Doom3world

I just hope everyone realizes there is talk that we did not evolve from monkeys specifically, but monkeys (among others) and us evolved from another, older species. I just know basic facts here, I can assume the rest of you can google it if you want.

It's not pertinent to answer those questions as the mechanism that gave rise to the first living organism wasn't evolution. We don't have a definative explanation for how things played out but it's safe to say that lifeless elements floating around in a soup don't assemble themselves, mutate, and reproduce. And evolution doesn't become a factor until you have an ecosystem to support competition.

Obviously a catalyst was needed to get things started. It makes sense to me that a religious person looking for God's place in all this would start there. I don't understand the reason they bother trying to paint evolution as the origin of life when it describes nothing of the sort. I think the only reason they're so adamantly opposed to the idea is because "God created man in his own image" and evolution doesn't mesh well with that. I suppose the only way to interpret that passage and remain objective is to accept the possibility that God is a protozoan.

Oh my. I think I've upset someone. Wraith is a sin you know. It was very revealing when you said that you beat up your younger brother when he wouldn't agree with your views. Typical religious fall back position when the pretension of goodness fails; showing your true colours as an aggressive and ruthless bully. Word of advice. If you want to find real answers or to be taken seriously then judging an idea's merits on whether or not you like the implications rather than whether or not the idea is supported by observations is not the way to get either.

Thank you for proving so many of my points and for providing so much laughter and entertainment. And thanks for clearing up your mess before you left. The important stuff to keep the thread making sense has all been quoted. I guess a fist isn't worth a thousand words after all. See ya.Yep. If we evolved from an animal living now then why didn't that animal evolve too. In reality we had a common ancestor with all apes. All life if you go back far enough.Yea you would expect them to focus on biogenisis and the big bang, since they're actually open to speculation. All you need for the beginning of life is something to reproduce itself for whatever reason. A lightning strike in a pool of amino acid and those warm vents under the ocean are the two leading candidates at the moment.

While most people here disagree with KC Clark, being smug and condescending isn't how to get your point across. It'll only fuel the flames.


I didn't mean that we directly evolved from monkeys that we know now. I'm really referring to whatever closely related species both we and monkeys and apes originally came from. I'm just using "monkeys" as a generic term to describe that ancestral race.


One time I had the discovery channel on in the background, and they were talking about the creation of mass/stuff from nothing when matter collides with anti-matter. I wasn't paying close attention to it (I was busy), but they said something about that being a possible theory as to the creation of the universe (it could just be a hypothesis, though).

Seemed like an apt response to the toys being thrown out of the pram. I'm still anoyed by the derailing. Fun though it's been; that's not what this thread was ever meant to be. I think I might have dangled a carrott with a few earlier coments though to be honest. If I start another one and ask BNA! To move any religious stuff in here then I'll make sure I follow my own rules.It's matter/anti-matter annihilation in reverse. Mass from pure energy. There can't be space and time without mass because space-time is a measurement of the distance between mass.

Infallible logic with a brilliant and otherworldly funny conclusion - that really made my day

It's matter/anti-matter annihilation in reverse. Mass from pure energy. There can't be space and time without mass because space-time is a measurement of the distance between mass...

...Of course you're right that the big bang was caused by matter/anti-matter annihilation. I was focusing on the very first moment, when mass was first created. Matter and anti-mater were created in roughly equal numbers and annihilated with each other causing left over matter to separate creating more space. Most people tend to imagine this happening within an already present space-time. Space is curved though, meaning in that first moment is was curved into a singularity. There was left over matter because there was enough energy for the uncertainty principle to have an effect. I'm not quite sure how it's even possible to create one without the other, but apparently it is. All the matter in the universe (minus the little bit of antimatter that's here) comes from the uncertainty principle. Why is there so much more matter? There isn't. There's only a tiny bit more matter compared to the original amount created. There was a virtually unimaginable amount of energy in the beginning.

That's the official explanation anyway. I can't see it changing too much.

matter/anti-matter annihilation ....Space is curved ....time

these are only concepts, nothing more, human creations, ideas, no such things exist in reality.

all the "official scientific explanations" as well as the "mystic-religious" ones are just story telling in different genres.

the Big Bang, how can something come out of nothing ?
there must have been something in the beginning right ?
or we just make the first mistake with the premise that there was a beginning, that a beginning is needed ...
even if there was nothing, nothing is still something, where did that come from ? and How ?
a self creating entity out of nothing or nothing itself ...and what was beyond that nothing ...

ahh, I dunno, I am no expert but everything still remains unexplained in the end no matter what

It may be unexplainable and inconclusive, but it's still a fun mental exercise.

since they named the "nothingness" that resides outside our atmosphere as "Space", then it is no longer nothingness, it has a name. No such thing as nothing, makes it a vicious circle. Now it could be unidentified therefore nothing to us, but something to someone else.

Matter/anti-matter annihilation is very real. Nothing can be created or destroyed. Energy is gained when mass is lost – E=mc squared. That's what makes stars shine. Nuclear fusion is only something like 4% energy efficient though. Matter/anti-matter annihilation is 100%, meaning no left over waist (radiation), making it completely clean.

Curved space is not just a construct. It really is curved. Literally! It's felt as gravity. That's basically the general theory of relativity in a nutshell, which is the most scrutinised theory ever. It's never failed a test, although it does leave some gaps. No, one is an obvious lie while the other is based on evidence and makes testable predictions.Don't relegate it to metaphysics just because you don't understand it.Space was never nothing. It's space. Nothingness doesn't exist. That's what nothing means.

I haven't said much in this thread about quantum physics because I don't really understand it, but maybe that's a good thing. It's a wonderful feeling when you're made to question things you've taken for granted so I thought I'd share a couple of things that head tripped me. I'm going to start a new thread when I've finished re-writing the first post of this one. I started over a year ago now I think but that's all I did. I was in just the right mood and I spent twenty minutes on it and haven't touched it since. Still, it's the best thing I've ever written. I still can't believe it came from me. This is just a separate bit about some really weird stuff. It's quantum mechanics so expect more questions than answers.


First the famous two slit experiment. You've probably at least heard of it and maybe not really understood what the big deal is. It has to be the most shocking result of any experiment ever. First you simply shine a light through a flat surface with two slits in it, and onto another flat surface with no slits in it. What you get is an interference pattern from the light waves. It's as if there are lots of slits in the first surface rather than just the two. This is easily explained if light is a wave. It's simply creating two interfering waves that make the pattern. The thing is that you still get an interference pattern if you do it with electrons, even if you release them one at a time. How would the electrons know where to go if they're going through individually? How could they be interfering electrons that have already passed through and/or haven't even been released yet? There seems to be more chance of them hitting certain parts of the back wall than other parts of it. It gets weirder. This part will blow your head clean off if you haven't heard it. When you measure which slit the individual electrons are passing through the interference pattern stops and you just get two slits on the back screen. It's like they know they're being watched. The very act of observing them causes them to behave differently. Our perceptions are based on the world around us but it seems that the world around us is also based on our perceptions of it.

When they're not being measured to determine which slit they're passing through they have no definite position. That's how they make the interference pattern of a wave. It links in with the uncertainty principle where nothing can have both a definite position and a definite velocity at the same time. You could argue that it they can't be measured at the same time because it doesn't have both at the same time, or you could argue that our (the universes) inability to measure both at the same time means that it can't be classified as having both at the same time. There's no distinction really. Either way it allows what's known as quantum tunnelling. That's where two supposedly solid objects pass through each other. To start with there's a 100% chance that little quantum object A is to the right of lqo B and a 0% that it's to the left of it. Then there's a 75% that it's to the right and a 25% chance it's to the left. Then 50-50. Then there's a 25% that it's to the right and a 75% chance it's to the left. Then a 0% chance that lqo A is to the right of lqo B and a 100% that it's to the left of it. They've magically passed through each other.

First image of the entire universe!
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_index_0.html

Hello! It's been a while. Sorry to break up the run of posts relevant to a gaming forum. I have empirical evidence for my theory that scientists are idiots. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=337236 It's a bit of a haul but it's worth it if you like that kind of stuff. Especially if you think you'll like seeing scientists being toyed with. They haven't even figured out why gravities so weak and that's fucking obvious. It should be to them anyway.

This is interesting as well, and I was on one. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=223264&highlight=newtons+bucket

KC Clark, if you’re reading this I know that was you who came to the hotel last year. I knew it was you the second I laid eyes on you. I'm can be very intuitive at times. You look just like Silent Bob. Did you find the map helpful? You must have tried every hotel in Cambridge? Was it worth it?

Hello. Long time no see. I’m still working on my mod. I started again after more than a three year brake. I was flying along to start with but I’m at a snails pace now. It will be done one day. It doesn’t help that it gets changing as I’m doing it.

I’ve been banned from the physics forums site, and it now seems like they’re banning and deleting anyone who’s asking this question. I’ve told them I don’t think it’s possible to reach the event horizon of a black hole. Here are three reasons for not understanding how it’s possible to reach it. It shouldn’t be hard to follow.

1). They say you can never witness something reaching the horizon from the outside, so what happens if there’s a row of objects and one at the back is right next to the horizon? Surely they should either all pile up at the horizon or they can cross it before you reach it. They say that you would see the other objects crossing in front of you as you cross. If this makes sense to you can you please explain it to me.

2). If you had a rope joining two ships and one stays still while they other falls in and you work out how long the rope has to be so that it goes taught from the in-fallers perspective after they’ve crossed the horizon then it has to go taught from the outsides ships perspective before that object reaches the horizon, creating a paradox because a certain finite amount of energy will always be enough to pull the in faller out from the other objects perspective, but no amount of energy will be enough from the in-fallers perspective.

3). If you reverse the arrow of time then gravity stays as an attractive force. So if you reverse the time in which an object crosses an event horizon then they’ve escaped from a black hole. They say the black hole becomes a white hole, but white holes have never been observed, they can’t form even mathematically and the laws governing gravity are supposed to be time symmetric.

Ask them and see if you get banned.

Say hello to the cleverest and one of the simplest things I'll ever do. This is what I was describing before.

This is so easy a toddler could have done it. The four dimensions are at right angles to each other and any two objects are separated by a one dimensional straight line, so you can show the relationship between any two objects and the space-time between them using only two spacial dimensions, one of them representing time. The vertical line is an observer at rest moving at c through time and the horizontal one represents an object moving at c through space and static in time. The speed of the object you want to compare them to is as a percentage of c, so 0.5c is 45 degrees. The squiggly line is an accelerator. The line's the same length but less proper time has passed for them than an observer with a constant velocity. Then draw a line across and you can see exactly how much time dilation and length contraction there is by comparing it to the verticle line. It works just the same with gravity. The horizontal line represents an event horizon. You get a cuved line that gets sharper and sharper but never reaches 90 degrees.



And from the others perspective you just rotate the circle.



This is what I'm posting on physicsforums.comI think I may have a slight problem with authority. What is the point of having a split personality if I don't use the one that's a psychopath? He's charming, funny, can read anyone as if they were an open book based on next to nothing, insanely intuitive, and he's vastly more intelligent than I am, and completely roofless. Typical physco. It's about time I extended the lead a bit. His just dying to kick the shit out of anyone who wants it. I think that's why I'm good at relativity. I know how different the same thing can look depending on where you're looking at it from. Roughly 4% of the population are psychos. It's more common than anorexia. Most families have one. They're extremely good at hiding it. If you're talking to someone and you're getting a weird vibe and they're not actually saying or doing anything weird, chances are you're talking to one. They know exactly what to say and how to say it to make people feel exactly what they want them to feel. They're very good at inspiring people and making them feel empowered. They can make you feel very special, but they will chew you up and spit you out in a second if it suits them. They tend to claim to be on the side of the underdog but they're not (I am though). They don't care about anything or anyone but themselves. They're no more likely to be violent than anyone else. It's just a problem if they are. Imagine you feel no guilt, at all. No fear. The universe is here for your benefit and everyone around you has the IQ of a goldfish. They tend to be loners with no life goals who rely on the financial support of others, and animal lovers strangely. He's going to hate me for giving away all his secrets. Of course it's always possible I'm just a regular psycho pretending to have another side. I'm not though, honest.

How's that for a post.

...It's not that 4% of the population are full on psycos. That seems a bit high. It's that 4% are that way inclined I think. There is no dividing line. What I was describing was a full on psycopath.

I don't think I explained the circle thing right. This is the curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_dilation.svg It's still a good way to explain the concept but I'm sure you can get the exact answer out of it. The dimensions are at right angles to each other and the faster you move through space the slower you move through time so that your total speed through space-time is always c. Check. The bit with the vertical arrow being static in space and travelling through time at c's right. The horizontal arrow going through space at c and static in time's right. It's just the bit in the middle I can't remember.

The theoery of everything: http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html The holy grail of science. I love the title. I'm convinced this is the answer. That was an amazing feeling whan I first saw that. I think there's a problem with it which is stopping it from being widely accepted but I have very little doubt that this will eventually be confirmed. It's not good for string theory unless they can find a way of making them work together. And look who came up with it. Not exactly your typical scientist is he? Why can't they all be like that? We'd know so much. I hate scientists. Bunch of stuck up arrogent pricks trying to use their qualifications and suff they've memorised rather than their brains to show they can think. They're worse than Christians.

Edit: Oh yea, I think I may have thought of something. In the two slit expirement you still get an interference pattern when you fire the electrons though one at a time because electrons have no mass, and anything with zero mass moves at c. If it moves at c then it doesn't expirence time. Every atom that ever has or will go through those slits has to do it at exactly the same moment in time as all other electrons that ever have or will go through those slits.

This is the coolest headfuck ever. I read something fairly recently called the game of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMzngWchDk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE&feature=related The basic idea is that you can create some very interesting and intricate patterns using only a very simple set of rules as initial conditions and then just leaving it alone. You start with a square grid and three very simple rules. Squares can either be on (active) or off (dorment). 1). Loneliness: An active square dies and becomes dorment if it has less than two active neighbours. 2). Overcrowding: Any square with more than three active neighbours also dies and become dorment. 3). Reproduction: Any dorment square with three neighbours is born and becomes active. That's it. You get interesting patterns straight away, and the more you zoom out the more intricate they get. If you zoom out far enough and leave it for long enough and use just the right set of rules you could get intelligent life. It would have absolutly no idea what or where it was. Our universe simply wouldn't exist. Now what would happen if you messed up the grid and did something else? Would they stop existing? They're just squares on a grid. What would happen if there were no life to veiw our universe? It wouldn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything. So what would it be? Just an equation.

Okay, I'm done for now. I don't think I can top that.

I'm feeling inspired so I'll go into a little more detail about my last last post. Even if no one cares it makes me feel better to get it down and maybe I can spread the feeling of looking at something in a new light.

I remember reading in A Brief History Of Time back when I first really started to paying attention to science that it's not known what actually makes the universe real as opposed to something that just makes sense in theory, and it seemed obvious that it wasn't real. I've thought for a long time that the only thing that turns an equation into reality is us, but I never really appreciated it until I couldn't hear music. I recently remembered something that was buried for a long time and as it was coming to the surface I started to get really depressed or really euphoric for no apparent reason. The highs were great and I could do things I can't normally and the lows were an absolute bitch. For those interested in psychology, burring a memory like that doesn't get rid of it. It gave me a bit of a split personality because part of me was left to deal with it just under the surface. When I'm low it's like the two are pulling in opposite directions and when I'm high it's like they're working together. It's calmed down a bit now in terms of constantly swinging at least. When I was low I literally lost the ability to here music properly and it just sounded like noise. The point is we don't actually hear music. We reorganize the patterns in the sound and for us to be aware of it our unconscious minds need to let us know somehow by giving us some kind of sensation, so we hear music.

But then we don't even really hear sound. We get messages that there's been physical contact with a low frequency electro-magnetic field and our brains turn it into sound based on it's wavelength and strength, and that's how all of our senses work. We don't see what's in front of us, we can only create an image out of light that's actually physically impacted our pupils. Think of an empty room in your home. Everything that makes that room real won't be there until the next person goes there. The world really does go away when we close our eyes. Our senses create all the impressions of the universe around us in the same way that we hear music. When they studied the brain to find the location that controls awareness there simply wasn't one. Awareness emerges from all the individual parts working as one. Could a robot ever be conscious? If it was able to behave exactly as a normal human then it would have to have the same level of awareness about it's surroundings as we do, but could it ever feel emotion? Could it hear music? There's two views on this. Some who think a completely believable robot would have to be self-aware and others who think it would just be a mindless thing. I think intelligence would have to naturally emerge as the individual parts start communicating and it becomes more aware, which it would have to do to be able to reach the level of believable.

It adds a huge importance the are we alone question. If we're not then we can marvel at being just a tiny part of something huge and marvel at the universes magnificence. If we are alone then we're not just a part of the universe. Life on Earth is the universes sole creator. We're made out of the dust of the universe and the dust has formed a pattern so pretty it can know itself by creating what we think of as dust. All of that out of pure geometry.

Continued from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25813

I'm starting to feel better now and it's showing. I'll update the first post in this thread in the next couple of days. These are the ones that aren't relavent to relativity.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13480/ ... ained.html
Our brains are ariels. Either the organic mush in our heads is somehow capable of producing consciousness on their own, or our brains are ariels that pick up some kind of signal (probably neutrinos from the sun) and turn them into thought (easily testable).

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13481/ ... ation.html
What would it feel like if something that's just happened were to get filed in our long term memory by mistake? If it's just happened then it's meant to be filed in our short term memory, but if it goes straight into our long term memory then it's going to feel like it's happened before.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13479/ ... verse.html
We created the universe. Without life it wouldn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything, so what would it be? Just an equation. For existence to exist it needs to be lived.