i have a small idea
how much do you think non verbal, abstract training has to do with our conscience?
hypothetically do you think humans can be relentlessly tortured and brainwashed to be ruled by shapes on a dartboard? theoretically, pavels dog and that sort of stuff considered....
in our millions of years the one physical constant has been the stars, these little blips of perfect black and white contrast, the most abstract thing, always always constant, maybe they did rule us BUT it had no meaning maybe they affect us so not badly or measurably.
maybe this is religion,
maybe this is god but the realization that god IS unseeable and omnipresent and ultimately chaotic is ture with this
or i could be wrong about the stars (ya i dont see how i could be (proven) right (or wrong)) but this is something else and im just preaching to the choir
or i just thought this might be an interesting wordset to squeeze over the Discordian Forum Post Thought template
anyways you can
-talk about how much abssstract visual cues rule us
-or maybe go on with the stars shi
Wow! You fags are still here? Maybe you should get off your ass and put some thought into something meaningful instead of a stupid kiddie message board. You're all pawns in the game of life, no matter how much you think about it. You're still retarded no matter how big your words are. You're still missing the point.
There is still time to accept Jesus Christ, he is the only one that can fill the enormous void in your life. He is the definite answer you've been wasting your life looking for. He will save your soul and ease your mind. I too am a mere, flawed mortal. I can only hope others would try to reach me in times of need. This might be your last chance to save your eternity.
In a way, I think the Stars have always had some kind of rule or power over us. Certainly not always overt nor in a straightforward way. However, the Stars, space seems to have constantly represented the "out there" concept. That is, it is a place that is beyond us that we want to see, to understand. And I think as we more and more understand the rock we are on, the stars become more powerful and the reasons will multiply. Not just that we want to understand them, but for some, we will want to conquer them, to reach them, to set up shop on them, to strip-maul them, etc., etc.,
I read once that there was a civilization somewhere long ago, I forget where, that believed the stars were actually like little chandeliers hanging from the sky. It seems kind of silly now, but I imagine at the time, it was a kind of romantic thought.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 22, 2008, 06:26:42 PM
In a way, I think the Stars have always had some kind of rule or power over us.
Gravity being the biggie.
I lost interest in stars when I found out they weren't actually star-shaped. :argh!:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 06:30:03 PM
I lost interest in stars when I found out they weren't actually star-shaped. :argh!:
I got interested in stars when I found out they weren't star shaped, but were in fact massive balls of fire that burn for billions of years.
God is a fucking pyromaniac.
Wait, they aren't?
Really, though, I guess the question in the OP (if I understand it right) is that the stars once had a great influence over us, and this is significant because no one told us so? And this may still be the case?
The fundamental premise of astrology - that te stars influence us (in some way) is feasible IMO, however the chances of anyone making that shit predictable seems mighty slim so it's either totally random or it's totally governed but in such a way as to be incomprehensible.
From my point of view both these possibilities lead to the exact same place
for instance, on some people stars influence them write horoscopes.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 07:00:00 PM
The fundamental premise of astrology - that te stars influence us (in some way) is feasible IMO, however the chances of anyone making that shit predictable seems mighty slim so it's either totally random or it's totally governed but in such a way as to be incomprehensible.
From my point of view both these possibilities lead to the exact same place
Aye Troof.
The only value I've ever personally found in astrology was as a self reflection tool... much like tarot without the nice easy to use archetypes.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 07:00:00 PM
The fundamental premise of astrology - that te stars influence us (in some way) is feasible IMO, however the chances of anyone making that shit predictable seems mighty slim so it's either totally random or it's totally governed but in such a way as to be incomprehensible.
From my point of view both these possibilities lead to the exact same place
No astrology for me thanks.
The influence the stars exert on me are pretty much simply this: When the big one goes down, and the little ones appear, I'm more likely to commit crimes.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 22, 2008, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 07:00:00 PM
The fundamental premise of astrology - that te stars influence us (in some way) is feasible IMO, however the chances of anyone making that shit predictable seems mighty slim so it's either totally random or it's totally governed but in such a way as to be incomprehensible.
From my point of view both these possibilities lead to the exact same place
No astrology for me thanks.
The influence the stars exert on me are pretty much simply this: When the big one goes down, and the little ones appear, I'm more likely to commit crimes.
You are my favorite mortal enemy in the whole wide universe :mittens:
Alpha Centauri (the nearest stars to Earth.. there are three of them: one roughly the size of the sun and two considerably smaller ones) acts on a 150 pound person with 2.37*10^-11 Newtons of gravitational force. I don't see how this would affect us in any significant way.
oh ye of little faith
Quote from: BootyBay on April 22, 2008, 07:55:49 PM
Alpha Centauri (the nearest stars to Earth.. there are three of them: one roughly the size of the sun and two considerably smaller ones) acts on a 150 pound person with 2.37*10^-11 Newtons of gravitational force. I don't see how this would affect us in any significant way.
Well, I think that the OP was asking if their visible existence in the sky might have affected humans in some psychological manner, not a physical manner based on gravitational pull.
Quote from: BootyBay on April 22, 2008, 07:55:49 PM
Alpha Centauri (the nearest stars to Earth.. there are three of them: one roughly the size of the sun and two considerably smaller ones) acts on a 150 pound person with 2.37*10^-11 Newtons of gravitational force. I don't see how this would affect us in any significant way.
multiply this by the total number of stars in, say, an infinite universe
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 07:59:50 PM
Quote from: BootyBay on April 22, 2008, 07:55:49 PM
Alpha Centauri (the nearest stars to Earth.. there are three of them: one roughly the size of the sun and two considerably smaller ones) acts on a 150 pound person with 2.37*10^-11 Newtons of gravitational force. I don't see how this would affect us in any significant way.
multiply this by the total number of stars in, say, an infinite universe
And you understand why there is a vacuum in space.
Yeah but an infinite number of stars in each direction = an infinite ammount of gravitational force, therefore the stars keep us in a state of complete equillibrium
until they move :eek:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 08:03:14 PM
Yeah but an infinite number of stars in each direction = an infinite ammount of gravitational force, therefore the stars keep us in a state of complete equillibrium
until they move :eek:
Or 'splode
When that happens a little part of you dies :cry:
Quote from: BootyBay on April 22, 2008, 07:55:49 PMAlpha Centauri (the nearest stars to Earth.. there are three of them: one roughly the size of the sun and two considerably smaller ones) acts on a 150 pound person with 2.37*10^-11 Newtons of gravitational force. I don't see how this would affect us in any significant way.
:mittens: for you.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 07:59:50 PMmultiply this by the total number of stars in, say, an infinite universe
1. the current theory is that the universe is not infinite.
2. even if it is infinite, gravitation travels by the speed of light, meaning you have a maximum of 46 billion light-years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_universe) radius to consider. any further away stars can not have influence on us.
3. that's about 3 to 7 × 10
22 stars
4. but force of gravity decreases quadratically based on distance and the figure of 2.37*10
-11N is just the influence of the nearest.
5. here my back-of-the-envelope knowledge about astronomy/cosmology stops, someone else help me with the way how quadratic decrease combines with the average number of stars in the visible universe to show the gravitational force of all stars combined is not much larger than, say, the doctor standing next to your mum at the moment of birth.
An infinite number of stars at ever-increasing distances would have a finite amount of gravitational pull (the limit of the net gravitational force is finite).
I'm gonna start my own speculative post! lol
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:01:52 PM
5. here my back-of-the-envelope knowledge about astronomy/cosmology stops, someone else help me with the way how quadratic decrease combines with the average number of stars in the visible universe to show the gravitational force of all stars combined is not much larger than, say, the doctor standing next to your mum at the moment of birth.
The force from alpha centauri is greater than the force from the doctor at birth actually. I was gonna try and show the same thing lol.
Quote from: BootyBay on April 22, 2008, 09:02:43 PM
I'm gonna start my own speculative post! lol
My speculative post was going to be on "the fractal dimension of physical space," but I was thwarted by my complete ignorance on the subject. :P
bootybay, what's your background in this kind of stuff?
mine is just knowing a lot of math (from computer science), discussion with physicist friends and having had a relation with an astronomy girl.
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:59:38 PM
having had a relation with an astronomy girl.
000: Learns through sexual osmosis.
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:59:38 PM
bootybay, what's your background in this kind of stuff?
mine is just knowing a lot of math (from computer science), discussion with physicist friends and having had a relation with an astronomy girl.
Knowing a lot of math.
I'm studying topology (just got to compactness) and analysis currently in hopes of understanding fractal sets.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 22, 2008, 10:02:53 PM
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:59:38 PM
having had a relation with an astronomy girl.
000: Learns through sexual osmosis.
yeah, i figure might as well have some holy fun on the road to enlightenment .. :)
bootybay: topology is freaky. i only know a bit about it. it twists the mind ;-)
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:01:52 PM
1. the current theory is that the universe is not infinite.
2. even if it is infinite, gravitation travels by the speed of light, meaning you have a maximum of 46 billion light-years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_universe) radius to consider. any further away stars can not have influence on us.
3. that's about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars
4. but force of gravity decreases quadratically based on distance and the figure of 2.37*10-11N is just the influence of the nearest.
5. here my back-of-the-envelope knowledge about astronomy/cosmology stops, someone else help me with the way how quadratic decrease combines with the average number of stars in the visible universe to show the gravitational force of all stars combined is not much larger than, say, the doctor standing next to your mum at the moment of birth.
1) current theory sucks donkey balls and, since nobody has proved it yet, I'm sticking with the
old traditional theory
2) Infinity fucks up any restrictions since, no matter how small or slow the gravity, when it's multiplied by infinity it becomes, well, infinite
3) that's about 3 to 7 × 10
22 stars times infinity!
4) see 2
5) The doctor who delivered me was very fat
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:18:03 PM
5) The doctor who delivered me was very fat
:lulz: :lulz:
2) means that the part of the universe that can affect you, is finite. otherwise there'd have to be information-transfer faster than light, which is impossible.
5) :lol:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:18:03 PM
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 09:01:52 PM
1. the current theory is that the universe is not infinite.
2. even if it is infinite, gravitation travels by the speed of light, meaning you have a maximum of 46 billion light-years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_universe) radius to consider. any further away stars can not have influence on us.
3. that's about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars
4. but force of gravity decreases quadratically based on distance and the figure of 2.37*10-11N is just the influence of the nearest.
5. here my back-of-the-envelope knowledge about astronomy/cosmology stops, someone else help me with the way how quadratic decrease combines with the average number of stars in the visible universe to show the gravitational force of all stars combined is not much larger than, say, the doctor standing next to your mum at the moment of birth.
1) current theory sucks donkey balls and, since nobody has proved it yet, I'm sticking with the old traditional theory
2) Infinity fucks up any restrictions since, no matter how small or slow the gravity, when it's multiplied by infinity it becomes, well, infinite
3) that's about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars times infinity!
4) see 2
5) The doctor who delivered me was very fat
2. Round up the distance for any star to the nearest integer. Take the largest star's mass (lets call it A). Then, total gravity is (150/2.2)*A [ Sum 1/d^2 ] which is finite. (Think about an infinite amount of force for a minute.. Infinity doesn't actually exist, but if it did, the slightest perturbation in the stars' position would send you hurtling infinitely far at infinite speed.. or at least the speed of light).
Not if there was a similar star doing the same in the opposite direction, simultaneously.
Which, in a infinite universe, there'd have to be :evil:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:31:22 PM
Not if there was a similar star doing the same in the opposite direction, simultaneously.
Which, in a infinite universe, there'd have to be :evil:
Then you'd be torn to shreds infinitely fast (gravity doesn't act on gravity. It's the interaction between two objects).
Not if I wrap my body in butter and duct tape
Good point loll
the post was about the visual aspect
Quote from: triple zero on April 22, 2008, 10:22:00 PM
2) means that the part of the universe that can affect you, is finite. otherwise there'd have to be information-transfer faster than light, which is impossible.
5) :lol:
Bell's theorem?
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
the post was about the visual aspect
STFU - you're fread has been commandeered for a fight to the death between half assed pseudoscience and special relativity :argh!:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
the post was about the visual aspect
STFU - you're fread has been commandeered for a fight to the death between half assed pseudoscience and special relativity :argh!:
*Draws sword* En guarde!!
*Draws two swords
and now ... the famous double slit experiment :mrgreen:
LOL
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
the post was about the visual aspect
STFU - you're fread has been commandeered for a fight to the death between half assed pseudoscience and special relativity :argh!:
k go ahead but i predict every taurus will die tomorrow prepare to say goodbye to 1/12 of ur buds
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 11:12:26 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
the post was about the visual aspect
STFU - you're fread has been commandeered for a fight to the death between half assed pseudoscience and special relativity :argh!:
k go ahead but i predict every taurus will die tomorrow prepare to say goodbye to 1/12 of ur buds
Will be a bad day for Ford auto mechanics...
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 11:12:26 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 22, 2008, 10:46:24 PM
Quote from: Subtract Eight! on April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
the post was about the visual aspect
STFU - you're fread has been commandeered for a fight to the death between half assed pseudoscience and special relativity :argh!:
k go ahead but i predict every taurus will die tomorrow prepare to say goodbye to 1/12 of ur buds
oh great, you killed the
other 1/12th ..
NOW who's going to take care of the dolphins once Bhode gets his wish?
I'd just like to point out that infinite space does not mean infinite mass.
It doesn't not mean infinite mass either :argh!:
Yes, it doesn't not.
Quote from: LMNO on April 23, 2008, 03:35:56 PM
Yes, it doesn't not.
or, to paraphrase, IT MIGHT!