

I'm pretty sure most scientists with a theory are "Checking their math" when they try to prove or disprove. So they think they have the right answer, but they want to know for sure. I'm sorry, but when I do any chemistry I am assuming I was correct in my science and math when I take a hit of the hash. If I felt I did it wrong, I wouldn't risk the hit.

But it only has to explain and predict situations that are implied by it.

And please don't hate me after this, I'm enjoying the debate. I feel both sides learn in debate, as long as they aren't in turmoil after.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Oly: I just meant like penguins. Not actual penguins. Just flightless. But that's funny, fat people in cold places would become penguins. Or walrus's.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Mindphuk:
Theories are not the highest level. The "Theory of Evolution" will remain a theory, until it is proven by the "missing link".

But he was proving himself RIGHT not WRONG.

And science does prove things. They are not seeking the missing link to Prove themselves WRONG, they are not looking for black holes to prove they DON'T exist. Your trying to teach me something, but what your trying to teach me is as harder to accept as true as the way Quantum Physics works, and the proof for that is even terrible. And it actually has evidence.

The theory of Gravity was accepted by the world, BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE THAT THINGS FALL.

The widespread accepted one? You haven't heard of GRAVITY?

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF GRAVITY IS. Newton said that there was a force PULLING everything. And we all accept it. It was Newton who said it. And Newton who promoted it.

Look up the speed of gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. Which is gravities speed. It's like 9 miles an hour. I hope our children can think better than you, I don't care what their taught, as long as they have cognitive activity above yours. Comprehend man.

I was talking about science at the times I was talking about science. Again, you misunderstand. I was TALKING ABOUT STATISTICS, AT THE PARTS THAT SAY STATISTICS.


I made a single correct answer because my point was a little bigger than the math. I used math that isn't in the middle of a massive shift, to bring about conversation dealing with the belief of life on other planets, and the possibilities of diversity.

I'm sorry your stuck in the introduction, maybe you'll make it a little further one day.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Mindphuk:
> I've never seen a Quantum Physics theory displayed two different ways, they figure out one way to do it. "That worked, so what we thought based on that is true."


Not entirely correct imo. Theories are formulated with and tested by the most basic scientific action: the controlled observation. (Typically "experiment" is the word used, but I consider astronomy to be hard science, and most astronomical and astrophysical insights cannot be tested by experimentation. Instead, astronomers, like their secret partners in photoreconnaissance establishments, rely on high-resolution remote imaging.)
Quantum mechanics is the math at the heart of quantum physics. The math evolved simultaneously in two very different notations: Heisenberg_ et al._ developed matrix mechanics, while Schroedinger _et al._ developed wave mechanics. They proved convergent and equivalent, but they came from different processes.
cheers 'neer


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Mindphuk:
> Look up the speed of gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. Which is gravities speed. It's like 9 miles an hour.


Gravity waves travel at c, the speed of light in vacuum.
Everything does not fall at the same rate. Were i to jump from an airplane, my initial falling speed would be near zero. i would accelerate to 120-180 miles an hour before achieving a steady state in which gravitational force is balanced by atmospheric drag. 

Things accelerating at a fixed rate - different question. On Earth's surface we have the serviceable illusion that gravity is uniform, even though a gravimetric reading in Mexico City (9.779 m sE-2) and Helsinki (9.781 m sE-2) would be measurably different. 
1200 miles up, Earth's gravitational pull is less than 60% of the surface value.
~the munchies just hit - brain going into idle~
cheers 'neer


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Not entirely correct imo. Theories are formulated with and tested by the most basic scientific action: the controlled observation. (Typically "experiment" is the word used, but I consider astronomy to be hard science, and most astronomical and astrophysical insights cannot be tested by experimentation. Instead, astronomers, like their secret partners in photoreconnaissance establishments, rely on high-resolution remote imaging.)
> Quantum mechanics is the math at the heart of quantum physics. The math evolved simultaneously in two very different notations: Heisenberg_ et al._ developed matrix mechanics, while Schroedinger _et al._ developed wave mechanics. They proved convergent and equivalent, but they came from different processes.
> cheers 'neer


 Don't bother. I tried to help but he is unteachable. My question is why does he think this way? How can someone be so arrogant about the shit he's so wrong about?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Gravity waves travel at c, the speed of light in vacuum.
> Everything does not fall at the same rate. Were i to jump from an airplane, my initial falling speed would be near zero. i would accelerate to 120-180 miles an hour before achieving a steady state in which gravitational force is balanced by atmospheric drag.
> 
> Things accelerating at a fixed rate - different question. On Earth's surface we have the serviceable illusion that gravity is uniform, even though a gravimetric reading in Mexico City (9.779 m sE-2) and Helsinki (9.781 m sE-2) would be measurably different.
> ...


He's actually talking about G. I was only trying to get him to recognize it's acceleration not speed he was talking about. He missed that. Don't confuse him with the details.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Sep 15, 2011)

This made me think of aliens and how I think WE are the aliens. I think its us from the future. Reason we (they) dont make contact is due to the huge changes it would cause. A ripple effect if you will. The signs are all over ancient ruins and heiroglyphics. Just a thought. A high one


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Gravity waves travel at c, the speed of light in vacuum.
> Everything does not fall at the same rate. Were i to jump from an airplane, my initial falling speed would be near zero. i would accelerate to 120-180 miles an hour before achieving a steady state in which gravitational force is balanced by atmospheric drag.
> 
> Things accelerating at a fixed rate - different question. On Earth's surface we have the serviceable illusion that gravity is uniform, even though a gravimetric reading in Mexico City (9.779 m sE-2) and Helsinki (9.781 m sE-2) would be measurably different.
> ...



Ok, maybe they have found recent evidence. But that only proves that what I'm saying is true. Things are definitely accepted by science before they are proven beyond a doubt to be true.

Newton proved that what your saying is wrong in the past. He dropped two things and they fell equally.

I posted that shit to continue on a conversation about aliens, please get off my dick and say something cool that you thought anthropologically about aliens. Or go ride someone else, somewhere else. This isn't my thread and this isn't cool.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

Mindphuk, i have added things of substance and have responded well to your follow up response about genes and obesity.

Why is that you think obesity does not affect our genes?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

We might be the aliens. But even if we are, we can't harness light travel. The fastest we know how to make something go is by making a HUGE explosion under it. we would have to meet another race before we could come back, or it would have to be ridiculously into the future, ad their just coming back to kill specific butterflies or Beatles, and chop down certain trees. (or is it dark:burn down the right house, kill the right guy) to alter their history drastically.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Mindphuk:
> Theories are not the highest level. The "Theory of Evolution" will remain a theory, until it is proven by the "missing link".
> 
> But he was proving himself RIGHT not WRONG.
> ...


I realize your math was simply a premise intended to lead to deeper conversation about alien life, and in that sense it was arbitrary. I was only trying to help you reach a better approximation by giving you information it appeared you were unaware of. Doing so revealed a much more serious misunderstanding of science and knowledge, along with a reckless attitude. You seem to misinterpret everything from biology to physics to quantum theory, indeed you misunderstand the very process we use to study these fields. For the scope of this thread perhaps this is a trivial point. But in defense of science and in response to your certainty I must at least implore you to put some serious study into the scientific method, as understanding the process is necessary to understand the results. This thread is about theoretical speculation, and you seem to be having a pleasant and productive discussion so I wont derail it by correcting you here, but don't expect to be excused in any science related threads for spreading false information without being adamantly corrected.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Whatever. Your ridiculous. You go study the scientific method, and look at history. It's not false. It's been true for hundreds of years until the past couple decades, and it's simple. And EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT, so it was a easy base for discussion. I was just pointing out some old math, that proves we should have been believing this for at least the past 100 years. I'm sorry that you got all but hurt because of the discoveries of the past couple decades, but that's no the topic here. Now...

SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALIENS OR GO AWAY.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Whatever. Your ridiculous. You go study the scientific method, and look at history. It's not false. It's been true for hundreds of years until the past couple decades, and it's simple. And EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT, so it was a easy base for discussion. I was just pointing out some old math, that proves we should have been believing this for at least the past 100 years. I'm sorry that you got all but hurt because of the discoveries of the past couple decades, but that's no the topic here. Now...
> 
> SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALIENS OR GO AWAY.


I study the scientific method daily, what do you suppose I need to concentrate on? I have pointed out areas you may want to study, such as falsification as it applies to burden of proof. I will happily check my understanding of the scientific process if you want to be more specific about where I am misguided.

What you are describing is a positivist view of the scientific method, which was abandoned long ago in the name of self correction. The approach modern science takes to hypothesis is that you try to prove it wrong, and from the results you form a new hypothesis. This is because if you try to prove it right, you never know if one more experiment may prove it wrong. If your hypothesis is that all the balls in an enclosed box are white, and you pull out one white ball, you just proved your hypothesis correct. If you do this 99 times, you have proved yourself right 99 times. Does this mean you have really proved that all the balls inside are white? What if #100 is blue? For this reason, this is not the most responsible approach to finding truth. We can be more careful and increase our chances of finding mistake if we actively look for them. When we fail to find them, IOW if all the balls we pulled out were indeed white, how can we be even more sure that we haven't made an error. We give the box to someone else and have them attempt to find a mistake. Maybe they will find a colored ball when we couldn't. If they can't, they replicate and confirm our results. This is peer review, another important step to scientific consensus.

You could compare the differences in these approaches to the difference between civil and criminal court. One attempts to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, the other attempts to prove only a probability. In the end, a positivist approach tells us only what is likely, where as a critical rationale approach tells us what has survived a system of rigorous dispute and verification. One operates on hope, the other operates on doubt. That of course is not to say there are no positivist elements incorporated in science today, but it is not the heart of it's practice.

So when it comes time to test our hypothesis we design an experiment intended to expose possible mistakes, or to confirm theoretical predictions (because failure to realize those predictions indicates a mistake). In this sense, the goal of science is to prove itself right by failing to prove itself wrong. In this context, it doesn't make sense to say science is searching for the missing link in order to prove evolution as fact. Evolution predicts some things that are missing, so we search for them in an attempt to expose error, but of course we have found many so called missing links in the form of transitional fossils. 

Science is much more fastidious and concerned with accuracy than you give it credit for. Maybe it would help you understand the facts we do have and therefore make your speculation about alien life more fulfilling if you keep this in mind.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

But you haven't given a single thing to back up anything you say. You call your words facts and back them up wit a video. Show me a quote, tell me a for instance like I did over and over. And study history, and how people have treated the scientific method. I think your stuck in miracle science world. If that's specific enough for you GO DO IT.

I don't care if that shit was abondoned long ago. I can use it, and many GREAT PEOPLE do. So I decided to use it for a small discussion. SO WHAT??I'm sorry I'M SORRY. Please stop this.

PLEASE STOP RAPING THIS THREAD.






I AM SORRY EVERYONE. I will think about aliens tonight, and try to redeem this stupid shit I just made any subscribers go through.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But you haven't given a single thing to back up anything you say. You call your words facts and back them up wit a video. Show me a quote, tell me a for instance like I did over and over. And study history, and how people have treated the scientific method. I think your stuck in miracle science world. If that's specific enough for you GO DO IT.
> 
> I don't care if that shit was abondoned long ago. I can use it, and many GREAT PEOPLE do. So I decided to use it for a small discussion. SO WHAT??I'm sorry I'M SORRY. Please stop this.
> 
> ...


I think you'll find most people participating in this thread do not mind my interjections, and indeed I announced my intentions to cease, which was answered with provocation. I also think you are confusing me with someone who posted a video, I did no such thing. I did provide sources for my explanation of reasoning behind falsification, sources which included history, and I gave you a 'for instance' with the example of the balls.

I think understanding science is an important prerequisite to having serious discussion about alien life, since evidential speculation is likely to be the most accurate. I have enjoyed what you have offered so far, and only wanted to inform you of possible errors, a service I hope others provide me. I see you have a genuine appreciation of science and a strong interest in this subject, I hoped it might further your interest and foster your appreciation to explain your misconceptions. I speak with frankness and without kid gloves, because we are all adults, but I did not intend to insight defensive hostility.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

You are right I was confusing you with Mindphuk. That's who I was talking that whole time. Sorry you caught yourself in it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> look at birds... they have adapted their breast muscles to become more aerobic in order to maintain those great migrations they have each year... I think if flying were in our past evolutionary history, we would be well adapted by now for far flight.


obviously i wasnt talking about humans. i meant the alien species


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

This thread has stemmed off to some awesome topics (though still relevant IMO), keep it up!


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Alright, so I did the thinking that I said I would do last night. I will post later in detail what I thought about.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

Be more specific next time and quit implying things.

And quit being a dickdouche.





Luger187 said:


> obviously i wasnt talking about humans. i meant the alien species


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 15, 2011)

RIU is the best.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

The issue with all of this gravity talk, is that one is claimed a characteristic, the other is contradicting, and we are all generally agreeing. The issue is that we fail to understand how gravity works, why it works the way it does, and why it exists.

We still don't even know if sound waves / electrical signals can coincide with gravity in creating a vector grid, therefore traveling _through_ gravity.

We don't know if it will take a harmonic balancer, or a electrohydrodynamic 'heavy water' powered engine that electrifies the atmosphere around an object, or if the trick is a mixture of naturally magnetic metals metals molded into a disk like shape. We don't know what the frequency or signal is that gravity works on. But spiders naturally understand an utilize it for web construction.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

There is a new method still in lab that may take over hydrogen. They are using plasma and say that with plasma, speeds will increase exponentially compared to hydrogen jet propulsion






Finshaggy said:


> We might be the aliens. But even if we are, we can't harness light travel. The fastest we know how to make something go is by making a HUGE explosion under it. we would have to meet another race before we could come back, or it would have to be ridiculously into the future, ad their just coming back to kill specific butterflies or Beatles, and chop down certain trees. (or is it dark:burn down the right house, kill the right guy) to alter their history drastically.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

We do know that gravity seems to appear in large masses. Not to say a smaller mass that is much more dense couldn't have the same or heavier gravity characteristics. but life only exists in sustainable and consistent gravity fields. hence another civilization would have to be relative in size to the planet and the force of gravity.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i just read cannabineer's post on the first page and it got me thinking. maybe they dont need transportation. maybe they can fly! although this would take up a lot more energy if they also had a big brain to feed





olylifter420 said:


> Be more specific next time and quit implying things.
> 
> And quit being a dickdouche.


'they' refers to not humans


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> We do know that gravity seems to appear in large masses. Not to say a smaller mass that is much more dense couldn't have the same or heavier gravity characteristics. but life only exists in sustainable and consistent gravity fields. hence another civilization would have to be relative in size to the planet and the force of gravity.


every object has gravity. the earths gravity can be overtaken by a small magnet. so a baseball would have a VERY tiny gravitational 'field', so it does still exist, however small it may be


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Ok, so here's what I thought about:
What if life didn't evolve on planets, what if some or all life got its start at the big bang, or beginning of creation or whatever. And what if there was a lot of new life forms just flying through space, in the right conditions. Slightly growing and waiting to crash land to begin true adaptation.
What if space is just like a huge ocean, like the empty black of the universe is like water, and the planets are like bubbles or dust. Now what if there are giant fish, swimming through this giant ocean. Eating other giant space sea creatures and gobbling up planets in one bite. These fish would have evolved while flying through space, so they could have some how developed a way to manipulate or handle the thrust in a single direction and eventually manipulate in in to multiple directions. It would be more similar to deep sea glowing fish than regular fish, as it would be evolving in an unforgiving environment with a very different adaptation need than most things. What if we have already been eaten by one of these fish. What is our galaxy, and all the other galaxy's that we can see are just the meals of a giant space fish. Our universe could be the inside of a stomach, and how would we know any better? 

Now back to the car question from the very very very beginning of this thread. The cars may be different in that, they discovered flight before friction. What if there was an animal that evolved, using another animal for flight and they lived in a very cliff filled setting. And when they went to construct the first thing to transport items or themselves from place to place, they may begin by trying to figure out their flying animal friends and discover flight before wheels. Now, what if there are slug people. No feet, kinda like a snake lower body, but even less maneuverable. They would need some kind of car using a sphere in the floor for them to roll over and guide the vehicle. Or at least something cylindrical that they can crawl in, and make tilt and roll in certain directions. And what if there were fish people, that either remained under water, or came above water at some point. They would probably have vehicles that had more visually moving pieces, like anything flowing through water. Or they might just have technology based more for the ocean, but adapted for land and air later when they came out of the water. And what if there were gas bag people. Like people just filled with a gas that was lighter than the gs that made up most of their air. They would first off be farty and nasty all the time, but it might not smell bad. They would probably utilize some kind of wind transportation. Either like hover craft half bowls, with fans on the bottom going all possible directions blowing them to where they need to be, or something that actually blew air towards them and pushed them. Like a sail boat. And what if there are plant people. Like they just eat the sun, don't move much at all except for water or something they need that the sun isn't giving them. They would have probably harnessed solar power VERY early on and their vehicles would probably be unimaginable in our world since that is a way to harmonized environment (plant people) for us to imagine correctly as humans. So the "Greys" that everyone sees with the grey skin, and big heads is very very far from what aliens will look like. It is a very slim chance that the aliens will look that similar to us, that would almost be like a miracle. If they do look like us it would be more likely that it is because it is us from the future, either evolved freakishly, or mixed with another race.
Now, think about the differences between Texas and New York. Those two places seem almost to not even be in the same country with accents, and relations. But they are. Two people's, so diverse, but still all in the same country. Now things about Mexico. How different is New York from the culture of southern Mexico(Oaxaxa). Texas is actually more similar to it than Mexico, but Texas and Mexico aren't in the same country at all. And think about how diverse Texans are from Chinese, or Russians. And all this is on earth. Think about how diversified aliens must be from us.
Now think about animal relationships. Animals in an area can barley communicate any more, and there is no way for animals all around the world to communicate with each other. But they all act similar to each other, no matter what section of the world your in as long as it's the same species. I think everything on earth is essentially from the same family tree, and it just branched of different ways. Everything lives similarly to each other in ways.
Think about the relationships animals have had with humans throughout time. There are (Native American) Indians that believe they are ancestors of wolves, and their are other tribes that revere the wolf for teaching them to hunt peyote, as they hunt deer. And from that stems a huge spiritual bond. We may have learned how to perfect pack mentality simply by watching the best animals do it.
Now think about plants relationship to everything. Plants seem to be the lowlyest of the multicelled life forms. But they are far from that. Think about it, we breath out CO2 from Oxygen, plants do the exact opposite, we eat them they eat us. I believe at some point, life on earth (for animals) began as a side effect of plant life. And plants may have conscientiously made this decision knowing that they needed something that breathed the opposite of them, and could die to become their fertilizer. They may have also noticed the advantage of mobile bodies. Plants may be the masterminds behind the entire animal world. They could be pulling the strings and guiding everything and we would never know.
We have only had electricity for about 100-200 years. We don't even have any idea yet what putting a thin layer of electromagnetic activity at the crust of your planet does. But we do it anyways, because we don't even think about it. We rushed so fast into the discovery of electricity that we kinda dropped the ball with this whole thing. We have fallen so far due to electricity, that we can't even begin to imagine what the next discovery of that magnitude will be. A huge percentage of the planet is too busy deciding what apps to buy for their smart phones. No one knows how to think anymore, a couple smart people have been pumping out some smart toys for everyone (gps, smart phones, etc.) and the general population believes they are the genius's because they've figured out how to play with them. I bet only 1% of the planet could put a smart phone together if every single piece and tool was in front of them, and I bet about 25% of that 1% is sweatshop working foreign children.
But basically, aliens should be nothing like humans. Humans are the scariest animal on the planet in my opinion. Animals at least give you some warning before ripping your face off. A human will deceit you all the way tot he bullet in your face. And do you feel safe talking to a bear??? There may be a few rouge aliens, who (against rules) visit earth and the other craziness planets. But if there are rules for planetary discovery, or travel. I'm almost positive we aren't going to be considered a "tourist destination".
What if there are planets that were similar or different than us (doesn't matter, as long as they can do the things I talk about here), but they had different time frames for their technological advances. Like say there was a planet, where they discovered conductivity of heat before or at the same time as fire, and began working with that knowledge right away. What if there was a race that discovered batteries super early. They have found something they have dubbed "The Pakistan battery" I'm pretty sure. It was a battery made like 500 years ago, but they don't think that the people new it was a battery. Batteries are simple, and electricity could have easily been jump started by a society this way. What if there is a planet with no titles or jobs, you just do what you do to survive, and other than that it's only important to communicate with the rest of your people. What if there is a planet with no race difference. Everyone is equal and treated as equals, they would get SO MUCH done. Imagine a planet with no human and animal cultural barrier. They didn't pass down a book to ingrain in their heads that they were "better" than other animals, and helped other animals evolve at faster paces and helped them communicate and everything. Basically humans and animals living 100% side by side. Now, what if there was a planet with no human animal barrier. Where any species can reproduce with any species. What about a planet with no human plant barrier, and the humans pollinate the plants or vice versa. Like women evolved into plants, and men stayed animals. And they met somewhere in the middle. Imagine a whole new branch of Etymology. Like not plants animals or single celled stuff. A whole new genre.
What if Transformers happened? it's possible. A planet begins to run out of resources and famine is killing off it's people, but have abundance of something like oil. They have to change their bodies to survive. They replace their veins with tubing and wiring, there nerves with wiring, bones with metal, lungs with airbags, heart with pump, etc, etc. They have now build themselves into a robotic race, and as long as they keep the reproductive system alive in some way they could continue.
What if there was a super conscious planet. Like they tapped completely into Quantum Physics or something equally universe bending that we haven't discovered yet. Like they live at peace and at one with their planet, and it is a battery and a guide to them. Not a resource.
Now think about spirits and ghosts. Like we only see a certain spectrum of light, and there are many forms of waves that we can't see. What if spirits are just not solid bodies. They exist on a plane between the act of thought and actual consciousness, but not in a body. On a spectrum of light that is not visible to our eyes or machines. Right in front of us, just invisible in that aspect. 
Now this is a form of "Alien" that could come from our own planet. Imagine that during the blotting out of the dinosaur sun. Some of these cold blooded creatures tried to reach the center of the earth where the heat is, so they could lay their bellies on hot rocks. Now what if down here these animals evolved, and gained cognitive action. What if they are smarter than us, but racist against surface dwellers. They would definitely want their planet "back". And when these reptilians came to the surface, we would most likely consider them aliens. And this is another possibility for the greys. 
There is evidence that something smarter than us has been here. First off, the Hindu text called the "Rig Veda" contains stories about massive ships that flew over holy cities blasting them with things equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb. They spoke of many crazy things, I'm surprised more people don't know about it, it's the first human writing, talks about all this stuff. And there is glass in the sand as evidence of these blasts.
On this planet Western Civilization ha become the rule of the day. This has a very long history, that altered at any point being changed would have drastically changed history. It started off, as far as I know, with Judaism. The Jews decided that they were going to only support each other (the chosen people) and everyone else was fodder. From here the ideas of Rome were next. It became the most prominent idea of the day (became an empire) and a series of wars and rulers shaped its history. Then the Jews and Christians had their dispute, and took over the Roman empire soonish after. Which then spread to America. Imagine if the Hindus or Muslims, or an alien religion or organization became the Judaism of that day. We would not be the same at all. Imagine Khan had taken over Rome. Again, history would never be the same. These individual events shaped our planets history, and any wrench in any part of the machine would have had differing end results.
What if their are two planets that have merged their histories. One at about the feudalism era, one further along than our planet. The evolution, technologies, and languages of both would change DRASTICALLY.
What if that already happened on earth, a small group of greedy humans are in league with aliens sharing technology. But maybe it's a test of greed. Maybe they're just greedy too though. 
The Nazi's were actually said to have been working with aliens. There are literally quotes from their scientist before and after coming to the American team, about having been helped by aliens. During world war two, the Nazi's made unimaginable technological advancements. At the end of WWII America had a program called project PAPERCLIP. This project took German scientist from Germany and pardoned them of heinous war crimes in exchange for their scientific mind. And you can look it up, people are literally quoted as saying they were helped by aliens. In and out of America.

Well, That's it. I just started thinking last night and went off on some Tangents.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> He's actually talking about G. I was only trying to get him to recognize it's acceleration not speed he was talking about. He missed that. Don't confuse him with the details.


Oh. It appears that in my somewhat baked condition my controversy sensor was not doing its thing. I wasn't looking to fuel a fight. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And what if there were gas bag people. Like people just filled with a gas that was lighter than the gs that made up most of their air. They would first off be farty and nasty all the time, but it might not smell bad.


Is it wrong that this part stuck out to me the most? LOL haha good stuff buddy...but you REALLY put some thought into this, and who knows, you could be right, or we all could be right.

But to kind of take it in a different direction, how about this; which of the following would you think would cause the MOST variation from life on earth? If you were to only replace ONE of these, but every other aspect of the other planet remained identical to earth:

-Atmospheric pressure, and the makeup of the gasses within it
-The landscape, as well as the proportion of landmass vs water
-Orbital period around said planet's sun, and/or the photoperiod (example, one day to that planet, is equal to 4 straight earth days of light followed by 4 earth days of nighttime)
-Mass and gravitational field of said planet
-Amount of moons/suns that planet orbited, or had orbiting around it in the case of moons


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> every object has gravity. the earths gravity can be overtaken by a small magnet. so a baseball would have a VERY tiny gravitational 'field', so it does still exist, however small it may be


Not true at all. A sheet of paper does not display its own gravity, it displays characteristics that imply it is effected by Earths gravity. Again, you are making overly general claims regarding Gravity. You have absolutely no idea. A baseball only has inertia from someone throwing or hitting it. If it does contain gravity merely because it is spherical, it is beyond immeasurable.

Large masses contain gravity, its most likely due to a core-structure that we have yet to study for obvious reasons.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Not true at all. A sheet of paper does not display its own gravity, it displays characteristics that imply it is effected by Earths gravity. Again, you are making overly general claims regarding Gravity. You have absolutely no idea. A baseball only has inertia from someone throwing or hitting it. If it does contain gravity merely because it is spherical, it is beyond immeasurable.
> 
> Large masses contain gravity, its most likely due to a core-structure that we have yet to study for obvious reasons.


I may sound stupid, but it was my understanding that all particles had a gravitational effect on other particles, minus the photon, because it has no mass...? What did l miss in science foundations lol


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

I think a combination of moving tides, relative to the moon, and a consistent sun schedule (non-oscillating orbit) are the most vital factors. Along with temperature. Too far or close from a sun, and drastically different effects in terms of radiation, thermal bridging, seasons, etc... There needs to be a sustainable gravitational field or else life forms would be developmentally challenged. If there was half as much gravity on Earth, we wouldn't be able to develop muscles nearly as efficiently, which is vital to hunting/general movement.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

I'm not sure. All of those would have major effects, idk which one would be the greatest difference.

I guess I pick different land stuff. If the environment was something we had never seen we couldn't even imagine them, and less/more water, less/more land would effect the amount of life and how far you could go into the land.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Particle effects on one-another are not necessarily relevant to gravity. It could be a reaction that only exists in an environment with gravity. Even vacuum tested, gravity is still a factor. Until you take the test into space is it truly free of gravity's naturally effects. NASA has done extensive testing regarding this FACT.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

I think your misunderstanding is that all particles are effected by gravity. Which there is an abundance of, on Earth.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Is it wrong that this part stuck out to me the most? LOL haha good stuff buddy...but you REALLY put some thought into this, and who knows, you could be right, or we all could be right.
> 
> But to kind of take it in a different direction, how about this; which of the following would you think would cause the MOST variation from life on earth? If you were to only replace ONE of these, but every other aspect of the other planet remained identical to earth:
> 
> ...


i think atmospheric changes would create the most change



THENUMBER1022 said:


> Not true at all. A sheet of paper does not display its own gravity, it displays characteristics that imply it is effected by Earths gravity. Again, you are making overly general claims regarding Gravity. You have absolutely no idea. A baseball only has inertia from someone throwing or hitting it. If it does contain gravity merely because it is spherical, it is beyond immeasurable.
> 
> Large masses contain gravity, its most likely due to a core-structure that we have yet to study for obvious reasons.


what makes earths mass different than the papers mass? not only does the piece of paper move towards the earth, but the earth moves VERY SLIGHTLY up towards the paper. the earth obviously wins this struggle between the two, so the paper falls down. if you let go of two objects in space they will move towards eachother


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Particle effects on one-another are not necessarily relevant to gravity. It could be a reaction that only exists in an environment with gravity. Even vacuum tested, gravity is still a factor. Until you take the test into space is it truly free of gravity's naturally effects. NASA has done extensive testing regarding this FACT.


they are not FREE of the effects of gravity in space. it is just so far away that the effect is minuscule. we are extremely slightly affected by the other planets too. its just the further away you go, the more it drops off


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> I think your misunderstanding is that all particles are effected by gravity. Which there is an abundance of, on Earth.


particles are also in paper


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Particles are in paper, but that doesn't prove your other thing right. He said gravity effects them, not they have gravity.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

that would gravity relative to the sun right?






Finshaggy said:


> No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.


the earth is constantly 'falling' towards the sun. but its orbit keeps it from falling in.
the paper would be falling away from the sun if it was daytime when you dropped the paper. the effect of the suns gravity on the paper is very small, since the paper doesnt have much mass and the sun is so far away. but the earth is close, so gravity is a lot stronger between the earth and paper, even though the papers mass is small. the large mass of the sun and large mass of the earth are so big that they can still 'pull' on each other with significant force from long distances. it is because they are BOTH very massive that they have this affect on eachother. if the earth was a small mass like the paper, i think its trajectory would let it float out into space


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

It was Newton that demonstrated that all things with mass attract each other. The paper is attracted to the earth as much as the earth to the paper. This is why it is called Newton's law of *universal* gravitation. It was about the universality of gravity. The mass of the paper is negligible (but still measurable) when compared to the earth. Einstein told us that spacetime curves around anything with mass, including us, including a sheet of paper. That's why two sheets of paper will be attracted to each other and that force is measurable. It is done in the lab all of the time.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting. 

I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect. Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun. Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull. I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.


Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'. But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

> . and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.




why would it not apply to a planet? A planet is large in mass no matter what if it is labeled a planet.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Bottom line, if your theory held truth, a boeing 757 wouldn't need jet engines, just enough magnets to 'reverse earths gravity'. And the titanic could fly? would the titanic falling at g have the same impact as a peice of paper? if not, why?

Its possible that metals are naturally magnetic to earth core, but that would mean reversing the metal's polarity could make it weightless, or less than, or expose anti-gravity. Which we know isn't the case. So once again, we do not understand gravity.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

because a planet of even slightly different characteristics than that of Earth could potentially have 1000x the gravity on Earth. Why? I don't know, you tell me. Large masses in space seem to contain gravity, but not all the time. Take our asteroid belt for instance. Some objects are not even spherical nor a true planet, but contain gravity. In this case, their may be area's of the object that amplify gravity. In earth, there is a specific gravity field that is established as our own, and our Moon's is being studied as we speak.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

@mindphuk:But we don't know what gravity is, or what it's cuased by. We theorize.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting.
> 
> I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect.


what are you talking about? how does that mean the gravity is only coming from the earth?



> Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun.


its not my theory, its newtons and einsteins.

jupiter does not leave orbit because its outward trajectory is balanced with the inward pull of gravity between jupiter and the sun. and also other planets slightly



> Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull.


where did you learn such a thing? mass is directly related to gravitation. if an object has mass, it also has gravity.



> I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.


any magnet can pick up a paperclip. heres one i found for an example. the magnetism is the only force acting on these paperclips besides gravity. the magnetism is overcoming gravity. BUT if you had a big piece of steel, the magnet would not pick it up because the steel has a higher gravitational 'field' and is more attracted to the earth. what is the difference between the paperclip and the steel? mass...

[video=youtube;EzQCOGlsZ6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQCOGlsZ6Q[/video]




> Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'.


no we are trying to show you what those laws really are



> But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.


many people know about gravity, with varying degrees of knowledge. einstein sure knew a lot. and yes gravity does apply to other planets. also stars and galaxies.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting.


I never claimed that's what you said. I was explaining that all things with mass produce the effects of gravity, even paper. The effect is tiny but it's there. 


> I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect. Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun. *Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull. *I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.


What the hell does that mean? Who said anything about Jupiter leaving orbit? All Luger said was that the sun is attracted to Jupiter in proportion to it's mass. As for the magnet, I think he said that it was demonstrating the weakness of gravity, not that it is reversed. IOW, a tiny magnet is strong enough to counteract the force of gravity on a paper clip even though the entirety of the earth is pulling against it. This demonstrates how much weaker the force of gravity is than the electromagnetic force. 



> Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'. But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.


 No one knows anything about gravity? You think the laws of physics are routinely broken? 

This threads should be renamed, "the many ways people misunderstand basic science"


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

It means that because the test can't be true while the Earth is present.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Or more accurately and specifically. "The way mindphuk changes history, without backing it up and expects people to listen"


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

No, that only proves that gravity is weak exactly where the paper clip is. Gravity is MUCH MUCH stronger than a magnet. Put something in the core and try to magnet it out.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Now, in history, we have learned A LOT about gravity. In fact, the aerofoil is the most complex, yet simple concept man has ever discovered. In nature, a falling drop of water takes on the shape of a teardrop, so this must be the natural way of slipping through space....


A lot of talking and theorizing is fun once in a while, but whatever the equation is, we must try and try and fail many times until we find the right formula. Many saucer designers from the '60's claimed to have discovered the true "earth shape" which appears as a perfect square from the side, but a circle from over top. When spinning, this supposedly recreates the natural phenomenon that we titled gravity. This earth shape rotating in the opposite direction of the wheel itself, in theory, deflects earths gravity. Simply by tuning the radio frequency powering the (possibly mercury filled) earth shape could potential stimulate particals to not only deflect the saucer or grounded out object, but allow the saucer/object to turn up its power and leave our atmosphere, traveling on the gravity fields and radiation of distant suns and planets. 

Is it a dream? or a lifetimes work away?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> @mindphuk:But we don't know what gravity is, or what it's cuased by. We theorize.


 That's true for just about anything in science. Theories are considered knowledge. How do we _know_ the earth is orbiting the sun? Heliocentric theory. How do we _know_ microorganisms cause disease. Germ theory. How do we _know_ an atom is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons but are mostly empty space? Atomic theory. We know what gravity is because Einstein figured out that objects with mass curve spacetime. Objects, including us, are merely taking the path of least resistance through spacetime. We can explain gravity by saying we are not being pulled toward earth as much as spacetime is pushing down on us.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Bottom line, if your theory held truth, a boeing 757 wouldn't need jet engines, just enough magnets to 'reverse earths gravity'.


if you are on that 757, wouldnt it seem like the earth is falling up towards you? you only have the perception of things falling down because you live on earth and are used to it.
yes magnets could do it theoretically, we just dont have the technology and it would waste energy. but you can shoot a magnet gun into the air couldnt you?



> And the titanic could fly?


what? lol



> would the titanic falling at g have the same impact as a peice of paper? if not, why?


they would be different because the titanic is more massive than the paper



> Its possible that metals are naturally magnetic to earth core, but that would mean reversing the metal's polarity could make it weightless, or less than, or expose anti-gravity. Which we know isn't the case. So once again, we do not understand gravity.


that is because the magnetic force induced by the rock/earth is not stronger than the gravitational effects. reversing their polarity does not necessarily mean it will overtake gravity(not saying it cant).

we do not completely understand everything about gravity, but we do know some things


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

and as far as the paperclip bs. what does that have to do with gravity? are you also implying that superglue and duct tape are anti-gravity engines? A magnets ability to attract to another magnetic material, IMO, has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Ok, but you ca't go making stuff up and NOT BACKING IT UP, then acting like we're stupid. Your stupid for believing such new and incompletely tested things. That's your problem, your ready to believe things right away, and you think science is perfect because you accept it. Wake up, it's not perfect. Again: Your in miracle science land, GET OUT.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

You can shoot a magnet gun int he air but what does that prove. Again: Go to the core and try that.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No, that only proves that gravity is weak exactly where the paper clip is. Gravity is MUCH MUCH stronger than a magnet.


thanks for the sig =]


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

I would just like to say, that l've thus far enjoyed the exchange among minds, and thanks all for allowing me to have a thread with more than 1 or 2 pages lol...but let's keep it goin! Because l'm still kind of befuddled between the two arguments about gravity, tryin' to learn somethin here! haha


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Two objects in space, one a Sherman Tank and the other, myself. if I push the Sherman tank, I will move away, not the Sherman tank. Someone stated that two objects of different masses would move away at the same rate, but that is simply not true.

The object of lesser mass will move, and not the larger, each and every time. Get some rolly chairs, and a few different weighted friends, give it a try. Applies in space too.

Just because an object is the size of Jupiter, doesn't mean it has the same gravitational feild as Jupiter, it COULD not have one at all if the structure is coreless.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Your welcome. Make sure it links back, thanks for taking me out of context and not completing the thought.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

I see why you don;t understand things. You can't even read two sentences and put them together.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> and as far as the paperclip bs. what does that have to do with gravity? are you also implying that superglue and duct tape are anti-gravity engines? A magnets ability to attract to another magnetic material, IMO, has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.


do you not realize that a magnet picking up a paperclip is overtaking gravity? why doesnt the paperclip fall to the ground? the magnet is holding it up


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

My reference regarding the sun and jupiter, if I didn't elaborate enough on, was in response to when said "objects of mass attract eachother" yet they have orbital trajectory but why? if two large objects attract, than I would expect Jupiter to leave its trajectory to unite with the sun. However the Sun, being mostly gas, has a much different gravitational field than here on earth. Especially since it is constantly expanding/contracting and emitting radiation.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Or more accurately and specifically. "The way mindphuk changes history, without backing it up and expects people to listen"


What about history did I change? 

I don't expect people to listen, I expect people to do their own basic research http://www.physics.org/. I know my personal level of science knowledge and I know and understand what the physics community currently believe is the state of our existence. I also don't try to contradict people like Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education http://ncse.com/


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> You can shoot a magnet gun int he air but what does that prove. Again: Go to the core and try that.


it proves that small amounts of magnetism can overtake the force of gravity. thus, gravity is weaker than magnetism. we know gravity is extremely weak compared to the other forces.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

All of the reasons anyone ever had for doing it. Which used to be success, but isn't now?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

SO it's because your a Hipster is what your saying?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> it proves that small amounts of magnetism can overtake the force of gravity. thus, gravity is weaker than magnetism. we know gravity is extremely weak compared to the other forces.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It proves that gravity over takes it AT THE CRUST. But that is not the only gravity there is, even on earth. Let alone the universe.


Go deep enough, and the gravity is tremendously greater.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> do you not realize that a magnet picking up a paperclip is overtaking gravity? why doesnt the paperclip fall to the ground? the magnet is holding it up


That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.

Of coarse a concentrated magnetic to a piece of steel will unite before they both unite with the ground, however, when you let go, they will both fall to the ground. You are only representing a tighter bond within the realm of gravity. we already KNOW that certain metals are magnetic and attract to one another. but this does not correlate with the actions of gravity.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Rub a ballon on your head and stick it on the wall, does that mean gravity is static? No, its a stronger force that isn't entirely relevant.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
> 
> It proves that gravity over takes it AT THE CRUST. But that is not the only gravity there is, even on earth. Let alone the universe.
> 
> ...


Actually...l've heard more than once that gravity is stronger on the surface, moreso than at the center of the earth...something about the forces of matter in the middle cancelling each other out...not saying it's true, but l've heard something along those lines multiple times


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

No if the force is greater here what is the force that is causing the molten lava in the core. The lower you go the stronger gravity is. Just like the further away from earth you are the less effect its hold has.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

[video=youtube;8bTdMmNZm2M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTdMmNZm2M[/video]


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

And don't say the force is miles of rock and lava, because if it's mils of rock and lava, gravity is what pulls them down and makes that pressure. And it's stronger at the core.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No if the force is greater here what is the force that is causing the molten lava in the core. The lower you go the stronger gravity is. Just like the further away from earth you are the less effect its hold has.


Well here's on of the articles that explains it better than l can lol

In the center of the Earth, there are equal amounts of mass in all directions at any given distance, so gravity pulls equally hard in all directions, so an object at the center of the Earth would feel zero net gravity. Such an object would be under enormous pressure, because it does feel the weight of all mass that lies on top of it. 
Outside of the Earth, gravity behaves as if all mass of the Earth were concentrated in the very center point, but inside the Earth gravity does not behave like that. 
Gravity comes from mass, not from a particular point. Only in the precise center is the gravity equal to zero. 
This holds also in the center of a black hole, if the law of gravity as we know it is still valid there (which we don't know). 
If the Earth were hollow inside, and all of its mass were in the surface shell, and the mass distribution was spherically symmetric, then you'd be weightless everywhere in the hollow space inside the Earth. 
The green line in http://www.splung.com/kinematics/images/gravitation/variation%20of%20g.png shows the variation of the strength of gravity with distance from the center of the Earth. Gravity is zero in the very center, then rises fairly linearly to about 109% of the surface gravity at about 55% of the distance to the surface, then drops back to about 100% and stays there until the surface. Beyond the surface the gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the center. 
The red line in the same graph shows the variation of gravity if the Earth were equally dense everywhere. Then the strength of gravity would increase linearly from 0 in the middle to 100% at the surface. That in the "real" Earth the variation of gravity is different is because the Earth is not equally dense everywhere, but is a lot denser near the middle than near the surface.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Actually...l've heard more than once that gravity is stronger on the surface, moreso than at the center of the earth...something about the forces of matter in the middle cancelling each other out...not saying it's true, but l've heard something along those lines multiple times


This was one of the "blackboard problems" i remember from physics class. At the earth's center of mass, the local gravitational effect is nearly zero, with the "nearly" being solar and lunar tidal offset. A body only experiences weight from the mass below it. The spherical shell above a subsurface object still exerts gravity, but it cancels out. Zero vector sum. At the center of mass, all the planet's weight is above and cancels itself out.
cheers 'neer

Addendum about which is stronger - electromagnetism or gravity. EM forces can be made to be *locally* much stronger. Over long distances however, gravity wins. A galaxy or solar system is shaped almost entirely by gravitational forces.

<edit> In the time it took me to formulate this post, I've been anticipated.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

But IT WOULDN'T be able to escape be cause the gravity around it would be so great. It may have 0 gravity at the exact center. But you try getting something at the center out with a magnet from a foot a way. I don't care if you've got a 40lb magnet. That paper clip isn't coming.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Two objects in space, one a Sherman Tank and the other, myself. if I push the Sherman tank, I will move away, not the Sherman tank. Someone stated that two objects of different masses would move away at the same rate, but that is simply not true.


what did the tank see? it saw the same exact thing you did, except opposite. it saw YOU moving away from IT at the same rate you claimed to see the tank move away from you. it all depends on what your perspective is. just like the paper-earth analogy.

with two objects of different masses in space, they both move away from eachother when you push the tank. unless you have some third party object to determine speed, you cant say you are moving faster than the tank, because the tank could just as easily say it is faster than you and you are staying still. you two are simply moving apart from one another.
but if there is a third party object, you both can determine what is happening a little better, but ONLY in relation to that other object and eachother.



> The object of lesser mass will move, and not the larger, each and every time. Get some rolly chairs, and a few different weighted friends, give it a try. Applies in space too.


you only see that effect because there are third party objects that both people can relate to. if the two pushed eachother in space, you cant say the smaller massed person moved and the big one didnt because you have nothing to relate that motion to except eachother.



> Just because an object is the size of Jupiter, doesn't mean it has the same gravitational feild as Jupiter, it COULD not have one at all if the structure is coreless.


size is not the issue. mass is what determines gravity. why would it not have gravity without a core? if it is made of matter and has mass, it has gravity.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But IT WOULDN'T be able to escape be cause the gravity around it would be so great. It may have 0 gravity at the exact center. But you try getting something at the center out with a magnet from a foot a way. I don't care if you've got a 40lb magnet. That paper clip isn't coming.


May I ask where you went to school?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

No you can't. You've lurked me enough. Can I ask if you drink blue ribbon and won't pull the stick out of your ass?


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> <edit> In the time it took me to formulate this post, I've been anticipated.


At least you're able to explain it off the top of your head...l had to google LOL


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> size is not the issue.


 
Whoever told you that ... she lied.

In the Sherman tank example, conservation of momentum is the thing. The tank moves; the person moves. What does not move (or change velocity/direction) is the center of mass of that two-body ensemble. But you know that. I'm just tilting at the clarity windmills. Sancho! My armor ... !!
cheers 'neer


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
> That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
> That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
> That is an entirely different subject, which has been said, only proves to contain forces greater than that of gravity.
> ...





THENUMBER1022 said:


> Rub a ballon on your head and stick it on the wall, does that mean gravity is static? No, its a stronger force that isn't entirely relevant.


okay apparently you still dont get it. im not saying gravity disappears and magnetism takes over. im saying a small magnet can have enough force to attract a paperclip into the air. this means the entire earths gravity was not strong enough to hold the paperclip down against the magnetism


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

anyone who tells you that every object in space has the same mass is a joke. I'm done. 

Laws apply on Earth, but to say the moon has an equal mass or equal gravitational pull is wrong. Otherwise we would spin together, instead of having the smaller mass remain one-sided, always having the opposing side facing away. Clearly, we have a greater gravitational pull. All that guy did was ask a bunch of people a question and get the "wrong" answer he knew he'd receive, only so he can recite someone else's theory. That might be your definition of smart, but I differ.

Trusting laws which are evidently not accurate or relative is the Achilles heal of society. If this is about science, then I'm out. I was under the assumption this was about what we know.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> okay apparently you still dont get it. im not saying gravity disappears and magnetism takes over. im saying a small magnet can have enough force to attract a paperclip into the air. this means the entire earths gravity was not strong enough to hold the paperclip down against the magnetism


I can also overcome gravity by picking up a dime off the floor...superhuman, right here


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

okay, lugar187, clearly YOU do not get it. 

I, not you, was re-enforcing the fact that gravitational pull is relative to mass, but thanks for twisting my words and basically saying the exact same thing. I am saying although an object might be the size of Jupiter, it could have 1/10 the mass of jupiter(I.E. HOLLOW, CORELESS, MADE UP OF GAS)

YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING that mass does in no way shape or form correlate to size.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> anyone who tells you that every object in space has the same mass is a joke. I'm done.
> 
> Laws apply on Earth, but to say the moon has an equal mass or equal gravitational pull is wrong. Otherwise we would spin together, instead of having the smaller mass remain one-sided, always having the opposing side facing away. Clearly, we have a greater gravitational pull. All that guy did was ask a bunch of people a question and get the "wrong" answer he knew he'd receive, only so he can recite someone else's theory. That might be your definition of smart, but I differ.
> 
> Trusting laws which are evidently not accurate or relative is the Achilles heal of society. If this is about science, then I'm out. I was under the assumption this was about what we know.


 [video=youtube;cP0Bb3WXJ_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP0Bb3WXJ_k&feature=related[/video]


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

OKAY, 187, I got an idea. Drop two paper clips from a plane and hold a magnet in your hand. If you catch one, let me know. 

Like canibineer stated, only locally does it overpower, implying it is an irrelevant force in the actions of gravity. You can also jump out of a plane with a paper clip and magnet. Yes the magnet might find the paperclip, but they are still falling at the exact same rate as gravity. A magnet dropped will still fall towards earth.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Whoever told you that ... she lied.


i knew it! that bitch! lol



> In the Sherman tank example, conservation of momentum is the thing. The tank moves; the person moves. What does not move 9or change velocity/direction) is the center of mass of that two-body ensemble. But you know that. I'm just tilting at the clarity windmills. Sancho! My armor ... !!
> cheers 'neer


okay so the force you exert 'on the tank' by pushing it is 'split' between the two objects?
and what if the two are moving away from eachother, and a third object came and bumped the tank in a different direction than where it was goin. basically the tank would move to the left or right(whichever 'way' its pushed). wouldnt this change the location of the center of mass? i think it will, but it also changes the example haha


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No you can't. You've lurked me enough. Can I ask if you drink blue ribbon and won't pull the stick out of your ass?


You are extremely hostile to people that wanted to help you clear up misconceptions. What makes you think you are more correct about these things than the actual scientists that study them?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> I can also overcome gravity by picking up a dime off the floor...superhuman, right here


No, it means that you are able to overcome the force of gravity on the paperclip with just your muscles. You can also pull the paperclip away from the magnet too so you might think you are stronger than magnetism. However, I can produce a magnet that you would not be able to pull it away from. At short distances, magnetism is extremely strong but does not work over distance. Even though gravity is very weak, it acts over enormous distances.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk, isnt that exactly what I said in each post and example I provided? I claimed that a truely heavier object, in space, will move much much less than a smaller object. yes it is all relative but as far as geographical movement, and not perspective of the other object, the large object will always move less.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> okay so the force you exert 'on the tank' by pushing it is 'split' between the two objects?
> and what if the two are moving away from eachother, and a third object came and bumped the tank in a different direction than where it was goin. basically the tank would move to the left or right(whichever 'way' its pushed). wouldnt this change the location of the center of mass? i think it will, but it also changes the example haha


Action = reaction. When you push on the tank, the amount of work (force integrated with time) being done by you on the tank, and by the tank on you, is the same.

If we introduce a third body, then the common center of mass of all three bodies is the rest point. The center of mass of any two bodies becomes only a part of the whole.
cheers 'neer


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

The large object may move, but not at nearly the same velocity or final distance.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> mindphuk, isnt that exactly what I said in each post and example I provided? I claimed that a truely heavier object, in space, will move much much less than a smaller object. yes it is all relative but as far as geographical movement, and not perspective of the other object, the large object will always move less.


Sorry if I misunderstood your post. I thought you said the tank will not move. 
Let's go back to the moon and earth. The moon's gravity attracts the earth to it as much as the earth attracts the moon. I was taking issue with your comment about gravity only working on earth or something.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No, it means that you are able to overcome the force of gravity on the paperclip with just your muscles. You can also pull the paperclip away from the magnet too so you might think you are stronger than magnetism. However, I can produce a magnet that you would not be able to pull it away from. At short distances, magnetism is extremely strong but does not work over distance. Even though gravity is very weak, it acts over enormous distances.


Touche'! But just so we're clear, that wasn't in any way a demonstration of my lack of knowledge..just a douchey remark to try and ease the tension amongst the debaters lol but thanks for the added fact. Also, in the demonstration of the transfer of motion through the line of skaters in the vid, is there any loss in momentum or force by the time the transfer pushes the last one in line? Assuming this is taking place in a vaccum? (not even sure if that matters lol)


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

You've been hostile to me since yesterday. So STFU. No one was hostile till you got hostile saying "I hope my children are taught better than you." When you don't back up SHIT...EVER...EVER. You have videos of people talking and Newtons laws. WE KNOW NEWTONS LAWS, your the one confused about how they apply to the world, but even you KNOW the laws. You are the one that has been educated poorly as you are prepared to accept science fairy tails.

I don't think I know more, I just don't think they should be allowed to upturn 100 yrs of science or more without TRULY TRULY proving it. And I don't think you should believe them until they do. I'm sorry you like to jump the gun.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Touche'! But just so we're clear, that wasn't in any way a demonstration of my lack of knowledge..just a douchey remark to try and ease the tension amongst the debaters lol but thanks for the added fact. Also, in the demonstration of the transfer of motion through the line of skaters in the vid, is there any loss in momentum or force by the time the transfer pushes the last one in line? Assuming this is taking place in a vaccum? (not even sure if that matters lol)


 The problem is there shouldn't be any debate. The laws of physics are well known. Everything in this universe with mass has gravity. All things with mass are attracted to one another through this force we call gravitation. I really don't know why thenumber and the fish dude keep claiming things that go against known physics.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Mindphuk,
There is gravity throughout the universe, but it could be a million times stronger in another galaxy for unknown reason. All I was saying is that what we can measure as G on earth does not apply on a different planet/mass. Clearly the moon effects Earth but only our surface is really effected. Earth on the other hand, has the moon rotating around it. It has to be different, or else the tides wouldn't change, but we don't rotate on the same axis.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> The problem is there shouldn't be any debate. The laws of physics are well known. Everything in this universe with mass has gravity. All things with mass are attracted to one another through this force we call gravitation. I really don't know why thenumber and the fish dude keep claiming things that go against known physics.


Well just seeing the volley of info between everyone makes me feel like a complete damn retard haha as l know next to nothing in the physics department...so coming from someone who knows nothing, kinda makes it difficult to sift and decipher the information, from disinformation, as just reading them both sides sounds well...sound lol but again, l don't know jack, so that's why l just sit and read, and watch the vids, try and get a little education haha


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> The problem is there shouldn't be any debate. The laws of physics are well known. Everything in this universe with mass has gravity. All things with mass are attracted to one another through this force we call gravitation. I really don't know why thenumber and the fish dude keep claiming things that go against known physics.


Exactly why your wrong.

If that is true then it can't be proven true. THE EARTH COUNTERACTS ANY TEST OF THAT.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Unless you can show some evidence of a test prepared and done in space, where this was proven to be 99% true(earth and sun are still there, so are other things). Show something, or mention an name that I can look up. PLEASE.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> You've been hostile to me since yesterday. So STFU. No one was hostile till you got hostile saying "I hope my children are taught better than you." When you don't back up SHIT...EVER...EVER. You have videos of people talking and Newtons laws. WE KNOW NEWTONS LAWS, your the one confused about how they apply to the world, but even you KNOW the laws. You are the one that has been educated poorly as you are prepared to accept science fairy tails.
> 
> I don't think I know more, I just don't think they should be allowed to upturn 100 yrs of science or more without TRULY TRULY proving it. And I don't think you should believe them until they do. I'm sorry you like to jump the gun.


 I was not hostile. I attempted to correct some of your misunderstandings and you took exception to it. I stopped posting to you when you started to act like a little bitch and made it personal. Then you went off on Heis when he was trying to help correct some of the same things you were wrong about. I am quite well educated in science and physics. You, OTOH, have made repeated errors about what science is and does and how it works. That video of a person talking is Eugenie Scott, the director of National Center for Science Education. I posted it to help you understand the difference between a law, theory and fact because you seem to think that theories somehow become fact after they are "proved." Theories are never proven in the technical sense. They are updated and revised as they get more and more refined. You cannot tell me one theory that has ever been 'proved' now can you?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Action = reaction. When you push on the tank, the amount of work (force integrated with time) being done by you on the tank, and by the tank on you, is the same.
> 
> If we introduce a third body, then the common center of mass of all three bodies is the rest point. The center of mass of any two bodies becomes only a part of the whole.
> cheers 'neer


doh! i didnt think of the third object also having a gravitational effect


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

These are great laws but they haven't been tested or applied to planets. At all. Solar systems contain infinite energy and if you can explain what started each planets trajectory, than you can explain life. Yes an object in motion stays in motion, but why an orbital motion without collision? The universe is a big place, you are suggesting that two genius's from Earth wrote the laws of the universe and they apply to all and are right forever. I am just not buying it. The laws can be proven, but they can also be disproven.

If an object in motion stays in motion, then a plane only needs enough fuel to get up to speed and can remain in flight indefinitely, well no, because air is considered friction. There are many factors that these laws conveniently leave out.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Exactly why your wrong.
> 
> If that is true then it can't be proven true. THE EARTH COUNTERACTS ANY TEST OF THAT.





Finshaggy said:


> Unless you can show some evidence of a test prepared and done in space, where this was proven to be 99% true(earth and sun are still there, so are other things). Show something, or mention an name that I can look up. PLEASE.


I'm not sure what you are asking me to prove, that Newton was right?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Mindphuk,
> There is gravity throughout the universe, but it could be a million times stronger in another galaxy for unknown reason. All I was saying is that what we can measure as G on earth does not apply on a different planet/mass. Clearly the moon effects Earth but only our surface is really effected. Earth on the other hand, has the moon rotating around it. It has to be different, or else the tides wouldn't change, but we don't rotate on the same axis.


It is reasonable/likely to assume that gravity, notably the gravitational constant, is "flat" throughout observable space. The reason i say that is because when constant g is plugged into the massive computer simulations of the evolution of the young universe, familiar structures emerge: spiral galaxies, galactic clusters, the "foamy
" distribution across hundreds of millions of parsecs of visible matter. If g were as little as 10% off the accepted value elsewhere (across a large enough volume), it would show up on sky survey plates. Astronomy allows access to places where the earth's gravitational field is essentially absent. Jmo.
cheers 'neer


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

if newtons law was right, then firing my beretta 9mm will result in me and my rifle being thrown backwards at 800fps for a few miles?

Every action has a reaction that is effected by many variables. Thats about as close to the law as I am getting.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Yes. The theory of relativity was proven. That was the whole argument yesterday.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

The question is, why does the amount of gravity on a mass change if G is constant?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Well here's on of the articles that explains it better than l can lol
> 
> In the center of the Earth, there are equal amounts of mass in all directions at any given distance, so gravity pulls equally hard in all directions, so an object at the center of the Earth would feel zero net gravity. Such an object would be under enormous pressure, because it does feel the weight of all mass that lies on top of it.
> Outside of the Earth, gravity behaves as if all mass of the Earth were concentrated in the very center point, but inside the Earth gravity does not behave like that.
> ...



Plus READ THIS ARTICLE THAT PROVES WHAT I'M SAYING. Read the bottom, go ahead. The earth is densest at the middle. Making more gravity at the middle. 

You were Hostile first, I returned hostility because I'm not going to be corrected over and over by a VERY VERY VERY confused individual. 

Please prove A SINGLE POINT.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> if newtons law was right, then firing my beretta 9mm will result in me and my rifle being thrown backwards at 800fps for a few miles?
> 
> Every action has a reaction that is effected by many variables. Thats about as close to the law as I am getting.


 NO! The FORCE is the same, not the velocities. The force on the piece of lead that weighs about 140gr is the same force that pushes the gun back in your hand. However, the combined mass of you and the gun and the friction of your feet on the ground create a lot of inertia. If you were in space and fired that gun, you WOULD be pushed back, certainly not the same velocity as the bullet, but you would begin moving away from your starting position.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> NO! The FORCE is the same, not the velocities. The force on the piece of lead that weighs about 140gr is the same force that pushes the gun back in your hand. However, the combined mass of you and the gun and the friction of your feet on the ground create a lot of inertia. If you were in space and fired that gun, you WOULD be pushed back, certainly not the same velocity as the bullet, but you would begin moving away from your starting position.


PROVE IT THOUGH. Maybe your right. I don't care now, prove something. Please. I want to know if you have even read anything before talking.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> The question is, why does the amount of gravity on a mass change if G is constant?


Because the gravitational force is contingent on the two masses acting on each other, and on distance. F = m1m2g / d2

cheers 'neer

Addendum. In the Beretta example, one mass, eight grams of bullet, receding at 1200 fps. The other mass, estimate 80kg, so 10000 times as much. It'll head the other way at 0.12 fps, or 1.5 inches per second. If you align the gun's bore with your center of mass, you won't tumble.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Plus READ THIS ARTICLE THAT PROVES WHAT I'M SAYING. Read the bottom, go ahead. The earth is densest at the middle. Making more gravity at the middle.
> 
> You were Hostile first, I returned hostility because I'm not going to be corrected over and over by a VERY VERY VERY confused individual.
> 
> Please prove A SINGLE POINT.


Ok, l don't know where your getting the idea l was in any way being a dick...l was merely explaining, and finding sources to back up my claim of supposed "facts" on things that l had heard on the subject...isn't that constantly what people ask for? 

Please, don't deflect your negativity with anyone else on me, because l have yet to try and belittle you or make any insenuations that you were stupid.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Plus READ THIS ARTICLE THAT PROVES WHAT I'M SAYING.
> 
> 
> > Read the bottom, go ahead. The earth is densest at the middle. Making more gravity at the middle.
> ...


it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.


Exactly..so that is to say, that gravity will still be present due to the mass, it's just one wouldn't FEEL the effects of it...am l understanding correctly?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yes. The theory of relativity was proven. That was the whole argument yesterday.


 No. Relativity is still wrong. We know it's wrong, Einstein even knew it was wrong. It's wrong because the math breaks down in certain situations. It conflicts with another very successful theory, the standard model of particle physics which explains the other 3 forces except gravity. 

The most you can say about general relativity is that it is a successful theory with a lot of support and is mostly correct but the term "proof" and "proven" do not actually mean anything in science. There are proofs in mathematics but not science. In everyday language, what we call a colloquial use of the term proven, you are right but in science we don't say that, partially because there are certain assumptions that we make in science. Thenumber has brought up one of those assumptions, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We can't really prove that claim, it is something we must assume to be correct. 

Please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile with you or make this an argument. I am trying to tell you something that is a fundamental of the scientific method. I would forget the past and start fresh again. Let's agree to debate politely. 
Please see this article. It explains it better than I can http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Ok, l don't know where your getting the idea l was in any way being a dick...l was merely explaining, and finding sources to back up my claim of supposed "facts" on things that l had heard on the subject...isn't that constantly what people ask for?
> 
> Please, don't deflect your negativity with anyone else on me, because l have yet to try and belittle you or make any insenuations that you were stupid.



I wasn't being negative at you. I was quoting you to make my point.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.



READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Exactly..so that is to say, that gravity will still be present due to the mass, it's just one wouldn't FEEL the effects of it...am l understanding correctly?


yes. if you imagine the earth as a perfect sphere with the same density throughout, that is. if one side has like 5 more pounds, even that will move the center of gravity a little, so its actually not in the exact center. but if it was a perfect sphere like i said, and you were in the center, you wouldnt feel the effects of gravity(from the earth). 

now, lets say your body is also a perfect sphere. if you were to go to the center of mass of the earth, would the earth feel your gravitational effect? wouldnt things still want to be pulled into you a bit more because you are there?


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 15, 2011)

Oh Hell! A physics forum on a pot head site under spirituality? Got one Physics class left before I have my Ass. degtee. So I might as wade in. How to you prove a theorem with theories? It has been observed that water becomes ICE when it gets cold! Did I prove anything? Vapor when it gets hot? And how many calories did I expend thinking and typing about the observation that thermal energy is required for H2O to change physical states? But did I actually Prove Anything? Did I miss something? We are talking about gravity the attraction between all things that have mass and defined at the molecular level with ideas? Can not measure a gravity wave but we can observe the forces at large enough scale to use the forces to control the direction of a sate-light or explorer? Is that what we are to bounce around?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No. Relativity is still wrong. We know it's wrong, Einstein even knew it was wrong. It's wrong because the math breaks down in certain situations. It conflicts with another very successful theory, the standard model of particle physics which explains the other 3 forces except gravity.
> 
> The most you can say about general relativity is that it is a successful theory with a lot of support and is mostly correct but the term "proof" and "proven" do not actually mean anything in science. There are proofs in mathematics but not science. In everyday language, what we call a colloquial use of the term proven, you are right but in science we don't say that, partially because there are certain assumptions that we make in science. Thenumber has brought up one of those assumptions, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We can't really prove that claim, it is something we must assume to be correct.
> 
> ...



Again, your wrong. It may never be truly proven. But your article taught me I was just using the wrong words. What I have been trying to say is "accepted by science". I personally would never accept them as true because they aren't proven again and again. Which you were wrong about yesterday, science accepts things without them being true beyond a doubt. 

This whole argument is based on a difference in opinion about how right science is. I'm done with it.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.


...what he stated, and confirmed for me, was that, we are not saying the gravity isn't there...we're in agreement that there is more mass at the center, hence, there IS more gravity. But, you just wouldn't FEEL it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> *In the center of the Earth, there are equal amounts of mass in all directions at any given distance, so gravity pulls equally hard in all directions, so an object at the center of the Earth would feel zero net gravity. Such an object would be under enormous pressure, because it does feel the weight of all mass that lies on top of it. *
> Outside of the Earth, gravity behaves as if all mass of the Earth were concentrated in the very center point, but inside the Earth gravity does not behave like that.
> Gravity comes from mass, not from a particular point. *Only in the precise center is the gravity equal to zero. *
> This holds also in the center of a black hole, if the law of gravity as we know it is still valid there (which we don't know).
> ...





Finshaggy said:


> READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.


if you go into the center of mass of the earth, you will feel no gravitational effects. just because it is more dense in the middle doesnt mean that when you get to that center of mass, gravity will suddenly skyrocket. its still zero


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> ...what he stated, and confirmed for me, was that, we are not saying the gravity isn't there...we're in agreement that there is more mass at the center, hence, there IS more gravity. But, you just wouldn't FEEL it.



Ok, but my argument isn't that. You guys tried to tell me a magnet was stonger. BULL SHIT.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> if you go into the center of mass of the earth, you will feel no gravitational effects. just because it is more dense in the middle doesnt mean that when you get to that center of mass, gravity will suddenly skyrocket. its still zero



Just because gravity is 0 in the middle doesn't mean the closer to the middle you are the weaker gravity gets AS YOU STATED BEFORE. I repeat. DUMB ASS


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Ok, but my argument isn't that. You guys tried to tell me a magnet was stonger. BULL SHIT.


What MP (and someone else) said earlier...yes, magnets are stronger than the force of gravity, over a SHORT distance. The example was picking up a paperclip with a magnet. But, if it's a small household magnet, it loses the battle with gravity after a couple inches. So for the sake of argument, you could say it is and isn't. Yes over small distances, no over longer ones.

I was no part of that, but l was aware of that fact.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

We need to clearly distinguish between gravitational strength and gravitational potential. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> What MP (and someone else) said earlier...yes, magnets are stronger than the force of gravity, over a SHORT distance. The example was picking up a paperclip with a magnet. But, if it's a small household magnet, it loses the battle with gravity after a couple inches. So for the sake of argument, you could say it is and isn't. Yes over small distances, no over longer ones.


 BUT NO THEY AREN'T at the center. Gravity is weak on top, because that's not its full force. Get it? They're being hipsters and following the word of someone they revere. To the end of the earth, because they think it's good.

If you other two guys haven't tried blue ribbon with cigarettes and wine, you should try it. It would fit you well.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Rawbudzski said it...RIU is the best lol


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 15, 2011)

grizlbr said:


> Oh Hell! A physics forum on a pot head site under spirituality? Got one Physics class left before I have my Ass. degtee. So I might as wade in. How to you prove a theorem with theories? It has been observed that water becomes ICE when it gets cold! Did I prove anything? Vapor when it gets hot? And how many calories did I expend thinking and typing about the observation that thermal energy is required for H2O to change physical states? But did I actually Prove Anything? Did I miss something? We are talking about gravity the attraction between all things that have mass and defined at the molecular level with ideas? Can not measure a gravity wave but we can observe the forces at large enough scale to use the forces to control the direction of a sate-light or explorer? Is that what we are to bounce around?


 Just so I will not be aqused of continuing to edit my post and continue the time line is this our fourth dimention with only 1 direction? So the theory is that we are gama radiation passing thru a nateral small enough that we pass between elemental particles? So where does the singalarity theory fit into this subatomic idea?


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> BUT NO THEY AREN'T at the center. Gravity is weak on top, because that's not its full force. Get it? They're being hipsters and following the word of someone they revere. To the end of the earth, because they think it's good.
> 
> If you other two guys haven't tried blue ribbon with cigarettes and wine, you should try it. It would fit you well.


Ok...so you are implying that, if gravity WERE able to be felt at the center, it would be stronger of course, therefore, no magnets could beat the stronger G force? Even if the force was 10x stronger, as long as you have a big enough magnet, l believe you could. If a small magnet can overcome 1G, why couldn't a huge magnet beat 2, 5, or 10G?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, your wrong.


Please explain how. 


> It may never be truly proven. But your article taught me I was just using the wrong words. What I have been trying to say is "accepted by science".


That was basically all I was saying yesterday but instead of acknowledging it, you merely continued to argue. 


> I personally would never accept them as true because they aren't proven again and again. Which you were wrong about yesterday, science accepts things without them being true beyond a doubt.


 I'm not sure what it is you aren't accepting as true. I was not wrong yesterday, I was saying the same thing as this article. 


> This whole argument is based on a difference in opinion about how right science is.


No, the argument was about the fact that words have meaning and in science certain words have very precise meanings that you were using incorrectly. Not once did I argue against the fact of Einstein or his theory, what I was trying to teach you was to be careful in thinking that some theories are proven true and become law or a fact as both of those terms mean something different in science than they do in normal conversational English. 



> I'm done with it.


 If you're all done learning new things then fine but I'm never done trying to keep people from butchering science.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> BUT NO THEY AREN'T at the center. Gravity is weak on top, because that's not its full force. Get it? They're being hipsters and following the word of someone they revere. To the end of the earth, because they think it's good.
> 
> If you other two guys haven't tried blue ribbon with cigarettes and wine, you should try it. It would fit you well.


No soy hipster
cheers 'neer


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 15, 2011)

uuuuu.... I think we are all forgetting the reciprocal distance rule: forces decrease at square of distance. The E=mc2 distance being the constant?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> No soy hipster
> cheers 'neer


 not you

The guy with the street pciture and mindphuk


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> not you
> 
> The guy with the street pciture and mindphuk


ok cheers
I saw your "Hipsters" thread and wondered. I don't even like coffee.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> ok cheers
> I saw your "Hipsters" thread and wondered. I don't even like coffee.


Lol, yeah not you at all. I just feel the other two have been being so stupid. And won't even cite evidence. They just want a fight, and I bet if I reread their words they contradict themselves. I have met some messed up people like that. They argue to find out how deeply you understand and believe in your topic.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol, yeah not you at all. I just feel the other two have been being so stupid. And won't even cite evidence. They just want a fight, and I bet if I reread their words they contradict themselves. I have met some messed up people like that. They argue to find out how deeply you understand and believe in your topic.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=general+relativity
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=newtons+laws


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol, yeah not you at all. I just feel the other two have been being so stupid. And won't even cite evidence. They just want a fight, and I bet if I reread their words they contradict themselves. I have met some messed up people like that. They argue to find out how deeply you understand and believe in your topic.


Just pointing out, l cited my evidence, which you believed contradicted what l said it stated, and then l pointed out that it didn't, which again, Luger confirmed. Then you contradicted yourself by saying you weren't arguing that, and brought the whole magnet argument into play...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=general+relativity
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=newtons+laws


I prefer Special Relativity. That's where the faster the bus goes, the shorter it becomes.
~giggle~
cheers 'neer


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I prefer Special Relativity. That's where the faster the bus goes, the shorter it becomes.
> ~giggle~
> cheers 'neer


yeah and the whole viewing time differently is a trip too. cant wait for the theory of everything lol


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yeah and the whole viewing time differently is a trip too. cant wait for the theory of everything lol


Aren't they hoping that's what string theory will turn into? Or is that still in the infancy stages


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Just pointing out, l cited my evidence, which you believed contradicted what l said it stated, and then l pointed out that it didn't, which again, Luger confirmed. Then you contradicted yourself by saying you weren't arguing that, and brought the whole magnet argument into play...


NOT YOU. I'm not trying to say anything against anyone except those specific 2 guys. Luger and Mindphuk. They are being like that.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Just pointing out, l cited my evidence, which you believed contradicted what l said it stated, and then l pointed out that it didn't, which again, Luger confirmed. Then you contradicted yourself by saying you weren't arguing that, and brought the whole magnet argument into play...



AND I DIDN'T contradict myself. I NEVER SAID YOUR ARTICLE WAS WRONG. I POSTED IT AS EVIDENCE THEN MY WORDS WERE FOR THEM.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> NOT YOU. I'm not trying to say anything against anyone except those specific 2 guys. Luger and Mindphuk. They are being like that.


I understand that. Perhaps you might have understood me better if you could realize the inflections in the first few words...l meant it as l cited my evidence, you said it was wrong, we confirmed it wasn't, you then changed your argument, then started calling them stupid. Again, l have no college degree, nor have l even stepped foot in college, but l've been following these guys on here for awhile, and they seem to be very well informed if you'd give them a chance.

Plus, l would count MP's videos as citing evidence, just not in literary form.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Just pointing out, l cited my evidence, which you believed contradicted what l said it stated, and then l pointed out that it didn't, which again, Luger confirmed. Then you contradicted yourself by saying you weren't arguing that, and brought the whole magnet argument into play...



The magnet argument WAS NOT MINE whatever retard said magnetism is stronger than gravity did. They said magnets can disrupt the earth gravitational field.

EVERYONE PLEASE STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Aren't they hoping that's what string theory will turn into? Or is that still in the infancy stages


yeah they hope string theory will be, but idk if it will. i dont know much about it though. after this book i just started today im gonna read another one i got about string theory. i let my cousin read it while i was reading another one, and he said it was crazy. its called 'the elegant universe'


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Ok, so a huge misunderstanding, my apologies. I don't know about disrupting gravitational fields, but they can overcome gravity. Agreed?


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Ok, so a huge misunderstanding, my apologies. I don't know about disrupting gravitational fields, but they can overcome gravity. Agreed?



If you mean ONLY near the crust. and yes agreed. In the core, complete BULL SHIT. Your not getting out of that with a big magnet. YOU CAN'T. TOO MCUH DAMN...WHAT???...GRAVITY.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yeah they hope string theory will be, but idk if it will. i dont know much about it though. after this book i just started today im gonna read another one i got about string theory. i let my cousin read it while i was reading another one, and he said it was crazy. its called 'the elegant universe'


I know when l first read about it/watched vids, it absolutely blew me away. I read Physics of the Impossible, and currently on Hyperspace. Even though l don't get the mathmatics, they dumb it down enough for me to get the basic idea, which l find mind boggling lol as if all of science fiction is slowly turning into science reality


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

What creates gravity, other than an object having mass? the equation isnt mass=g, its like measuring horsepower, but why is there even an engine?

Why does gravity exist? can gravity be harnessed? Can we replicate it or take the ingredients required and make our own, more powerful?

It seems a true 'anti-gravity' engine would have to be replicating a planet physically, to achieve its own gravitational field. 

I have also heard that masses naturally have a negative polarity, but that polarity shifts are not uncommon. Some masses can change their polarity and some masses have a negative core with positive crust. 

Has anyone ever heard of a spherical woofer? maybe a resonating frequency could stimulate the magnets to generate a field and if negatively charged - repel against earth..


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> If you mean ONLY near the crust. and yes agreed. In the core, complete BULL SHIT. Your not getting out of that with a big magnet. YOU CAN'T. TOO MCUH DAMN...WHAT???...GRAVITY.


Ok...so based on this, would you assert that if a planet had the same intensified amount of gravity on its surface, as much as the earth does in it's core, that no magnet could overcome it on said surface?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> The magnet argument WAS NOT MINE whatever retard said magnetism is stronger than gravity did.


if a magnet can lift a piece of metal in the opposite direction as gravity, then the magnet is stronger than the gravity. but you could also say gravity is stronger if the magnet is really weak. it depends on the situation. 



> They said magnets can disrupt the earth gravitational field.


who did?



> EVERYONE PLEASE STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT.


where did we take you out of context?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> It seems a true 'anti-gravity' engine would have to be replicating a planet physically, to achieve its own gravitational field.


You are describing a diametric drive. That would be the "holy grail" of space propulsion. 



> Has anyone ever heard of a spherical woofer? maybe a resonating frequency could stimulate the magnets to generate a field and if negatively charged - repel against earth..


My ex has an awesomely obese dog ...
cheers 'neer


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> My ex has an awesomely obese dog ...
> cheers 'neer


LOL ten characters


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

haha. sonic woofer, that is. 

The diametric drive needs to be further investigated. I have heard reports of people getting scary close to successful, and neighbors 5 miles away hearing a low pitch rumble during testing. They always claim men pop out from behind bushes in suits and glasses, take all they can and disappear. 

First pot-head attempt, who's with me?


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

I'm down, l can be a MacGuyver smoker when needed  all l need to make such a drive is some tin foil, a magnet, some copper wire, a sprite bottle, and an apple


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

A former colleague, expatriate Russian (back when it was still CCCP) described an acoustic experiment he witnessed. They built a 100-foot circular resonator, essentially a giant police whistle, and blew across its slit with an air source worthy of a wind tunnel. 
The thing achieved about 200 decibels at ~7 Hz before shaking itself into cinderblock dust. That'll l'arn those Scully&Mulder wannabees.
cheers 'neer


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> I'm down, l can be a MacGuyver smoker when needed  all l need to make such a drive is some tin foil, a magnet, some copper wire, a sprite bottle, and an apple


 
Duct tape. The conquest of the Universe also requires duct tape.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> What creates gravity, other than an object having mass?


i dont know



> the equation isnt mass=g, its like measuring horsepower, but why is there even an engine?


its true distance is also a factor, but the distance doesnt create the gravity. the effect gravity has on objects just changes as distance is changed. the gravity will still be there even though it isnt affecting anything.



> Why does gravity exist? can gravity be harnessed? Can we replicate it or take the ingredients required and make our own, more powerful?


we dont know. we dont know. i dont know, and i doubt it



> It seems a true 'anti-gravity' engine would have to be replicating a planet physically, to achieve its own gravitational field.


it already has its own gravitational field. and making it stronger will only make it pull or get pulled by objects harder, making it a 'more-gravity' engine



> I have also heard that masses naturally have a negative polarity, but that polarity shifts are not uncommon. Some masses can change their polarity and some masses have a negative core with positive crust.


you are probably referring to antimatter. i saw something one time where they did an experiment with a vacuum. i dont remember how it worked though. something about even with a total vacuum, there are antimatter particles coming in and out of existence constantly. they only survive for a tiny fraction of a second then disappear. i wish i could remember how they did it and what it was about



> Has anyone ever heard of a spherical woofer? maybe a resonating frequency could stimulate the magnets to generate a field and if negatively charged - repel against earth..


yes but the problem is magnets dont work for very long distances. so you would need the electromagnet that isnt attached to the ship to sort of move along with the ship as it goes. unless it was attached somehow, they would just repel and it would fall out of the sky. but also if they are attached, the magnetism wont move the ship. i think they should use a magnetic levitation system where it catches up to speed horizontally on earth(not too fast so the ppl dont die from g force). then once up to speed, slowly inclines up(again, not too quickly because of g force) and shoots it into space. no need for rockets except for those small rocket boosters they use in space to adjust their position


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> I know when l first read about it/watched vids, it absolutely blew me away. I read Physics of the Impossible, and currently on Hyperspace. Even though l don't get the mathmatics, they dumb it down enough for me to get the basic idea, which l find mind boggling lol as if all of science fiction is slowly turning into science reality


id like to recommend these books to you. i liked them a lot.
How we decide
Napoleons Buttons

the second one was especially cool. it explains how all the atomic structures work in as simple terms as possible. each chapter is about one substance, like rubber or silk, and tells you the history of it, why it has the properties it does, and how it changed the world.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> NOT YOU. I'm not trying to say anything against anyone except those specific 2 guys. Luger and Mindphuk. They are being like that.


Why are you so angry? cannabineer posted rebuttals to your incorrect assessment of physics just as much as I did. 

You can't say that you were right but just "using the wrong words" when in fact the problem I was pointing out was that you were using the wrong words. I'm not sure you even know why you are arguing with me. I haven't said anything controversial, I was merely trying to get you to stop saying incorrect things about science like some theories are proven and are now fact or that I need to prove Newton was correct about gravity. I can't cite evidence until you are clear what it is exactly that I am wrong about. I guess you are unwilling to try to start over and hold a normal adult conversation and you feel it necessary to throw around personal insults. Just be aware that your negative remarks reflect more on you and the weakness of your position.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> id like to recommend these books to you. i liked them a lot.
> How we decide
> Napoleons Buttons
> 
> the second one was especially cool. it explains how all the atomic structures work in as simple terms as possible. each chapter is about one substance, like rubber or silk, and tells you the history of it, why it has the properties it does, and how it changed the world.


Thanks for the reccomendation...l've always had a love for science, especially physics, but l severely lack the capacity for the mathmatics lol have you read Hawking's A Briefe History of Time? Seemed compelling, it was on the to-get list, but didn't know how in depth or complicated it was


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why are you so angry? cannabineer posted rebuttals to your incorrect assessment of physics just as much as I did.
> 
> You can't say that you were right but just "using the wrong words" when in fact the problem I was pointing out was that you were using the wrong words. I'm not sure you even know why you are arguing with me. I haven't said anything controversial, I was merely trying to get you to stop saying incorrect things about science like some theories are proven and are now fact or that I need to prove Newton was correct about gravity. I can't cite evidence until you are clear what it is exactly that I am wrong about. I guess you are unwilling to try to start over and hold a normal adult conversation and you feel it necessary to throw around personal insults. Just be aware that your negative remarks reflect more on you and the weakness of your position.



Quote him proving me wrong. I didn't notice. I noticed you being a dick for sure though. I'm not angry, just not going to let you make me as stupid as you. And I'm not gonna take your "higher than thou" insults "I hope my children are educated better than you" "What school did you go too." 

Fuck you, your stuck in miracle science world like I said. Your science is the science of a perfect flawless people. GET REAL, that's not the world.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Thanks for the reccomendation...l've always had a love for science, especially physics, but l severely lack the capacity for the mathmatics lol have you read Hawking's A Briefe History of Time? Seemed compelling, it was on the to-get list, but didn't know how in depth or complicated it was


i read it a few years ago but i dont remember much at all from it. i dont think it was all math stuff or anything. just go to the book store and flip through it to see what kind of stuff it has in it.
i have a bookmark section on my computer with a list of books i want to get. i have a stack of like 10 books to read on my desk and like 15 more i still want to order haha. 
i wish someone made a strain of pot that doesnt make you forget shit as you read it. its so much harder to get through a book high than sober. but i think i heard one time that memory is connected to the endocannabanoid system so pretty much all weed is going to affect it. idk if its true or not though


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Quote him proving me wrong. I didn't notice. I noticed you being a dick for sure though. I'm not angry, just not going to let you make me as stupid as you. And I'm not gonna take your "higher than thou" insults "I hope my children are educated better than you" "What school did you go too."
> 
> Fuck you, your stuck in miracle science world like I said. Your science is the science of a perfect flawless people. GET REAL, that's not the world.


Mp, does he remind you of anyone?


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i read it a few years ago but i dont remember much at all from it. i dont think it was all math stuff or anything. just go to the book store and flip through it to see what kind of stuff it has in it.
> i have a bookmark section on my computer with a list of books i want to get. i have a stack of like 10 books to read on my desk and like 15 more i still want to order haha.
> i wish someone made a strain of pot that doesnt make you forget shit as you read it. its so much harder to get through a book high than sober. but i think i heard one time that memory is connected to the endocannabanoid system so pretty much all weed is going to affect it. idk if its true or not though


Hahaha yeah l know what you mean. I know personally since l became a heavy, daily smoker, l have the hardest times remembering the smallest, dumbest shit. Constantly forgetting where l put my keys, l could start an article on something l find deeply interesting, but read an entire paragraph and forget everything it said by the time l got to the end, stuff like that lol. But l've had to go sober for a little while, going on almost 4 weeks now, and though it should be flushed from my system, l've only noticed a small difference in the attention span. Maybe just the mind wandering the weed causes is the problem, like be fixing my playstation or something but my mind totally be somewhere else, and then just ask myself "what the hell was l just doing?"

I don't mind though, cause l'm still able to absorb information as long as l read and re-read it enough times...can't wait for the next time l'm able to spark up, seein all these pics of peoples grows is makin me weed horny haha


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Hahaha yeah l know what you mean. I know personally since l became a heavy, daily smoker, l have the hardest times remembering the smallest, dumbest shit. Constantly forgetting where l put my keys, l could start an article on something l find deeply interesting, but read an entire paragraph and forget everything it said by the time l got to the end, stuff like that lol. But l've had to go sober for a little while, going on almost 4 weeks now, and though it should be flushed from my system, l've only noticed a small difference in the attention span. Maybe just the mind wandering the weed causes is the problem, like be fixing my playstation or something but my mind totally be somewhere else, and then just ask myself "what the hell was l just doing?"
> 
> I don't mind though, cause l'm still able to absorb information as long as l read and re-read it enough times...can't wait for the next time l'm able to spark up, seein all these pics of peoples grows is makin me weed horny haha


why did you quit smoking?
ive recently found that reading in the morning is the best. before i smoke i usually put in like 30-60 minutes at least. i remember it better. but since i usually smoke throughout the day, reading later on would be a waste haha


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> why did you quit smoking?
> ive recently found that reading in the morning is the best. before i smoke i usually put in like 30-60 minutes at least. i remember it better. but since i usually smoke throughout the day, reading later on would be a waste haha


Well..let's just say l have a kid with a vindictive, bitchy ex, who thinks it's funny to put me under investigation of a certain agency who deals in "protecting" said child lol...just because she truly thinks its funny, even though they haven't and won't find anything

I did what l had to with them, had some evidence that proved my innocence in her faulty accusation, now just waiting to hear whether it's case closed or not...which, it's been a week tomorrow, and l'm going back to pick up some papers l accidentally left behind, so hopefully l'll know something by then lol


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

where did he say he quit smoking? I'm too baked to look.

Lugar: they achieved anti-matter by separating atoms with an extremely intense laser

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193019.htm

It only sustained for a few seconds because it was breaking down, it was working its way down the atomic table. But the test proves that they can exist, so they probably do. 

It basically proves there are other dimensions, but everyone is skeptical to say it.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Quote him proving me wrong. I didn't notice. I noticed you being a dick for sure though. I'm not angry, just not going to let you make me as stupid as you. And I'm not gonna take your "higher than thou" insults "I hope my children are educated better than you" "What school did you go too."
> 
> Fuck you, your stuck in miracle science world like I said. Your science is the science of a perfect flawless people. GET REAL, that's not the world.


 Please point out where I insulted you. Asking where someone was educated is not an insult. That you took it as one makes me wonder though....especially when you started off with insulting my intelligence and education, which I can assure you is quite sufficient. 
Don't take comments out of context and pretend they're insults. Now I offered to forget the past and start over and here you, instead of accepting a fresh start, you continue to insult and act like a douche. You're very first post in response to me started out with arrogant, know-it-all attitude and that was after doing the same thing to Heisenberg. Now you admit that you were using the wrong words, which was pretty much the whole point of my first post to you. You have problem expressing yourself and when others misunderstand or take what you say at face value, you excoriate them for that. Not the way to have a normal adult conversation. It seems that your problem is that you don't like being corrected, even if you are wrong. Grow up and learn how to have a respectful discussion, even with someone you disagree with.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Oh man, I've got a stage 5, I hope I don't end up in the same boat. Good luck man!


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

let's just smoke a bong, forget the past, and keep talking about ways to get to other planets!


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Well..let's just say l have a kid with a vindictive, bitchy ex, who thinks it's funny to put me under investigation of a certain agency who deals in "protecting" said child lol...just because she truly thinks its funny, even though they haven't and won't find anything
> 
> I did what l had to with them, had some evidence that proved my innocence in her faulty accusation, now just waiting to hear whether it's case closed or not...which, it's been a week tomorrow, and l'm going back to pick up some papers l accidentally left behind, so hopefully l'll know something by then lol


oh damn that sucks! women can be such bitches sometimes lol.

tell you what though... my parents did the same thing when i was a kid. they would tell me how shes a bitch and hes a dick, etc. well after a while i realized that my mom wasnt letting me see him because she didnt like him and he didnt really pay child support(they ended up taking most of his checks). i didnt give a shit about either of those since i was just a kid, so it made me resent her a lot. now i dont talk to my mom anymore and i have a semi good relationship with my dad. so what im saying is someday the kids will realize that she was in the wrong for doing that.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Women are naturally selfish. They will constantly remind themselves "I deserve better than this". They are trained to repeat those words.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

And never forget, we are all children inside.


(no micheal jackson references, please)


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Oh man, I've got a stage 5, I hope I don't end up in the same boat. Good luck man!


Thanks dude, l appreciate it! And not quite clear exactly how bad/what a stage 5 is, but good luck with yours also! And yes, let's continue the discussion of interplanetary travel, as l hope to one day get off of this hellhole LOL



Luger187 said:


> oh damn that sucks! women can be such bitches sometimes lol.
> 
> tell you what though... my parents did the same thing when i was a kid. they would tell me how shes a bitch and hes a dick, etc. well after a while i realized that my mom wasnt letting me see him because she didnt like him and he didnt really pay child support(they ended up taking most of his checks). i didnt give a shit about either of those since i was just a kid, so it made me resent her a lot. now i dont talk to my mom anymore and i have a semi good relationship with my dad. so what im saying is someday the kids will realize that she was in the wrong for doing that.


You're tellin me lol I can't help but blame myself too though, l mean l should have seen her for the kind of person she really was and could be, rather than just trying to break one off in her, but ehh well, such is life lol

I hope my son turns out the same way...she does the typical shit...has him call me by my first name, trying to basically strongarm me into signin my rights over to her live in, douchey, abusive boyfriend..which obviously will never happen lol. At one time, l was paying her alone, 700 a month...making 9 bucks an hour, mind you lol and only had to be called in and jailed for non payment, simply because of lack of work, back when the economy really first went to shit. She can piss away the money, l couldn't care less bout that, but the most irritating part is when women only care for themselves and their interests, even if it means hurting the child in some way, yet want to play the victim, or the "concerned' parent...l wish karma were real, she'd have died in a fiery car wreck long ago haha...

And people round me always wonder why l smoke so damn much LOL


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

why dont you go suck on a dick that you like so you can enjoy it more...

how is that for your sig?






Luger187 said:


> Mp, does he remind you of anyone?


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> And never forget, we are all children inside.
> 
> 
> (no micheal jackson references, please)


Haha l would have 'liked' those but for some reason it doesn't give me the option...good shit though dude! Well put lol...maybe we just need to send the bitchy women to another planet, where they can sit and be assholes together....

....breaking out my snorkle, tin foil, and duct tape now lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> where did he say he quit smoking? I'm too baked to look.
> 
> Lugar: they achieved anti-matter by separating atoms with an extremely intense laser
> 
> ...


actually i think this experiment has something to do with what i was talking about. that would be crazy if someone thought of a new theory that totally revolutionized space travel. what if we could suddenly travel very long distances while not travelling through time? i guess thats a wormhole... lol



THENUMBER1022 said:


> let's just smoke a bong, forget the past, and keep talking about ways to get to other planets!


a hop, skip and a jump?


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

maybe that has happened many many many times over in deep deep space. the women and men got their own planets.

yeah right, they're way too lazy.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> And never forget, we are all children inside.
> 
> 
> (no micheal jackson references, please)


 
No worries; you didn't say "inside children"



> let's just smoke a bong, forget the past, and keep talking about ways to get to other planets!


Sounds like a plan!!!

cheers 'neer


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

I am pretty sure it would cause nothing but devestation throughout the universe, should a vehicle from earth drag its lack of efficiency through lightyears of clean untouched space.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Could you survive alone on a planet full of women? Hmmm...a double sided question...no doubt you'd be gettin more ass than a toilet seat..but the overwhelming bitchiness would drive a sane man mad  l can barely handle ONE haha


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Could you survive alone on a planet full of women? Hmmm...a double sided question...no doubt you'd be gettin more ass than a toilet seat..but the overwhelming bitchiness would drive a sane man mad  l can barely handle ONE haha


 
I am willing to risk my life for that experiment. Double-sided women ~letch~
cheers 'neer


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

No way, all the of the clocks would flash 12:00, and the computers wouldn't have their serial numbers entered. The TV's wouldn't be plugged in and it wouldn't matter, because the bills wouldn't be taken care of anyhow.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Thanks dude, l appreciate it! And not quite clear exactly how bad/what a stage 5 is, but good luck with yours also! And yes, let's continue the discussion of interplanetary travel, as l hope to one day get off of this hellhole LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im sure your kid will realize whats going on soon enough. hes probably just too young still. i really hate it when women do that shit because it is the kids that suffer. plus it continues even after its over. not cool at all...
the worst part about it is your kid doesnt get to see you as often as he should. thats what fucked me up for a while, until i realized my mom was the one keeping him away lol. i would see him like once a year


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Every car that ever got stuck, would stay stuck. and every car that broke down, would remain just there, forever.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

There wouldn't be any men to fix the machines that make their eyeliners and nail polishes, they would need to go back to picking banana's, and hitting crabs with rocks.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

no, i disagree, my girlfriend is the best, never asks me for nothing and loves me to death!






THENUMBER1022 said:


> Women are naturally selfish. They will constantly remind themselves "I deserve better than this". They are trained to repeat those words.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Every car that ever got stuck, would stay stuck. and every car that broke down, would remain just there, forever.


Lmao! I will give my lady credit for one thing, she makes sure her domain is nice and tidy, and she ensures the bills are paid the days they are due...she doesn't like to depend on anyone for those types of things, but if she were to get stuck, then yea, her car would probably remain there haha...

Dirty space, for an endless sea of T&A...l dunno man, sounds worth it


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Could you survive alone on a planet full of women? Hmmm...a double sided question...no doubt you'd be gettin more ass than a toilet seat..but the overwhelming bitchiness would drive a sane man mad  l can barely handle ONE haha


just tell them if they dont shut their mouth they dont get any dick. since your the only man on the planet, i think you have the sway to call the shots haha



THENUMBER1022 said:


> No way, all the of the clocks would flash 12:00, and the computers wouldn't have their serial numbers entered. The TV's wouldn't be plugged in and it wouldn't matter, because the bills wouldn't be taken care of anyhow.


but think of all the sandwiches youd have!


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

Oh sorry to hear! Nothings worse than a girlfriend that thinks she's self-reliant. they suck in bed. not the good kind of suck.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> im sure your kid will realize whats going on soon enough. hes probably just too young still. i really hate it when women do that shit because it is the kids that suffer. plus it continues even after its over. not cool at all...
> the worst part about it is your kid doesnt get to see you as often as he should. thats what fucked me up for a while, until i realized my mom was the one keeping him away lol. i would see him like once a year


Yea, l hear you there...l get mine the typical every other weekend, l'd like to have them more, but l just stay so damn broke and livin in a small apartment with my old man, they have much more to do and much better things at their mothers' homes...but l do what l can, usually try and stay gone all day saturday out and about, fuckin around at my brother's house, lettin them all run amock in the yard with my nieces for about 10 hours lol nice way to wear em out for the night...

I can say though, the legal aspect, is a broke fuckin system. If you got a dick, and your going to support/custody court, you might as well tattoo "FUCK ME" on your forhead when you walk through the door...or have several thousand for a good attorney


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> Oh sorry to hear! Nothings worse than a girlfriend that thinks she's self-reliant. they suck in bed. not the good kind of suck.


No complaints here...less errands l have to do haha she's def got me topped as far as finances...car, house, and everything within is hers lol and l would have to disagree...she likes to take control in all aspects, including the bedroom..talk about an out of this world piece, gahd damn...


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> just tell them if they dont shut their mouth they dont get any dick. since your the only man on the planet, i think you have the sway to call the shots haha
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

i have found yet another variable in our alien discussion. planets that orbit two binary stars! could it work for life? how do you think this would change gravity? would the orbit sort of wobble as it goes around because of the two different sized stars?
http://news.yahoo.com/planet-star-wars-tatooine-discovered-orbiting-2-suns-181404397.html

edit: heres a video of them http://www.space.com/12963-tatooine-planet-2-suns-star-wars-kepler-16b.html


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Yea, l hear you there...l get mine the typical every other weekend, l'd like to have them more, but l just stay so damn broke and livin in a small apartment with my old man, they have much more to do and much better things at their mothers' homes...but l do what l can, usually try and stay gone all day saturday out and about, fuckin around at my brother's house, lettin them all run amock in the yard with my nieces for about 10 hours lol nice way to wear em out for the night...
> 
> I can say though, the legal aspect, is a broke fuckin system. If you got a dick, and your going to support/custody court, you might as well tattoo "FUCK ME" on your forhead when you walk through the door...or have several thousand for a good attorney


its definitely broken. theres women that live off child support because their ex husband is rich. it should be as close to half the childcare bill as possible. obviously it changes every month, but they can guesstimate from previous months. plus the mom gets to be with the kid all the time which is bullshit.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i have found yet another variable in our alien discussion. planets that orbit two binary stars! could it work for life? how do you think this would change gravity? would the orbit sort of wobble as it goes around because of the two different sized stars?
> http://news.yahoo.com/planet-star-wars-tatooine-discovered-orbiting-2-suns-181404397.html
> 
> edit: heres a video of them http://www.space.com/12963-tatooine-planet-2-suns-star-wars-kepler-16b.html


how trippy would that be, seeing two suns every day? seriously, when are humans gonna get off their asses and shoot for the stars...what do you think hinders society's want as a whole, to try and colonize the solar system/galaxy? besides the lack of technology, but why not put most of our funds an global resources into researching this??


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> how trippy would that be, seeing two suns every day? seriously, when are humans gonna get off their asses and shoot for the stars...what do you think hinders society's want as a whole, to try and colonize the solar system/galaxy? besides the lack of technology, but why not put most of our funds an global resources into researching this??


i personally think its because most people in the world are religious and may not see the point. plus we are nowhere near the technology needed to visit other solar systems. voyager is the furthest man made object and i think its just outside pluto. to have humans survive that far is extremely difficult, and costs a lot of fuel. we would probably need multiple generations on the ship too.

and i think having two suns in the sky would be very bright. youd have some kickass solar panels though


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

oops i didnt see you put 'besides technology'. hmm im not sure about that. i think it would just be too big of a project for multiple countries to handle. if one small mistake happens because of translation error or something, its all fucked. years ago, i think there was a part that was different because they forgot to change from the metric system to the imperial system for that part. im not sure which rocket it was, but it didnt turn out pretty


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i personally think its because most people in the world are religious and may not see the point. plus we are nowhere near the technology needed to visit other solar systems. voyager is the furthest man made object and i think its just outside pluto. to have humans survive that far is extremely difficult, and costs a lot of fuel. we would probably need multiple generations on the ship too.
> 
> and i think having two suns in the sky would be very bright. youd have some kickass solar panels though


I may have to visit a religion thread to explain my disdain haha...stifling the desires of the rest of the world to reach out beyond our own shit planet lol but if the UFO phenomena is real in the sense that the government has captured some, then surely by now, with a decade or two, and all our researching power, we could reverse engineer these machines, or at least a rough copy, right? Or is this just wishful thinking lol

Hell yeah...and imagine how quickly your weed would grow


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> I may have to visit a religion thread to explain my disdain haha...stifling the desires of the rest of the world to reach out beyond our own shit planet lol but if the UFO phenomena is real in the sense that the government has captured some, then surely by now, with a decade or two, and all our researching power, we could reverse engineer these machines, or at least a rough copy, right? Or is this just wishful thinking lol
> 
> Hell yeah...and imagine how quickly your weed would grow


yeah if they did get some UFO's they most likely have a prototype made at least. unless we dont know how to make the materials used to make it. or if the fuel required is something like antimatter, which we havent quite been able to make a good amount of yet

imagine how tall palm trees would get! haha


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> please point out where i insulted you. Asking where someone was educated is not an insult. That you took it as one makes me wonder though....especially when you started off with insulting my intelligence and education, which i can assure you is quite sufficient.
> Don't take comments out of context and pretend they're insults. Now i offered to forget the past and start over and here you, instead of accepting a fresh start, you continue to insult and act like a douche. You're very first post in response to me started out with arrogant, know-it-all attitude and that was after doing the same thing to heisenberg. Now you admit that you were using the wrong words, which was pretty much the whole point of my first post to you. You have problem expressing yourself and when others misunderstand or take what you say at face value, you excoriate them for that. Not the way to have a normal adult conversation. It seems that your problem is that you don't like being corrected, even if you are wrong. Grow up and learn how to have a respectful discussion, even with someone you disagree with.



you started it off. Whhich was my reason for quoting.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Quote him proving me wrong. I didn't notice. I noticed you being a dick for sure though. I'm not angry, just not going to let you make me as stupid as you. And I'm not gonna take your "higher than thou" insults "I hope my children are educated better than you" "What school did you go too."
> 
> Fuck you, your stuck in miracle science world like I said. Your science is the science of a perfect flawless people. GET REAL, that's not the world.



And you know DAMN well those were insults. You expected me to say I haven't been to college. But instead I told you you had a stick in your ass remember?

And telling me that you hope your children are raised smarter than me??? That's not an insult.

And why don't you check the record Dip Shit, and you''l see everything mean I said was back to something you said mean, until now. When you started calling me angry. Which mad me feel I had the right to say whatever I wanted because you were already taking my words as angry.

The big words are to point out the important parts, because you guys like to read part of something and not any of the rest. So I make some capital hoping you'll AT LEAST pick up on the important parts. So if that's what you thought was anger, it wasn't.

And these words are still not anger, they are frustration at your need to keep coming back at me again and again. Trying to redefine stuff. AND STILL not once trying to back up your words with an article, or some guys name to look up (besides Newton). 

FUCK YOU. 
And it's not anger. Just being open about how I feel about what you consider proper talking to people. FUCK YOU. Again.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> Hell yeah...and imagine how quickly your weed would grow


lol; I was thinking about naming the two suns HPS and MH ...
cheers 'neer


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)




----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

LightningMcGreen said:


> I may have to visit a religion thread to explain my disdain haha...stifling the desires of the rest of the world to reach out beyond our own shit planet lol but if the UFO phenomena is real in the sense that the government has captured some, then surely by now, with a decade or two, and all our researching power, we could reverse engineer these machines, or at least a rough copy, right? Or is this just wishful thinking lol
> 
> Hell yeah...and imagine how quickly your weed would grow


It might grow well but with all of that daylight we would need autos.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> It might grow well but with all of that daylight we would need autos.



EWWW...never autos.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

the fuel needed is actually helium-3. The moon is full of it. The nazi's have been mining it to antartica for 60 years.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> EWWW...never autos.


when you live on a desert planet with two suns, youll smoke anything



THENUMBER1022 said:


> the fuel needed is actually helium-3. The moon is full of it. The nazi's have been mining it to antartica for 60 years.


sorry my mistake


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> It might grow well but with all of that daylight we would need autos.


And we've come full circle ... alien space cars.

cheers 'neer


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 15, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhnNy5EsebA watch at exactly 1:02:20 when bush talks. one zero four . twenty ... little fishy!


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> when you live on a desert planet with two suns, youll smoke anything
> 
> 
> 
> sorry my mistake



I would simulate darkness.


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 15, 2011)

Plus, you can't just bring the shitty shit. Let the good shit come with and adapt to the new conditions.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I would simulate darkness.


yeah a greenhouse with a cover would be cool



Finshaggy said:


> Plus, you can't just bring the shitty shit. Let the good shit come with and adapt to the new conditions.


it doesnt happen that fast. and really you would want as many strains as possible for the biggest genetic diversity


----------



## Finshaggy (Sep 16, 2011)

I know it wouldn't be a quick adaptation. But I'd rather have it there adapting than left on earth and shitty weed transplanted to the place.

If you had rudaralis it would make the genetics of every weed strain have some, BLAH genes.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Sep 16, 2011)

so much for that spaceship.


----------



## cranker (Sep 16, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yes. The theory of relativity was proven. That was the whole argument yesterday.


If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a law.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2011)

cranker said:


> If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a law.


 No.
Scientific theories do not become laws, they incorporate laws. Scientific laws generalize a body of observations. They don't explain the observations. A theory has explanatory power. It is the goal of science to develop theories to tell us the 'why' questions.


----------

