bonesiii

You post stuff we quote when we close topics.

I like it, except that I can't pronounce it even after reading the pronunciation guide.

Lol. Both maj and brickshelf go offline periodically all the time. I wouldn't worry about it, should be back in a few hours.

I'm not totally sure I understood what you're saying, but I think we can assume they weren't in "stealth mode" when they were sighted. BTW, another reason for running lights I thought of is this -- the craft are usually reported to be pretty large. It's possible they can't maneuver deftly if another aircraft approached, so need the lights so aircraft would know to dodge. At least when not spying on targets but flying to landing pads, etc. So you weren't just joking lol? As I said, the lights would presumably be so they can see when flying low, so as not to crash into trees and the like. They would switch them off when flying higher most of the time. So it's a stealth aircraft that's for flying low? Well, I don't think it can be a military thing in that case, because I think the military has night-vision technology... I hope you're kidding there, because my response would involve a lot of typing. I dunno why there'd be a distinction between military and anyone else -- night vision technology is very common (and it's pretty safe to assume any aliens smart enough to have hyperdrive would think of that too lol). Note that the above reason wouldn't be solved by night vision. Also, it's quite possible the government doesn't care if everyday citizens see the craft. We wouldn't be the ones they need to spy on with such a craft. I'm curious what the typing would entail, so start typing. I'm not ready to count it out either. Not sure I hope that these are aliens though, 'cuz if hi-tech aliens are keeping themselves secret from us, they'd probably be hostile.

So you weren't just joking lol? As I said, the lights would presumably be so they can see when flying low, so as not to crash into trees and the like. They would switch them off when flying higher most of the time.

The triangular kind.

Actually, I agree with that. It's just that, even with that idea, we don't know of any way to actually harness the means to do it. I've got a couple different semi-fictional-semi-speculative ways of my own that I use in my own non-Bionicle fiction that it would be possible. One would be modifying space to increase the max speed limit, and of course, there's always the Stargate solution -- wormholes. Plus I've got another classified method that would allow instant travel... My only point is, it's a lot less likely than an aircraft built by humans, flown by humans, launched here, flown here, etc.

Well, GB, first of all, I said "many, many" -- the minority who liked the older styles obviously wouldn't be included in that (at least not as much, although this can probably help everybody at least a little). Remember, I said that was a generalization, so not universal. And here's my quotes: And last sentence here: That is basically the same thing you said.

But why do you jump to the conclusion that it is aliens? When that is the least likely explanation? Isn't it a lot more likely that UFOs (which simply means unidentified flying objects) are simply classified aircraft? If you think the mere sighting of an aircraft implies aliens from lightyears upon lightyears away, I think you don't understand the incredible difficulties any aircraft would have to overcome in order to cross such a huge distance. Especially if you assume they weren't from the nearest star system -- that would be unlikely anyways. And Mars is pretty much old hat now, lol. And if you pay attention to US aircraft history, you know that from time to time the military de-classifies aircraft that it's had all along. So isn't it logical to assume they've currently got some aircraft that are still classified? And are in operation?

*hates them both*

Oh, just thought you might be pulling one on us. It is a good idea... Lol -- I'm bonesiii, savvy? That's a fair point. I think a good way to say it, then, is nostalgia can certainly be a good thing as long as what you've "locked in" does stick around. But if it doesn't, it can be a bad thing. Also, don't forget that sometimes we get bored with the same old thing even if we would get nostalgic for it if it was taken away (like the boredom complaints about Mata Nui). No, in your case, probably not. Also, you seem to be pretty fair about nostalgia, for example, you have many times given the example of the Toa Hagah as to your tastes -- and those aren't 2001.

I dunno. It never occured to me to count them. I'm curious why you are curious.

I'm really short on time today so I'ma gonna use a quote from one of my posts. This is from Emperor Kraggh's topic: How Do Newcomers View Nostalgia? which is, BWT, almost dead despite being an interesting topic. (Revival is 30 days in GD so there's still time to post as of this moment!) Bold is for important points, not emotionalism. This is just my view of it; I'm no scientist, but it fits perfectly with my observations of myself, you guys, people in real life, etc. It seems that not only is enjoyment about personal taste, but about the "lockdowns" we impose on our own tastes. Sorta like a "cool kid" in school letting everybody else tell him what he's allowed to like just so he isn't seen as "weird" (which is rather silly considering everybody's supposed to be weird, not clones lol), only in this case we are letting a past experience tell us perhaps too exactly how we are to be pleased. And lemme emphasize that this shouldn't be interpreted as preachy -- it's up to you if you want to "unlock" your own tastes fully, or if you want to stick to a more narrow definition of what you allow yourself to like. It's all taste, therefore subjective, therefore it's not a crime to be confined by nostalgia. However, "unlocking" it may very well help you be a happier person, so it's worth considering! A simple trick is to pretend that every year, you are coming into it like a new fan, who doesn't remember the old years, and just let your own tastes judge the new year freely, in the same way your tastes judged the old year. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily like new as much as old, but perhaps it can help. Everybody on BZPower who has ever said that they have tried this tells me that it works for them.

Er you might wanna rethink that bones because if somebody liked 2001 type of situation it has not happened since therefore not possible to have the same pleasure. Sure they might like some new things but they could not experience the same emotion unless their tastes drastically changed. Read what I said more closely, GB. Everything you said was accounted for (and I think I said what you just said, at least twice ). Yeah, if I'd had more time I would have talked about how this relates to aging. But you basically summed it up.

Okay then.

Is it just me, or does anyone actually know that people who purposefully dress to stand out actually steal more than normal-seeming people? I mean, think about it, if I wanted to rob a place, wouldn't I dress as inconspicuously as I could?

I indeed noticified it and have pointed it out before; people often "shield" an incorrect opinion by framing it as a supposed joke.

Ya gotta be on time for these things man.

Excellent excellent point. Yep, that's basically what I often talk about with "truth-seeking debate", a "search between friends for the truth." It's a great point that if both friends happen to already agree on the wrong view of something (especially if it's something important), neither of them are likely to have such a debate, or find the truth. That is sad, yes. That puts a whole 'nother perspective on it, doesn't it?

Basically, their sensors at the destination showed it arriving slightly before they fired it. Different words, same meaning. It's been a while since I aced calc 1, but I'm pretty sure division by zero IS a different thing than infinity. Again, this might be where my ignorance of the actual formula is messing me up, but what I said about time freezing is what I've always heard. That's true of all life if you don't use logic properly. The things you mentioned are very complex -- so it's easy to get misled, logic or not, if you don't work very hard to understand the whole thing. Temporal mechanics is in some ways actually fairly simple in comparison, at least the basics. No, we probably aren't. From my understanding, that's plausible. I don't see how it would be a paradox, though? First off, we'd have to assume the spacecraft had near-miraculous survivability powers. Secondly, assuming you could actually do this with speed relative to an outside observer, despite the time dilation (through a warp drive perhaps, as some ST episodes have actually featured), the light reflecting off of, or being given off by, the spacecraft would be slowed down in time, and incredibly red-shifted, so that if you could warp-speed away, you would see the light from just before the EH slowly coming out at you (though you might need a radio, microwave, or infrared camera to see it). So that might provide such an image. All of that seems like simple cause and effect; I don't think it's paradoxical at all. That could be a fair alternative, yes. Either way, it would solve the Grampadox. My reasoning behind the "choice split" concept is another thing that gets into topics we can't discuss. But the basic idea is, most things are complex chemical reactions, but when it comes to human beings (and possibly many other life forms) making choices, chemically speaking it could actually go either way, and something about us not contained totally within the 3 dimensions of space comes into play when we make a choice, thus sending the universe onto one fork in the road, as it were, as opposed to the other. But of course this too is highly speculative. It's a pretty common idea in scifi though, used in ST and SG often. Makes perfect sense. I'm talking about basically single atoms of it. It can be contained in vacuum chambers, held in place with magnetic fields. It is produced in certain nuclear reactions sometimes (usually just a positron if I recall correctly). Usually these instantly react with an electron, instantly destroying both. We don't store it in huge amounts like they do on Star Trek, no, that would be planetary suicide if the magnets ever failed, lol. Yes, I was gonna get into that but ran out of time. Basically, if a teleporter could do that without destroying the pattern for rematerialization, that could be another "cheating" method. But personally I'd never travel on one if I could help it lol. Technically going in at all, no matter how you go in, seems to result in backwards time travel. But there's basically no way to go in without dying (unless you get really wackily unlikely fictional technology or power or the like...).

I'd like to use a point-style reply here: 1) I know, it's so fun, idn't it? 2) Yes, this is all "theoretical/hypothetical", whatnot. 3) Also, I'm not knowledgeable about the actual formulas of timespace and the like; I could understand them if I devoted time to it, but I try to approach it from a more "understanding-based" approach where I learn what the formulas mean in more logical, concrete ways that I can sorta visualize. I usually only get into the formulas when I'm writing a story that forces me to need to be accurate (of anything with formulas). So that part of this I'm no expert in. IMExperience, though, the formulas aren't necessary to think through the logic of the basic concepts. 4) Yes, the argument does hinge on that, but that belief hinges on logic and the fact that the grandfather paradox is, after all, an inconsistency in the alternative view. 3) To prove, no -- virtually nothing can be totally proven. I think more in terms of evidence and logic -- which isn't necessarily conclusive, but can point in the basic correct direction, and can seem to rule out some possibilities. Grampadox rules out, IMO, a single timeline setup. I apply this concept to everything too, not just timespace -- the rule that "there is no true paradox." 4) I'd like to discuss reasons why I wouldn't agree that I, as a human, would only be able to percieve one timeline, but I'd rather keep my reasons for that classified. In addition, it wander into topics not allowed on BZPower. Suffice it to say that I am 99% sure of something that isn't being factored in that statement. 5) I've never heard that alternate timelines would be antimatter -- what I have heard is that antimatter could possibly be normal matter that is basically traveling backwards in time. My understanding though is that it is simply a charge difference and probably not actually "traveling" since "travel" in time as we experience it every day is more of a perception than anything -- all forms of energy including matter and antimatter exist simultaneously, though sometimes in different forms, throughout all time. (Say if you have a lunchbox right now -- in five minutes, all the atoms in that lunchbox still exist, even if you hit it with a sledgehammer -- and even if you nuke it, all the energy of it still exists in some form.) 6) Also, since an alternate timeline would simply be what would have happened if a choice had been chosen differently, it seems implausible that this timeline would somehow be antimatter. 7) Well, again, do we know that alternate timelines aren't interacting with "our own"? But, I can imagine situations where alternate timelines don't interact (naturally). They would be visualized as strings branching off, and the "far ends" of each string (even though they have no actual ends) would move away from each of the other strings, in the temporal dimensions beyond the 5 dimensions we know of ("know" not being for sure in the case of subspace as far as I know). 8) Well, we know that antimatter exists because we have some of it, and we blow stuff up with it sometimes. 9) It's possible we wouldn't be able to detect the interactions. But again, I'm not discussing what I know about this. I hope you were joking, lol. That would be incredibly unlikely. I must say that I kinda agree with you about time travel not happening, but only in the time machine way. In theory, if you were to travel at the speed of light for a while, time would slow down for you, but not for anyone else. You'd drop out of the speed of light in a few hours, and find that Earth had aged several years. That, if believed to be time travel, would only take you forward in time, and you'd have no way of getting back. -Xai Oh, time travel is almost definately real, and it occurs constantly. Your example is more of speeding up the passage of time to go forward -- well, we're already moving forward. "Time travel" usually means backwards travel. We can go back in time right now if we feel like it. (Well, almost right now, in the grand scheme of things.) It's just that our methods would turn us into an infinately small point of energy in the process, killing us. Talking about flying into a black hole, of course, lol. (And you'd have to factor in travel time at sublight speeds to arrive at a black hole, which could take quite a long time, with a rather useless result at the end.) In theory, time would actually freeze for you at the speed of light, is my understanding, meaning you'd basically be stuck at the same moment, forever. Might be unwise. Also, if you could somehow go just over the speed of light, you'd start to go backwards in time. Faster, you go back faster. They were, but if you're referring the the "traveling at the speed of light" part, the "in theory" was meant to describe traveling at the speed of light; something that nobody's been able to do, and something that no one really knows how to do right now. -Xai I have a fictional way -- basically by cheating. By modifying the spatial brane so that everything can stretch in a forward direction without actually going much faster in its own point of view. Of course, purely fictional. Still, I find it hard to believe that just because dividing by zero produces an imaginary number suddenly it's physically impossible for anything other than an electromagnetic wave to move at 186,000 miles per second. It just doesn't seem to make common sense. I know, the main part of time dilation has been proven, but no one has actually tried to move at such speeds to prove the "universal speed limit" that time dilation creates. Anyway, haven't they been able to speed up certain atoms up to the speed of light in a laboratory? Also, there's no guarantee that faster-than-light travel is the only way to travel through time--correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein himself also guessed at the existence of a wormhole, which would theoretically take us to a different point in time and space, thus time traveling. Better yet, it allows you to go backwards in time too, which makes the paradox possible. (For the record, I'm with bonesiii on that argument.) Actually, it does make sense -- basically, the larger an object, the slower its max speed seems to be physicswise. This is why "tachyons" if I remember the term right are assumed to be (hypothetically) much smaller even than photons, allowing them to move even faster. Protons are much, much larger than photons, and atoms and actual objects like humans much much MUCH bigger. My sense is that this is tied into the nature of the brane itself; sortof like an object moving through water. A huge barge is going to have a lot more trouble zipping around than a small speedboat. So again, it seems to me that only a "cheating" method would allow it. Is theme of Star Trek warp drive, and Stargate wormholes, BTW. I've never heard that they've been able to speed up atoms to the speed of light. What I have heard is that they have seemingly sent some atoms back in time. I don't remember the details now, but I think the article I read on it basically said it was actually more of an illusion than actual time travel. Not sure. I have a simple method for possible reverse travel, BTW. Simply hold a static field of intense levels of gravitons in place around an object, and it seems to me that the object should slow in time or go backwards if there's enough, without feeling the gravity as a directional pull. Of course, you'd need to generate enough that if something went wrong, you'd have an artificial black hole so would be dangerous. And let's not forget that as far as we know, holding gravitons still is impossible. But fictionally...

There are no such thing as temporal paradoxes. Those who falsely think there are ignore the simple (and well-established) concept of alternate timelines -- every event and choice splits off a new timeline, forming a branching setup of timelines. So as soon as you go back in time, simply by appearing, you create a new timeline, different from the one you came from. Therefore, the "place" where you grew up is unaffected, except that it could now be considered an "alternate" timeline if you believe that only one timeline is the "real" one. Therefore you remain in existence in the altered timeline, and the change you cause sticks around. Unless you go back a few seconds before, thus starting a new "real" timeline where you never came back and made the change, and don't make it again. If you think about it, it's obvious that any actual paradoxes are nothing more than inconsistencies in a way of thinking, thus disproving the way of thinking. (Like the "Everything I type is false" one -- all this accomplishes is showing that the way of thinking behind the statement is false, which is why nobody uses that one seriously. ) Therefore, the fact that having a "non-alternate timeline" point of view creates this inconsistency disproves that point of view, showing that instead, there are alternate timelines. Either that, or time travel or changes are impossible and there's no problem either way. But those seem unlikely. Pet peeve. And brain not hurt at all.

A poem from that Poetry class last semester. 1-800-HAPPY-SMILE-KIT Are you suffering from depression? Do you have low self-esteem? Do you have trouble guffawing when the boss cracks a lame joke? I’m Nicholas T. Bernard, and you need my Happy Smile Kit! You’ve been told to read “self help” books, but the authors are charlatans – frauds! You’ve been told to count pills, but look at the side effects! Studies prove that most depression is rooted in your surroundings. Your senses. My Happy Smile Kit has everything you need to tickle forth a smile! Smiles are the key to happiness! Look at your walls. Maybe you see dull, chipping paint, or faded, off-white wallpaper from the 1800s? No more! The Happy Smile Kit comes with seven vivid neon color plates, made of high-quality posterboard with our smiley-face logo watermark. Hang them all over those walls! Maybe you’re rudely shaken from sleep by a series of impersonal beeps every morning? No more! This decorative smiley-face clock wakes you up with a personalized voice recording from me! Simply record your name in the speaker, and you’ll get one of seven random encouraging messages addressed right to you every morning! Does the slob in the next cubicle always get his mug shot framed as “Employee of the Month”, never you? No more! The kit comes with a picture frame with the words “Person of the Year” emblazoned in gold ink at the bottom. Simply slide a picture of your grinning face in and pin it to your cubicle wall! It doesn’t stop there! There’s a smiley-face watch that says “You’re a great person, (insert your name)!” every hour! There’s a soothing sunlamp that doubles as a star ball, painting a smiling constellation on your ceiling at night! There’s a bobblehead “thumbs-up” doll of me! There’s a smiley-face umbrella, a smiley keychain, and a smiley coffee mug! All this is a 100-dollar value, now only 79.99! Call 1-800-HAPPY-SMILE-KIT now to order! But wait! There’s more! Order now and we’ll throw in a FREE smiley-face toothbrush, so you won’t gross people out with all that smiling! Again, that number is 1-800-HAPPY-SMILE-KIT. That’s 1-800-HAPPY-SMILE-KIT. Call now!