Deep Thoughts

[Keef]

Along with what danoff said, imagine how such a simple decision could change your life forever. A girl can say "yes" or "no", and at that moment your life as you know it would be entirely different. You could look at a stale piece of bread and say "Ahh, it's not that bad", and then you could end up with some life-threatening disease.

If you think about it enough, the fact that it's so easy to make any decision is actually quite scary. You could make or ruin, and you never know which one. My best advice is to never think about the depth again after reading this post. Thinking too much can be another bad yet simple decision.

 

[Alex.]

If I typed like I talked I could imagine plenty of people not getting what I'm trying to say.

not boasting but i make people at school laugh alot at school with my various accents.

i like infinite thoughts, and they are on my mind quite often, such as how did all the different races originate

eg.

white causican
to
Black african

 

[OZZYGT]

In regards of the food/trash talk (no pun intended), it's funny how some people eat food the day before it expires and they would refuse to do it 1 day after the expiration date. I mean, how stupid is that? or isn't it?

I drink a glass of milk at 11:30 pm and I'm fine, now, if I drink one at 12:10am will I get sick?

Some other people throw the product out a couple days before its expiration date, that I can understand. But eat it just before it expires and not eating eat a while after it? Gotta love humanity.











Ciao!

 

[TopHat]

When you come to think of it, fast food might just be as unhealthy for us as expired/raw food. All of those calories will add up, unless you need all of them for a sport. Remember, calories are a unit of energy, not how fattening the food is. So hypothetically, if you want energy, but cant stand energy bars/drinks, just grab a burger from BK or McDonalds. But when you do, it is considered unhealthy, because it has so many calories. Most people think that calories are bad because calories=weight gain. But this is only true if you don't work it off. If you do, you are perfectly healthy, and have no ill effects.

 

[OZZYGT]

I ain't talking about fast food my friend. I'm talking about packed food that you find in Super markets. Fast food being unhealthy? that's another topic, but I'm reffering to the kind of people that neglect to eat a yogurt because it expired 12 hours ago.






Ciao!

 

[TopHat]

Kinda like the stuff in my freezer....

 

[Danoff]

Along with what danoff said, imagine how such a simple decision could change your life forever.

Not even necessarily a decision you make. When you apply to a college, you either get a yes or a no. If you really wanted to go to that school, the yes makes your life great - the no makes it miserable, and there is no in-between. The same can be said for passing or failing certain tests. Either you pass and life is great, or you fail and life is terrible.

These kinds of binary decisions strike me as particularly odd because it seems like there should be some kind of middle ground - but there is not.

I know someone who considered breaking up with his girlfriend right before he proposed marriage. It seems like an odd discussion to be having, break up or get married. What about the middle ground? But sometimes the middle ground can't be had.

Food or trash. It's one or the other.

 

[Keef]

Ahh, the middle ground. Hmm... There really isn't any, is there? That's ridiculous.

When you come to think of it, fast food might just be as unhealthy for us as expired/raw food. All of those calories will add up, unless you need all of them for a sport. Remember, calories are a unit of energy, not how fattening the food is. So hypothetically, if you want energy, but cant stand energy bars/drinks, just grab a burger from BK or McDonalds. But when you do, it is considered unhealthy, because it has so many calories. Most people think that calories are bad because calories=weight gain. But this is only true if you don't work it off. If you do, you are perfectly healthy, and have no ill effects.

I've flipped over the McDonald's placemat aproximately three times in the hundreds of times I've been there in the past few years. I don't know the technicals about how they prepare their food except that it gets heated in a drawer. I just don't understand why fast food is so unhealthy. They shape beef into patties, pre-cook it to government health standards, and heat it up again. I believe Jimmy Dean does the same. Burger King grills the thing right in front of you. I'd rather eat a professionally prepared meal--especially from a real restaurant--than a is-it-done-yet? burger off my grill, but that's just me.

 

[Philly]

Ain't it great that there are life-changing choices? Imagine if there were no choices that would end up changing your life forever? Would we all be the same? Or would life just repeat itself over and over? If life changing decisions did not exist, could we predict what each person would be doing in the Future? Don't know. Those decisions are pretty powerful when one considers the whole world.

About those decisions that are life changing. Are they really as important to us as they could be if we could accuratly experience what both paths would look like? If a girl says no, you haven't experienced life with her, so you have no idea of what you are missing. You just get your experiences to look at.

I have often considered such things as this. What would the world be like if Napoleon did not invade Russia? What if Luther hadn't split from the Catholic Church? How about if people hadn't crossed over into America thousands of years ago?

We can only wonder...

On fast food. My theory is that it is really plastic. Ever seen the fries in Supersize Me?

 

[dylansan]

Me and my dad had some deap thoughts, I'll try to explain it in the morning, but while you wait, I'll tell you that we basically discovered, wether or not we're right, that infinity=0, and nothing's greater than x, but y>nothing, yet x>y?

Also we talked about infinite senses, the time dimesion, direction, distance from infinity, similies, and basically everything else. What is nothing made of anyway?

 

[Danoff]

I'll tell you that we basically discovered, wether or not we're right, that infinity=0, and nothing's greater than x, but y>nothing, yet x>y?

I think I speak for everyone here when I say.... whaaaat?

 

[Danoff]

I read yesterday that the word "because" originates from the words "by" and "cause"... ok, not thinking that deep on Friday.

 

[OZZYGT]

Usually your brain tends to get Fried by Friday.



Ciao!

 

[dylansan]

Ok, here's part of it, i hate similies a lot. when people compare things that have no similar measurements it makes me really angry. "That orange tastes better than a skyscraper is tall." There needs to be a universal measurement, that measures taste, distance, etc.

 

[Danoff]

Another example of the binary system of outcomes that I was discussing earlier in this thread occurred when Tony Romo botched the potentially game-winning field goal snap a week ago as the Cowboys and Seahawks battled in the playoffs.

Once the snap was clearly botched, Romo stood up and ran for the first down. If he'd gotten far enough, he would be a hero, forever known as the guy who got it done and won the game despite significant setbacks. If he didn't get far enough, he's the guy who lost the game when the team appeared to be poised for victory.

Funny how that happens. As he's running, everyone knows that he's about to either be the greatest guy ever, or the worst. He came up just inches short.

 

[Danoff]

I was in the shower yesterday when it dawned on me - I do my best thinking in the shower. I think it's because I'm on complete auto-pilot and have nothing to do but think. I'm stuck with nothing to engage my mind, so it ends up wandering to all sorts of subjects, putting things together, drawing conclusions/comparisons etc.


Meta-Deep Thoughts. Having deep thoughts about having deep thoughts. Adds a whole new dimension.

 

[exigeracer]

Has your mind ever been so focused on one thing in the shower that you are standing there with wet hair, not knowing if you shampooed and washed it yet? This has happened to me a couple of times, and I only find out if I wash my hair again, and it either feels already clean or not.

Often the fact that I didn't know if I had washed it or not is far more interesting than what I was thinking about anyways. Thank you brain.

 

[TB]

Is that anything like when I drove 4 miles from a friends house the day before proposing to my then girlfriend, now wife, driving into my garage and not remembering the previous 3.5 miles?

 

[Sage]

Has your mind ever been so focused on one thing in the shower that you are standing there with wet hair, not knowing if you shampooed and washed it yet? This has happened to me a couple of times, and I only find out if I wash my hair again, and it either feels already clean or not.

That happens to me almost every single day for some reason.

Is that anything like when I drove 4 miles from a friends house the day before proposing to my then girlfriend, now wife, driving into my garage and not remembering the previous 3.5 miles?

Ah, driving coma. Has happened to me too.

 

[dylansan]

If everyone's main purpose in life was to allow the generations ahead of them to enjoy life, then life is pointless.
(If you spend time keeping the world "healthy" and don't have fun, then what was the point of the people before you doing the same thing? Basically, you have to live life, wether or not it slightly speeds up global warming or something...)

 

[OZZYGT]

Is that anything like when I drove 4 miles from a friends house the day before proposing to my then girlfriend, now wife, driving into my garage and not remembering the previous 3.5 miles?

Yeah that has happened to me too, it's damn scary.

 

[Touring Mars]

OK, so we know that most of the mass of the universe is invisible - so-called Dark Matter which does not emit light. The rest of the universe is, in principle, visible because it does emit light. However, there are objects in the visible universe that we cannot see because they are at a point in space further away than the distance which the light emitted from the object could possibly have traveled... i.e. if a 1 billion year old star lies 2 billion light years away from Earth, it has only emitted light for 1 billion years, and therefore the light from the star will not reach Earth for another 1 billion years. So how much of the universe is not visible simply because it's further away (in light years) than the object has been visible for (emitting light)? It's weird to think that it is not possible to see even the very closest objects to us as they are right now... it's even weirder to think that there are objects out there that will never be seen from this galaxy...

 

[Keef]

Ok, here's part of it, i hate similies a lot. when people compare things that have no similar measurements it makes me really angry. "That orange tastes better than a skyscraper is tall." There needs to be a universal measurement, that measures taste, distance, etc.

So, you disbelieve in similes? I hate it when people don't realize that similes are a very important part of a language. By your standards there would be no way to decide whether an apple tastes better than an orange. To say the apple tastes better than the orange doesn't mean very much, because they taste entirely different. But, when you say "That orange is as a good as a skyscraper is tall!" it makes perfect sense.

See, a skyscraper is really tall. An orange is really tasty.

I bet you've used a simile more than once just today.

 

[Metar]

OK, so we know that most of the mass of the universe is invisible - so-called Dark Matter which does not emit light. The rest of the universe is, in principle, visible because it does emit light. However, there are objects in the visible universe that we cannot see because they are at a point in space further away than the distance which the light emitted from the object could possibly have traveled... i.e. if a 1 billion year old star lies 2 billion light years away from Earth, it has only emitted light for 1 billion years, and therefore the light from the star will not reach Earth for another 1 billion years. So how much of the universe is not visible simply because it's further away (in light years) than the object has been visible for (emitting light)? It's weird to think that it is not possible to see even the very closest objects to us as they are right now... it's even weirder to think that there are objects out there that will never be seen from this galaxy...

I'm very, very unsure, but my first thought would be that everything should be visible, at least at first, since everything came from the same spot in the first place.

I mean, if, say, the universe was empty, and somehow starts popped up all over it, then you'd be answered that a lot of the universe is hidden. However, assuming the usual big-bang stuff, everything comes from the same starting-point. Hence, everything is visible, since nothing moves faster than light - and everything comes from the same place. There may be a delay between things happening and seeing them - that planet you spoke of might explode hundrets of millions of years before we see it - but theoretically, everything is visible.

Which raises a question - what if point A and point B move at more-than-half the speed of light, at opposite direction? My answer would be that they'd be visible, just with a larger delay... But that's why I don't know and others do.


And speaking of deep thoughts, I still occasionally laugh at my discovery of Eggrolls. Because they really are Egg Rolls. Rolled egg-based dough, or something like that. Hence eggrolls

 

[Stevisiov]

OK, so we know that most of the mass of the universe is invisible - so-called Dark Matter which does not emit light. The rest of the universe is, in principle, visible because it does emit light. However, there are objects in the visible universe that we cannot see because they are at a point in space further away than the distance which the light emitted from the object could possibly have traveled... i.e. if a 1 billion year old star lies 2 billion light years away from Earth, it has only emitted light for 1 billion years, and therefore the light from the star will not reach Earth for another 1 billion years. So how much of the universe is not visible simply because it's further away (in light years) than the object has been visible for (emitting light)? It's weird to think that it is not possible to see even the very closest objects to us as they are right now... it's even weirder to think that there are objects out there that will never be seen from this galaxy...

I must say it does seem odd that we see everything as it used to look rather than how it currently looks. The amazing thing is everything we see on earth is happening (near as makes no difference relative to us) right here right now. because light travels so fast, if fact if there is delay between someone waving at me from 2 miles away, it is not distance but the time it takes for for our brain to resgister what our eyes are telling us ( which again is extremely fast ) What makes it even more weird is that if we tilt our head upwards and look at the stars, we are now looking at light that hasn't been reflected for millions of years.

It seems strange that if the sun disappeared right this second, we wouldn't even know 7 minutes later. To us it would still be shining away on like it does on a warm summers day. The reality it wouldn't fade until aprox. 8 minutes after it completely disappears. When young and I first heard about a supernova they had just taken a photo of, the demolition caused had ceased thousands of years ago but it was only just exploding to us on earth. Unusual yet at the same time makes perfect sense.

P.S I am glad this thread has re-emerged, I had not previously known of it. I do enjoy deep thought, I am hoping to see some really interesting post in the future.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm very, very unsure, but my first thought would be that everything should be visible, at least at first, since everything came from the same spot in the first place.

I mean, if, say, the universe was empty, and somehow starts popped up all over it, then you'd be answered that a lot of the universe is hidden. However, assuming the usual big-bang stuff, everything comes from the same starting-point. Hence, everything is visible, since nothing moves faster than light - and everything comes from the same place. There may be a delay between things happening and seeing them - that planet you spoke of might explode hundrets of millions of years before we see it - but theoretically, everything is visible.

Which raises a question - what if point A and point B move at more-than-half the speed of light, at opposite direction? My answer would be that they'd be visible, just with a larger delay... But that's why I don't know and others do.

Not everything is visible in theory... disregarding dark matter for a moment, there is plenty of normal matter that we can't see directly - only indirectly. A black hole (which is made of normal matter) is, by definition, not visible... but we know that they are there because of how they affect light coming from visible objects. There is also plenty of ordinary matter - gas clouds, clouds of organic matter etc. which are only detectable by virtue of the light they obscure, i.e. they don't emit light themselves.

But, more significantly, there's the 'visible', light-emitting (shining) matter that we would be able to see if only we were closer to it... we know that the universe must be far bigger than we can possibly see, even in theory... we know that the universe is 14 billion years old, yet we can see objects at a distance of ~14 billion years away from Earth in all directions... therefore, we know that there are objects that are atleast 28 billion light years apart - and there's nothing to suggest that the universe does not extend far beyond the theoretical limit beyond which we cannot possibly see. This observable fact also puts paid to the belief that all matter in the universe once came from the same point... unless the matter has travelled at the speed of light since the Big Bang (which is not possible), there couldn't possibly be two objects 28 billion light years (and further) apart - but there is... Based on our observations from Earth, we can see that the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions. If all matter originated from 'the same spot', this shouldn't be the case. If you picture yourself being on a galaxy at the 'edge' of the universe, you should be able to look in one direction and see a concentration of material converging toward the point of origin, and nothing in the opposite direction. What we actually see is not like that at all - there is no discernible centre to the Universe... all we can say is that we are at the centre of our observable universe, but then again, so is everything else...

I must say it does seem odd that we see everything as it used to look rather than how it currently looks. The amazing thing is everything we see on earth is happening (near as makes no difference relative to us) right here right now. because light travels so fast, if fact if there is delay between someone waving at me from 2 miles away, it is not distance but the time it takes for for our brain to resgister what our eyes are telling us ( which again is extremely fast ) What makes it even more weird is that if we tilt our head upwards and look at the stars, we are now looking at light that hasn't been reflected for millions of years.

It seems strange that if the sun disappeared right this second, we wouldn't even know 7 minutes later. To us it would still be shining away on like it does on a warm summers day. The reality it wouldn't fade until aprox. 8 minutes after it completely disappears. When young and I first heard about a supernova they had just taken a photo of, the demolition caused had ceased thousands of years ago but it was only just exploding to us on earth. Unusual yet at the same time makes perfect sense.

Yeh, the opposite of my original 'question' is also true... alot of what we can see right now isn't actually there anymore, yet there's plenty that is there that we cannot see yet!

 

[Metar]

I think I should've stressed the "Theoretical" part of my post more. What I said is only what my logic tells me is possible - and I'm aware that some things don't emit any light themselves, or that black holes are by definition "invisible".

I just said that, according to my logiv, given a long enough exposure, everything that emits light (read: is visible in the first place, though maybe not for us) should be visible. But again, as you have proven, it isn't true.

 

[Tulok]

Every time i think of the origin of God, it feels bad, like, I know we all came from god, but where did he... just makes me feel like i'm sinning. It is weird

Light is relative to speed, because us seeing light is relative to what it gets bounced off of, so we speed it up every time we see sometihng moving. or smething...

 

[Stevisiov]

Every time i think of the origin of God, it feels bad, like, I know we all came from god, but where did he... just makes me feel like i'm sinning. It is weird

Light is relative to speed, because us seeing light is relative to what it gets bounced off of, so we speed it up every time we see sometihng moving. or smething...

I didn't quite catch that.

I often like to think about relative speed, the way my pathetic logic understands is that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light (relative speed) because we have mass. However the while the relative speed will not change in a vacuum, its speed is effected my the direction and speed of the object that emits it. The speed will be 299,792,458 (speed of light) plus whatever the speed of the object it is emitted from, (assuming they are both going in the same direction.

The reason I assume this is because. While I am stood still doing 0 mph, I am actually rotating around the earth at whatever speed, I am also hurtling around the sun at thousands of mph, crashing around the out region of our galaxy, immense speed, plus Speeding through the universe at unknown speed, so basically relative to the universe I am traveling at millions mph. relative to me I am doing 0mph.

In this respect, If I was not hurtling through the universe and was absolutly still i.e 0mph, in a vacuum emitting light, then light would travel at 299,792,458m/s exactly. However If I was traveling at 10,000m/s, in a direction, then light emitted in the same direction I travel will travel 299,792,458 plus 10,000m/s, therefore 299,802,458, while the light emitted in the complete opposite direction to my travel will travel at 299,792,458 minus 10,000mph therefore 299,782,458m/s this means to an observer traveling at 0m/s light will travel faster in one direction, in this case 20,000m/s difference yet relative to me they are are both traveling equal speed away from me, it sounds weird yet obvious at the same time. How can they travel at different speeds yet at the same speed?

Well the same can happen with difference if we talk about relative distance. My school physics teacher mentioned this bit in class one day. If you are inside a train doing 100 mph, you bounce a ball 1 meter down. like in this diagram.


Relative to you the ball drops directly down and back up, one meter down one meter up.

Now here comes the difference. Relative to an external observer. Things change. Here is the same bounce observed by someone else outside the train.

Relative to the observer off the train the ball will actually travel much further, there is no right or wrong answer only how it is observed. If you do a 100meter sprint, relative to the sun will travel thousands of metres by the end of the race, relative to you it is just a petty 100meters you will travel.

As previously stated this is how light travels at different speeds however its relative speed never changes unless it comes into contact with other things e.g air.

Its interesting to think about and probably incorrect, since it is the mere assumptions of a 16 year old, nonetheless it is something to think about.

 

[BobK]

In this respect, If I was not hurtling through the universe and was absolutly still i.e 0mph, in a vacuum emitting light, then light would travel at 299,792,458m/s exactly. However If I was traveling at 10,000m/s, in a direction, then light emitted in the same direction I travel will travel 299,792,458 plus 10,000m/s, therefore 299,802,458, while the light emitted in the complete opposite direction to my travel will travel at 299,792,458 minus 10,000mph therefore 299,782,458m/s this means to an observer traveling at 0m/s light will travel faster in one direction, in this case 20,000m/s difference yet relative to me they are are both traveling equal speed away from me, it sounds weird yet obvious at the same time. How can they travel at different speeds yet at the same speed?

Not quite, I'm afraid. The speed of light is always the same. It is not affected by the speed of the light source, nor is it affected by the speed of the observer.

Let's say you were traveling towards me at 10,000 m/s and aimed a beam of light at me. You would measure the speed of your light beam and find that it's traveling at 299,792,458 m/s. I could measure the same beam and I would also find that its speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Same if you were moving away instead of towards me. Not 299,802,458 or 299,782,458, but 299,792,458. For both of us. Either way.

Furthermore, let's say you were traveling at 10,000 m/s and I'm just standing still as you go past me. You're shining a beam of light in your direction of travel and a second one in the opposite direction. You could measure the speed of both beams and find them to be 299,792,458 m/s. As you go past me I could measure the same two beams and again, I would measure both speeds at 299,792,458 m/s. Not 299,802,458 or 299,782,458 m/s.

This seems to make no sense at all because it's so contrary to everyday experience. But it's the way it works.

And if you think that is weird, wait until you get into quantum mechanics!