Staredit Network

Actually he just pwned your "thinking outside the box".

how so? all he stated is what he accepts as truth....ok the time thing is pretty close to what i say time is and what it dose. but the gravity thing.....no. gravity is a force downward, but it is nothing like magnetism. and you can take the 2 strongest magnents in the world, put them together, and all you get, it one supper magnent that you cant sepperate. so..where is the ownege?

It's not a force downward unless you live on a 2D plane.

Owned.

Wow i havnt been on this topic since the first page lol.

Anyways, if two black holes suck each other into their gravity and whatnot they'd just crash in eventually become one yada yada...

The time crap is just confusing...no time? so its not 2:30? its 0:00? or is it even that? OMG LOOK WHAT UV DONE!!! My brains going to explode

good discussion im loving it lol.

They're still attracting forces tied to objects, however.


Several things...
I'm the one that stated gave the comparison to magnetism, not Shapechanger.
No, gravity is not a "downward" force, because "down" is arbitrary.
If gravity is a "downward" force, then that means that every direction is downward, because you have gravity pulling on you from every object in the universe, including your own self.
It's just that things like yourself are too small to have noticable gravity, and the effect of gravity is, I hear, logarithmic, so that objects across the galaxy don't have a noticable effect on you... but they still do.
Lastly, gravity is quite similar to magnetism in some ways.
As for your saying that two strongest magnets together will create one super one, that's exactly what happens when a black hole appears, except that instead of two magnets, it's uncountably many atoms, or molecules, or wherever the force of gravity breaks down to.

Yes, but gravity is PURE attraction. Magnets do have attraction, but they also have repulsion. This means that gravity is not a magnetic action at all. Magnetic polarity has nothing to do with the way gravity works because magnets use electrons to determine which side to stick to.

They're still attractions, however.
My example has absolutely nothing to do with how they attract, only what happens when two powerful attracting forces meet.
It was just a comparison. Or analogy, whichever you prefer.

Ahh ok. Just don't use two completely different forms of attraction for an analogy

I've been without internet for a whole day
Anyhow, PWNED!!!
FREAKING PWNED!!!!

And to prevent the above from being meaningless spam:

You can't be 'open-minded' to hard facts. They are the truth, and you can't screw with the truth. You don't even know anything about what you're debating. Any given source of gravity pulls in EVERY DIRECTION, meaning there can be no hole.

If you want to argue, at least have some knowledge of the damn topic.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with Shapechanger. If you are reading the Weekly World News for information on the world, you should just kill yourself now. However, if you are reading it for a laugh, then by all means, that was what it was made for.

Front Pages I remember:
"I was bigfoot's love slave"
"New breed of cat found on Mars"
"Giant bats attack plane"

I remember one saying something called Bat Boy faught Sadam Hussein and that's why he's in custody.

Doesn't matter if they're different until you point out a flaw in my analogy.


Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I'd like that "proof" that time is nothing more than a concept.

Sure. Look around you.
Say every particle in the universe simply stopped transferring energy.
The so called timestream would continue to move forawrd, yes?
No, because there is no timestream and if everything in the univrse stopped transferring energy, time would become irrelivant, because time is only a concept.

Very well put. I was going to say that time is a way to organize the day. It is soly relevant on what you use to measure it. For example, we use a cesium atom. Some other species could use a hydrogen atom. Measuring it's oscillations is how we determine time (atomic time anyway), so if you measured time with the oscillations of a hydrogen atom, you'd get different readings and therefore different time. It's just a way of organizing the day and therefore is a concept.

Relevance is in no way a requirement for existance, so far as I can tell.

Our measurements of time are a 'way of organizing the day', not our concept of time itself.
It'd be more accurate to say that 'time is a way of organizing events'.

Well see, tiem travel could be possible if everything that happened was backed up and saved. However traveling back there and you still existing means you are creating matter because your atoms are recycled from eons past. Matter cannot be created. Therefore, impossible. However, if all matter is not recycled, and the universe somehow stores backups, then it's remotely possible. Basically, time divides infinitly. For example. Seconds>tenths of a second>hundredths>milliseconds>keep on going as far as you want. Since you cannot get an exact lock on a date because of the way time can be divided infinitly, you cannot travel through it. Also, to travel through a plane, it must be in a dimension. According to string theory, there is 11 dimensions. None of which, are time.

i beleave the number is 12....but i could be wrong.

No it was 11. We live in 3 of them. Or maybe we follow the laws of 3 other dimensions. One of those two.

like i said, i could be wrong. but....we all are at some piont

I don't like the String Theory so much.
They use more Indirect Evidence than Direct Evidence

Direct Evidence: That man is dead because he's not breathing
Indirect Evidence: That man is dead because he was in trouble with the local mofia

It's the only example I could come up with, don't say anything, because it sucks. It's not accurately depicting what I want to say. See, there is no proof of higher dimensions, they only exist because without them, String Theory could not work.

I think that's a better explaination.

So, basicaly, it conflicts with Occam's Razor. That what you're saying?

Personally, I don't like the idea of there being more than 3 dimensions, but less than... any number. More than 3, but not infinite.
If upto the third dimension, you're just adding direction of physical space, I'd think that, assuming it exists, the fourth dimension would do the same, the fifth, the sixth, and so on, infinitely.
Of course, it would be impossible for us to comprehend them, just as it would be impossible for, say, Simon Belmont(from Castlevania IV, for the SNES) to comprehend the 3rd dimension. He'd say it can't exist, there's no such thing as a "sideways" or "width", only "height" and "length". But he was wrong, so why can't we?

thats a good point. wow.......never thought of it that way.

Didn't I say it before somewhere...?

most likely, but you probobly put it in the middle of a long post, therefore noone read it. but it dose make sence. if all you know is lefe and right, then you will never know that your missing anything.........hmmmm.....it makes me think happy times......