Astronomy - Page 2 - Nubblies.net Forums

malice · 07-27-2005, 08:51 PM

You are so fucking retarded I kind of pity you, now your claiming that you made some heroic move in which you turned my Most Hated poll (which was only supposed to be 1 poll but became 2 after I realized I forgot a few people) into a "much more entertaining group of polls", which is not true but nice try Super Tart I'm sure you're some ones hero. What you actually did was drug it out way further than it needed to go, used my poll as a template for your stolen poll and gayed it up by turning it into a "NCAA like" tournament. Bottom line is you stole my idea and I don't blame you because if I was as lame as you I would need to steel other peoples ideas too. On the other hand I would not sit here and act like a little bitch and get all defensive when it was mentioned. So you should have shut your fucking mouth from the beginning and played your little copycat role here on nubblies to try to impress people on the Internet.

Oh BTW, my reading comprehension level is that of a 8 year old and I can only count to 10 in Spanish.

Beebs · 07-27-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AcTivE:
I theorize time is an illusion of the interaction between things. I don't think we ever move forward, it's all just right "now".

Anything to go along with that?

07-27-2005, 09:53 PM

If you don't believe in time, it's pretty hard to believe in space. Unless you claim all the things around me are an illusion, how do you explain the fact that I can be here and there, but never both simultaneously.

Repugnant Abomination · 07-27-2005, 11:12 PM

You know what else is really cool that I was reading about...

If you consider how far some stars in the sky are that we see (thousands of light years away) then you come to the conclusion that we're looking into the past. If the light from a star takes 3,000 years to reach us then we're seeing it as it was 3,000 years ago. The night sky may look totally different it we were ever able to view it as it actually is presently. A lot of the constellations we see may no longer even be there.

[ July 27, 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Repugnant Abomination ]

AcTivE · 07-28-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beebs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AcTivE:
I theorize time is an illusion of the interaction between things. I don't think we ever move forward, it's all just right "now".

Anything to go along with that?</font>[/quote]
Yes. Not sure if you will understand, or if I can explain clearly, what I mean right off the bat though.

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ FC:
If you don't believe in time, it's pretty hard to believe in space. Unless you claim all the things around me are an illusion, how do you explain the fact that I can be here and there, but never both simultaneously.

I guess I don't believe in "space" in a traditional sense.

I belive "now", is awareness of "things" relative to other things. If you were only aware of this moment right now, and nothing else, then you would "know" nothing. Moments aren't self aware, because if they were, they wouldn't seek out anything else.

You could never be at two places "simultaneously", because at that point--you would be at the awareness of knowing both moments in "time" seperately from each other, and at the same time. As soon as you are aware of them being at the same time--then it is just "then" and not viewed as two seperate moments.

I'll try to show my viewpoint maybe a little bit more clearly using variables...

Say we have moments 'A' and moments 'B'. Moment 'A' happened in 1984. Moment 'B' happened in 2005.

You are at moment 'A'. Say you instantly move to moment 'B'. Let's pretend now you could be at both places simultaneously. You would be at moment 'AB', but "see" it as 'A''B'.

In my mind, or in that theory, --to you, from the theory's perspective, we actually are at both places simultaneously.

Here I am in the present, I can think of a past event, and in a way, the only way I can describe it in words--is to say that I am "reliving" the past.

If it was possible, to completely forget everything about the present, and bring the past moment into memory so clearly--then you are actually in the past.

Present perspective views of two things happening simulateneously is naturally 'AB', but if they were truley simultaneous 'A' would be happening apart from 'B', and if you were actually at both at the same time, you'd be at a new point 'C' which is, 'A''B'. But that is not logical, because you can not define something unless you say -"Hey it's there", and "Hey it's there" always had a "Hey it's not there" that it came from.

Completely forget everything about the present, move to a past memory. You are in the past.

You have moved nowhere.

Ironic Mustache · 07-28-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Repugnant Abomination:
You know what else is really cool that I was reading about...

If you consider how far some stars in the sky are that we see (thousands of light years away) then you come to the conclusion that we're looking into the past. If the light from a star takes 3,000 years to reach us then we're seeing it as it was 3,000 years ago. The night sky may look totally different it we were ever able to view it as it actually is presently. A lot of the constellations we see may no longer even be there.

Theoretically, there's an insane space battle going on right now and the world is FUCKED. We of course won't be able to see it for 3,000 more years though.

Beebs · 07-28-2005, 02:20 PM

What I ment to say was "have anything logical or beyond just wild guessing?"

Ironic Mustache · 07-28-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beebs:
What I ment to say was "have anything logical or beyond just wild guessing?"

The voice of reason.

07-28-2005, 02:38 PM

Your theory still accepts time as a 4th dimension.

Like I said: Without time, space becomes next to impossible.

Ironic Mustache · 07-28-2005, 02:49 PM

His theory about this is as outlandish as his theory about religion.

07-28-2005, 02:50 PM

It sounds like something that could be very convincing to someone on acid.

Ironic Mustache · 07-28-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ FC:
It sounds like something that could be very convincing to someone on acid.

Religion?

AcTivE · 07-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beebs:
What I ment to say was "have anything logical or beyond just wild guessing?"

Obviously, no. Logical and wild guessing is within time.

AcTivE · 07-28-2005, 04:48 PM

Something that *may* be logical about the theory though...

When I write a paper, I'm only thinking, or have in mind, roughly the setence I am working on. However I can move from sentence to sentence without hesitation and having to "think" about it. Anyone else this way?

theMerciless1 · 07-28-2005, 05:33 PM

no i see the entire paper and scramble to write it all down before i lose it.

Ironic Mustache · 07-28-2005, 05:39 PM

I see the entire paper also. In someone else's backback. Then I scramble to steal it and write my name on it before they catch me.

AcTivE · 07-30-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theMerciless1:
no i see the entire paper and scramble to write it all down before i lose it.

I would argue that it is impossible to focus your thoughts on more than one thing at any single time.

07-27-2005, 09:53 PM	#28 (permalink)
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a	If you don't believe in time, it's pretty hard to believe in space. Unless you claim all the things around me are an illusion, how do you explain the fact that I can be here and there, but never both simultaneously.
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a

07-28-2005, 02:38 PM	#34 (permalink)
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a	Your theory still accepts time as a 4th dimension. Like I said: Without time, space becomes next to impossible.
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a

07-28-2005, 02:49 PM	#35 (permalink)
Ironic Mustache G'd up from the feet up. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cali Posts: 7,146 Supreme Emperor of the Jiu Jitsu Shit Forum?: Yes Internets: 114735	His theory about this is as outlandish as his theory about religion.
	Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.

07-28-2005, 02:50 PM	#36 (permalink)
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a	It sounds like something that could be very convincing to someone on acid.
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a

07-28-2005, 04:48 PM	#39 (permalink)
AcTivE 1 thing leads to another. Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,012 Internets: -2654	Something that may be logical about the theory though... When I write a paper, I'm only thinking, or have in mind, roughly the setence I am working on. However I can move from sentence to sentence without hesitation and having to "think" about it. Anyone else this way?
	___________________ 3:o) horned creatures...wat wat ___________________

07-27-2005, 08:51 PM	#26 (permalink)
malice Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Bustleton Ave. Philadelphia, PA. Posts: 648 Internets: 10	You are so fucking retarded I kind of pity you, now your claiming that you made some heroic move in which you turned my Most Hated poll (which was only supposed to be 1 poll but became 2 after I realized I forgot a few people) into a "much more entertaining group of polls", which is not true but nice try Super Tart I'm sure you're some ones hero. What you actually did was drug it out way further than it needed to go, used my poll as a template for your stolen poll and gayed it up by turning it into a "NCAA like" tournament. Bottom line is you stole my idea and I don't blame you because if I was as lame as you I would need to steel other peoples ideas too. On the other hand I would not sit here and act like a little bitch and get all defensive when it was mentioned. So you should have shut your fucking mouth from the beginning and played your little copycat role here on nubblies to try to impress people on the Internet. Oh BTW, my reading comprehension level is that of a 8 year old and I can only count to 10 in Spanish.

07-27-2005, 11:12 PM	#29 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 164547	You know what else is really cool that I was reading about... If you consider how far some stars in the sky are that we see (thousands of light years away) then you come to the conclusion that we're looking into the past. If the light from a star takes 3,000 years to reach us then we're seeing it as it was 3,000 years ago. The night sky may look totally different it we were ever able to view it as it actually is presently. A lot of the constellations we see may no longer even be there. [ July 27, 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Repugnant Abomination ]

07-28-2005, 02:20 PM	#32 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	What I ment to say was "have anything logical or beyond just wild guessing?"

07-28-2005, 05:33 PM	#40 (permalink)
theMerciless1 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: ming\'s palace Posts: 1,495 Internets: 412	no i see the entire paper and scramble to write it all down before i lose it.
	i who have nothing but the comfort of my sins

07-28-2005, 05:39 PM	#41 (permalink)
Ironic Mustache G'd up from the feet up. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cali Posts: 7,146 Supreme Emperor of the Jiu Jitsu Shit Forum?: Yes Internets: 114735	I see the entire paper also. In someone else's backback. Then I scramble to steal it and write my name on it before they catch me.
	Creeping around as I please nonchalantly like any other Supreme Emperor might.