You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

physics theories

Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 4:52am

Post 1 of 55

bizzardstick

Force: 20 | Joined: 19th Nov 2005 | Posts: 65

Windows User MacOS User

Member

what are your favorites, do you actually believe in any? have you come up with any yourself. well i recently heard one, i will explain it

example
you have a penny, and are going to flip it you begin, the moment the penny leaves your hand 2 universes are created. one for what will hapen if the penny lands heads up or tails up each with drastic diffrences.

pretty wack huh lol
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 5:34am

Post 2 of 55

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

That theory reminds me of Donnie Darko. I spent countless hours pondering that film and all it's meanings. Of course, I'm too tired to write them all now. Heh

PS. I kind of have this theory about the universe.

It's a pretty long theory, but in a nutshell it's as follows:

Basically it's the idea that black holes are the universe's vaccuum cleaners.

The way I see it, once a big star collapses, it forms a black hole. These black holes suck in everything around them, eventually sucking in other black holes. Once all matter in the universe is sucked into the final black hole, this tiny orb of matter reaches it's capacity and explodes. Thus the big bang theory.

Basically the universe is a never ending cycle.
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 7:13am

Post 3 of 55

bizzardstick

Force: 20 | Joined: 19th Nov 2005 | Posts: 65

Windows User MacOS User

Member

but the question on everybody's plate is when did the cycle start ?
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 10:24am

Post 4 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

but the question on everybody's plate is when did the cycle start ?
Probably in the kitchen of that restraunt that seems to be serving questions to people...

Oh, and one of my favourite theories is that the universe is just a random accidental quantum fluctuation, and it could disapear entierly at any second with no warning.

Cheers,
Arktic
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 6:01pm

Post 5 of 55

starfan

Force: 325 | Joined: 27th Mar 2005 | Posts: 353

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User FXpreset Maker

Gold Member

might be off topic but there is this show i watch called mythbusters. its very entertaining. they test myths. check out www.discovery.com for more info.
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 6:19pm

Post 6 of 55

Jetwise

Force: 220 | Joined: 15th Oct 2004 | Posts: 90

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

One that stuck with me from my High School physics teacher was that mathematically, when dropping an object it never really hits the ground.

Take a ball, and note that there is a measurable half-way point between where it is and the ground (or zero.) Now drop it and at any given location during the fall imagine you freeze frame it. You would be able to measure a half way point. So even when the ball is 1 inch off the ground, making a half-way measurement of 0.5 inches is simple. Now, when the ball is 0.000001 inches off the ground, the half-way point is 0.0000005.

So either it never reaches zero, or some number other than zero is equal to zero.
Posted: Fri, 6th Jan 2006, 6:37pm

Post 7 of 55

starfan

Force: 325 | Joined: 27th Mar 2005 | Posts: 353

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User FXpreset Maker

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

but the question on everybody's plate is when did the cycle start ?
Probably in the kitchen of that restraunt that seems to be serving questions to people...

Oh, and one of my favourite theories is that the universe is just a random accidental quantum fluctuation, and it could disapear entierly at any second with no warning.

Cheers,
Arktic
i dont like the thought of that.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:20am

Post 8 of 55

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I like the one where if you were to drop a bullet to the ground at the height of a gun where you simultaneously shot out a bullet, they would hit the ground at the same time-one just a long way away.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:22am

Post 9 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hrm, you've lost me there - explain that one for us, drspin smile

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:26am

Post 10 of 55

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

drspin98 wrote:

I like the one where if you were to drop a bullet to the ground at the height of a gun where you simultaneously shot out a bullet, they would hit the ground at the same time-one just a long way away.
This one actually makes sense, but I'm not sure I believe it. Maybe if you shot/dropped the bullets while standing on a perfectly flat plane (IE, not the earth) it would work... But there still seems to be something wrong with that theory to me.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:32am

Post 11 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Oh, I get it now - for some reason, in my mind, I thought you were talking about firing a gun INTO the ground at the same time as dropping a bullet from the same height to the floor, or something...

But yeah, I get it now, and it does make sense. The round fired will be subject to the exact same gravitational pull that the dropped one will be, so they will hit the ground at the same time.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:48am

Post 12 of 55

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

How about the "Big Bang". We all know that one says that ALL the matter in the entire universe was in a ball, that because of it's extreme density, it one day exploded. How big was that ball? The one that has EVERYTHING anyone have ever seen and way more that no one will never see? The size of a basketball.

Kinda makes you thing of the pot smoking scene in Animal House.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 9:51am

Post 13 of 55

boffa86

Force: 890 | Joined: 18th Jun 2003 | Posts: 641

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

drspin watch "hyperspace" with sam neill i have watched them all from the big bang and creation of earth to the earths destruction in idfferent possible ways. i promise you its one of the coolset documentary ive seen
http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/space/380mars4.jpg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0273608/
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 3:21pm

Post 14 of 55

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Thanx for the tip. We have a pretty cool video store around here that has some stuff that the milktoast Blockbuster-type joynts don't even know exist. I'll hope they have it.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 3:34pm

Post 15 of 55

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Marek wrote:

drspin98 wrote:

I like the one where if you were to drop a bullet to the ground at the height of a gun where you simultaneously shot out a bullet, they would hit the ground at the same time-one just a long way away.
This one actually makes sense, but I'm not sure I believe it. Maybe if you shot/dropped the bullets while standing on a perfectly flat plane (IE, not the earth) it would work... But there still seems to be something wrong with that theory to me.
its becuase there is somthing wrong with it. it wouldn't work.

think about it, if you throw a ball horozontaly, and then drop it, the one you drop will hit the ground first.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 3:42pm

Post 16 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No it wouldn't - they'd hit the ground at the same time, as long as you didn't throw the ball UP. If you throw it exactly horizontally, as a bullet would be if you fired it perfectly, then gravity will be acting upon it in exactly the same way as if it were not moving forwards at all. The same forces pull both balls down the the ground, and if the balls are the same, then they'd both fall at the same rate.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 3:50pm

Post 17 of 55

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ah i see i was thinking that there would be some upward force too.

still, this wouldn't every really work, becuause there are so many factors to interfere; aerodynamics, wind, aiming the gun TOTALLY horozontally, holding the bullet at the EXACT same height as the postel etc.

regards,

SGB
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 3:52pm

Post 18 of 55

SMB

Force: 561 | Joined: 26th May 2005 | Posts: 493

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

yeah but were talking about theories, so in "theory" they would hit the floor at the same time, obviousley it would be near impossible to do it in real life

regards,
SMB tard
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 4:17pm

Post 19 of 55

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

If one would like to get a bit picky, a bullet does not shoot horizontally. It shoots up slightly. That is were "point blank" came from. The point before the bullet starts it ascent or "trajectory". Fun with science.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 5:06pm

Post 20 of 55

Lithium Kraft

Force: 2728 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 538

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

There is no lowest number [0.000(infinity)1].
There is no highest number [999,999,999,999 ad inifitum].

Therefore the universe doesn't exist and you are currently dreaming, even though that is impossible.



wake up...
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 5:34pm

Post 21 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Jetwise wrote:

One that stuck with me from my High School physics teacher was that mathematically, when dropping an object it never really hits the ground.

Take a ball, and note that there is a measurable half-way point between where it is and the ground (or zero.) Now drop it and at any given location during the fall imagine you freeze frame it. You would be able to measure a half way point. So even when the ball is 1 inch off the ground, making a half-way measurement of 0.5 inches is simple. Now, when the ball is 0.000001 inches off the ground, the half-way point is 0.0000005.

So either it never reaches zero, or some number other than zero is equal to zero.
Thats all very good except it does because at one point in time it stops falling and bounces back up.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 5:38pm

Post 22 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Lithium Kraft wrote:

There is no lowest number [0.000(infinity)1].
There is no highest number [999,999,999,999 ad inifitum].

Therefore the universe doesn't exist and you are currently dreaming, even though that is impossible.

wake up...
The lowest number is 0 the highest is infinity. Think about it. If I have no apples I have 0 not a very small part of one!
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 5:41pm

Post 23 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

My favourite theory is more a philosophy one rather than a physics one.

"I think therefore I am."

But what if you only thought you thought, eh?
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 5:54pm

Post 24 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well, if you thought you thought something then you thought something, so you still 'are', according the the initial statement; if you doubt you exist, according to Descartes, then you are then there must be something to be doing the doubting, hence the "I think, therefore I am".

Anyway, it's all rubbish in the end because Descartes doesn't really explain what the 'I' is refering to in his statement about thought - so really, all he can infer from his idea that dy doubting oneself, you prove that you exist, is that "there is thought now", rather than the existance of "I", or whoever we are supposed to be proving the existance of.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 6:02pm

Post 25 of 55

SMB

Force: 561 | Joined: 26th May 2005 | Posts: 493

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Well, if you thought you thought something then you thought something, so you still 'are', according the the initial statement; if you doubt you exist, according to Descartes, then you are then there must be something to be doing the doubting, hence the "I think, therefore I am".

Anyway, it's all rubbish in the end because Descartes doesn't really explain what the 'I' is refering to in his statement about thought - so really, all he can infer from his idea that dy doubting oneself, you prove that you exist, is that "there is thought now", rather than the existance of "I", or whoever we are supposed to be proving the existance of.

Cheers,
Arktic.
wtf, my brain it hurts.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 6:11pm

Post 26 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Well, if you thought you thought something then you thought something, so you still 'are', according the the initial statement; if you doubt you exist, according to Descartes, then you are then there must be something to be doing the doubting, hence the "I think, therefore I am".

Anyway, it's all rubbish in the end because Descartes doesn't really explain what the 'I' is refering to in his statement about thought - so really, all he can infer from his idea that dy doubting oneself, you prove that you exist, is that "there is thought now", rather than the existance of "I", or whoever we are supposed to be proving the existance of.
Ah but what if the thought was merely an illusion?
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 6:31pm

Post 27 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

It can't be, because there has to be some substance to which the thought/doubt is a mental predicate, hence "there is thought now", no matter what the cause of the thought is - be it Descarte's decieving demon, or the Matrix, or a mind independent reality.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 6:53pm

Post 28 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

No because the thought itself might be a deception. If the idea is that if you can not trust your senses and so evrything around you may be an illusion but you yourself exist, the fact that you think you exist may not be a reality either.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 6:59pm

Post 29 of 55

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

That doesn't make any sense.

If your thought would be an illusion, there still has to be something there to pick up the illusion. So no mather how you put it, something exists.

If nothing existeted, not even the illusion would.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:01pm

Post 30 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No, you're making a category error there.

By suggesting that there IS a thought you've allready implicated the existance of a substance to which that thought is a predicate. Hence that thought, no matter the cause, has to be real.

Basically, you can't have a thought when there is nothing to think it. And by doubting the existance of your thought, you're thinking, so there must be something to which is thinking that thought. If that 'thinking thing' is you or not is something entierly different, but we can certainly conclude that "there is thought now".
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:07pm

Post 31 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

No because you may not be doubting the thought, it may simply not have existed at all.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:09pm

Post 32 of 55

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Logic is a difficult thing to grasp. smile
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:24pm

Post 33 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Kid - imagine that 'thought' is equivalent to a piece of software.

You can't have software without some form of hardware to place it on. Software isn't just a bunch of code floating around somewhere - it's not software unless it's stored on some form of hardware, i.e. DVDs or an HD.

So, you can't have 'software' that is an illusion - even if it's not proper software code, it exists in some format somewhere, or it doesn't exist. The same applies for thought - you can't have an 'imaginary thought' - that's a contradiction in terms.

Cheers,
Arkic.
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:35pm

Post 34 of 55

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Of course you can!

What If I told you I had some software that runs on a Gibson 6000.

I made the software (thought) up and so it doesn't really exist and neither does the Gibson 6000!
Posted: Sun, 8th Jan 2006, 7:51pm

Post 35 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Indeed, so that software doesn't exist. But therefore you can never experience it either. The difference is, you experience thought (or the illusion of thinking).

If you're experiencing the illusion of thinking, then there must be something to be doing the experiencing. Hence, there is thought. You can't have an illusion if there is nothing being decieved.
Posted: Mon, 9th Jan 2006, 10:00pm

Post 36 of 55

pcremag

Force: 470 | Joined: 7th Nov 2005 | Posts: 173

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

You can ask VALVE for my physics theories. Half Life 2 has awesome physics razz
Posted: Mon, 9th Jan 2006, 11:54pm

Post 37 of 55

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Kid, please stop questioning existence. I can affirm that you exist because you are hurting my brain. J/k.

An interesting theory-

Looking at the natural pattern of the universe, galaxies, solar systems, planets & satellites, weather, traffic patterns, cities, people, and right down to atoms; everything follows the same patterns and is equally affected by the laws of physics.

Think: everything has a center or a start point, and everything spans outward from that center, whether it be the nucleus of an atom, or the sun itself.

Now, life as we know it exists between macrocausems (bigger cycles/circles) and microcausems (smaller cycles). As far as our senses percieve, everything is affected equally.

But then again, I can only speak for ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

If I were 20,000 miles away in space, my perceptions would be completely different than here on Earth.

The theory?

Everything is relative.

Therefore:

Anything is possible.

There you go, Einstien.
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 12:40am

Post 38 of 55

Xog2

Force: 20 | Joined: 3rd Jun 2004 | Posts: 167

Member

Rating: +1/-2

God created the universe just to let you know.....
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 1:33am

Post 39 of 55

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

But who created god, that's the interesting one. wink


This topic is about physics theories. Let's leave god out of it, shall we?
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 1:48am

Post 40 of 55

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Heh yeah, you don't want to talk religions when Solley is around. confused
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 2:06am

Post 41 of 55

Xog2

Force: 20 | Joined: 3rd Jun 2004 | Posts: 167

Member

Was not trying to start a religious thread just stateing my opinion because people were saying it was started by black holes and such.


God has always been in existence, yeah it is hard to grasp for non-believers but you might understand sometime. Since you don't want to God involved I will not start.

I have nothing against you Sollthar if you don't believe in God, hope you don't have anything against me smile .
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 3:12am

Post 42 of 55

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Actually the only thing you can say when someone asks you where god came from is "I don't know" because you don't. As far as I'm concerned I don't need to know because everythign else works fine. Now shut up biggrin
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 4:01am

Post 43 of 55

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Sollthar wrote:

But who created god, that's the interesting one. wink


This topic is about physics theories. Let's leave god out of it, shall we?
Yeah be careful.
Don't get Sollthar started on God.

*remembers the talk*

Actually, probably best if you don't get me started either.

smile

As for whether we exist or not.

If you doubt we exist, you are allowing yourself to fall into a vicious infinite regress, and will eventually (if you trully believe that to be the case - you will kill yourself - as every great thinker who has tried to argue this has done in the past). It's painfully obvious that a material and physical world exists, only allowing for us to really confirm what we experience.

Oh, all the different states of realism and philosophical essays have just come back to me.

Me? I'm an empiricist.
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 4:21am

Post 44 of 55

Landon

Force: 670 | Joined: 12th Mar 2005 | Posts: 162

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User FXpreset Maker

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

Actually the only thing you can say when someone asks you where god came from is "I don't know" because you don't. As far as I'm concerned I don't need to know because everythign else works fine. Now shut up biggrin
Not neccesarily. If you believe in God, then you believe he created the world, and time as we know it. Since he created time, why should he be bound by its laws? The relative time as he created it is only how we percieve it. Therefore, God does not need a creator to exist and may easily be infinate. The Bible states clearly in many passages that God is infinate, so God didn't come from anywhere. The concept is a bit odd to think about true, but it is true. Of course scientifically, nothing can be proved, so I'm just stating what I believe on the "where did God come from?" question and why. That's the mistake Xog2 made. He stated that God created the universe as a fact. While there is a good deal of evidence for the matter, and I believe this, his statement is logically invalid. I could go further into this matter, but I'll return to the original topic.

So, physics theorys...

I'd have to say my favorite theory is quantum mechanics. The idea that particles move two directions at once is pretty intresting. Niels Bohr, the founder of the quantum theory once said, "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 11:16am

Post 45 of 55

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Pooky is right, which is the interesting thing about debating about physics or religion for that matter. wink

You don't know, I don't know, X doesn't know. We chose to believe something, be it a physics theory (some of wich sound as odd as some religious theories), a religious theory or a philosophical theory.
I mean there's tons of theories out there today and I find a lot of them to be quite interesting. You will never "know" wich is the true one, you chose one which suits your views and experiences or simply one which sounds solid to you, the problem is being aware of that.

It becomes interesting through the fact there's a good deal of evidence for almost every single one of the theories, and good deal of evidence against most.

The fun thing is that most of these theories "proofs" are coming from within themselves, wich is not really empirical proof. EG quantum physics proving it's theories with quantum physics laws or religions proving god with their religios writings etc wich makes about the same sense as "it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist", if you know what I mean.


Personally I find many theories I've heard interesting and could imagine them be true, some mystical, some religious, some mathematical, some philosophical. Maybe the actual "truth" is a bit of everything. Who knows. smile
Posted: Tue, 10th Jan 2006, 5:05pm

Post 46 of 55

Frank Grimes

Force: 1255 | Joined: 15th May 2005 | Posts: 80

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

i was researching a movie some time ago, i have no idea what i was thinking about but i wanted in to involve Chaos Theory and I read up on it.

From what i remember, Chaos theory is all about there being some kind of simple system or a set of rules that determine the complex nature of systems. Simplicity gives rise to complexity or something and that it applies to all scientific studies and connects them universally.

I think the movie Pi sort of touches on it a little. jurassic park talks about it too.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 5:09pm

Post 47 of 55

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I like this one;

The universe: Population, none.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so if every planet in the universe has a population of zero, then the entire population of the universe must also be zero, and any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 6:04pm

Post 48 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Therefore there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.
I don't see how that follows from the first statement - if there is an infinate ammount of worlds, and some are inhabited whereas some are not, surely there can be an infinate number of uninhabited worlds, and an infinate number of inhabited ones? And if that's true, then the rest of the argument doesn't make sense...

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 6:30pm

Post 49 of 55

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Klut wrote:

Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds,
It isn't nothing....it's "near to nothing". "Near to nothing" doesn't equal zero.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 6:42pm

Post 50 of 55

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

And if that's true, then the rest of the argument doesn't make sense
Whouldn't surprise me, as it's a quote from Douglas Adams's book Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy...

... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081874/quotes
press ctrl+f and type population
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 7:20pm

Post 51 of 55

Anonymous Tipster

Force: 260 | Joined: 12th Apr 2005 | Posts: 78

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I read this recently, and it makes a lot of sense to me:
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
Seems to fit in very well with most accepted scientific theories, and explains lots.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 7:21pm

Post 52 of 55

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually, I think the planets and galaxies have an end. Past that would just be empty space.

Edited for Arktic.

Last edited Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 7:28pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 7:23pm

Post 53 of 55

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Actually, I think the universe has an end. Past that would just be empty space.
Hahahaha, that's pretty funny.

The 'universe' is everything. If there's 'empty space', that space must be located somewhere. If it's somewhere, it's inside the universe. So the universe MUST be infinate.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 7:25pm

Post 54 of 55

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What I meant was, the planets and inhabited planets have an end, which dissproves (imo) Klut's theory. It was a direct response to his theory, thought I implied it.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jan 2006, 8:32pm

Post 55 of 55

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

read this recently, and it makes a lot of sense to me:
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
Seems to fit in very well with most accepted scientific theories, and explains lots.
Heh, that is actually a great story. I could life with that version of a god. smile