I've just been proofreading someones' fanfic. In one of the later scenes, a cocky young Incubus gets into an argument with Fa'Lina and calls her a 'clever bitch'*.
Since Fa'Lina literally is a female dog, I would guess the word 'bitch' is not considered an insult among Furrae, at least not in the same way as among humans.
Any thoughts on the matter?
*Actually it was "cleaver bitch" but I'll let that pass
I guess the real question is if you should refere to yourself as a dog/cat/etc or cubi/being/etc or both (cubi-cat (http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/ItosAtio/Smilies/tongue.gif)).
It's only an insult if it's taken as one. :razz
:yeahthat
In Paladin's story, the mouse cubi yells "You bitch!" at the villian as an insult. So I think it's mostly the intent behind it that determines the meaning.
I totally agree with the sentiment of something only being an insult as long as it's taken as one because these days, most languages are so twisted that they're beyond recognition. I find it really funny how some relatively normal words have picked up incredibly lewd connotations. One such example of this is douche. I'm not being dirty, it's right there in the dictionary, dirtyness is brought into it by the minds of the people who accept the current lingo as lore and law.
Eventually, I think that every word within the English language is going to have some kind of insulting or dirty connotation. I can see a distant century, let's say ... the 22nd, where people are running around and calling each other teapots, armchairs and waterfalls.
Still, I imagine that furrae would have some new connotations based on words relative to their World. I suppose that 'bitch' in particular would have a new base (dictionary) meaning that has little to do with canines. Though that's only an assumption. I geek over stuff like this anyway, it's fascinating to me.
Quote from: Rowne on July 12, 2006, 07:14:29 PM
Still, I imagine that furrae would have some new connotations based on words relative to their World. I suppose that 'bitch' in particular would have a new base (dictionary) meaning that has little to do with canines. Though that's only an assumption. I geek over stuff like this anyway, it's fascinating to me.
I note that Dan calls Lorenda a 'fat cow' and she takes it as a compliment. There's several ways of interpreting that strip, though, as to whether Dan was actually trying to offend her or not. Alexsi shows surprise, though which makes things yet more confusing.
Do you dream in colour?
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 07:27:40 PMI note that Dan calls Lorenda a 'fat cow' and she takes it as a compliment. There's several ways of interpreting that strip, though, as to whether Dan was actually trying to offend her or not. Alexsi shows surprise, though which makes things yet more confusing.
Do you dream in colour?
Good point.
Though Alexsi might've been surprised at the fat aspect. For example, if Cows have bulk by default then it would be accepted that they're not fat, they're simply representing their average build. I'd think that perhaps Alexsi was surprised at Dan being facetious and a bit controversial. On one hand, he was making a statement of the obvious and on the other, it might've been a bit of an underhanded insult to anyone not a Cow, since Cows likely don't see weight as a negative aspect.
That's the best I can come up with, anyway. Not the greatest, I admit but it does seem to fit Dan's personality profile. He seems to be like that.
As for dreaming in colour, not sure where that one came from but many Scientific journals swear that it's not possible. I'd say I've dreamed in colour numerous times but it might simply be my mind adding colour to the dream after the effect.
I wish I could actually dream in greyscale and remember it in greyscale though, that might inspire my mind to create gumshoe-ish noir dreams and those would be
very entertaining.
If you can't dream in color, how are you able to describe a certain object in said dream as a certain color? I distinctly remember a glowing orange street-light in a particularly frightening dream I had when I was little.
it's not language-related, it's region-related. for example, in portuguese we have the word "puto" which in brazil means being angry, while in portugal means kid. not to mention "puta" (it has the same meaning as the word in spanish :mowtongue )
so, bitch likely indeed meant to be something that has nothing to do with dog.
Quote from: ×HaZ×MaT× on July 12, 2006, 07:38:05 PM
If you can't dream in color, how are you able to describe a certain object in said dream as a certain color? I distinctly remember a glowing orange street-light in a particularly frightening dream I had when I was little.
The boffins would argue that you saw a glowing grayscale lamp and that your mind added the most appropriate colour after.
I believe what you're saying, mind you, I'm just providing you with the official "How is it possible?" answer, since that seems to be better than any personal opinions of my own.
I can't be completely sure but I'm betting that some people can indeed dream in colour, perhaps it's just a rare thing or something that the boffins are completely wrong about.
Maybe they're just pulling it out of their bung-holes like string-theory. :rolleyes And wouldn't the most logical color for a streetlight be white, yellow, or somewhere inbetween?
This is entirely possible!
Also, it might be that it's more like being colourblind than grayscale, I don't remember the details exactly. There are some crazy theories out there, though.
The reason I believed it is because when I think about my dreams, I'll be able to think that "Yes, I think that item was purple." but when asked if I actually perceived it as purple whilst sleeping or simply assumed purple as the most logical colour after waking, I couldn't say.
I can't exactly examine my own dreams that well yet. I've worked at lucid dreaming but I've had zero success there too, so ... Iono.
Hehe... that is pretty funny. You CEO!
I think I dream in color because once, I dreamt I was in a candy store, and I couldn't decide between the yellow, green, and purple jawbreakers. And there were happy blue and yellow VW buses driving on the streets and in the parking deck. Yes... a small look into my unconcious mind. :help
Yep.
I admit though that the reason I took that theory as a possibility is because I have an affinity for butt-hole theories. Usually it seems that the crazier theories are today, the more likely it becomes that they're going to proven fact tomorrow.
There are those though that simply have too much evidence to be true and the one about dreaming seems to be one of those.
I suppose another reason is that I've had some particularly vivid dreams and I can't particularly spot the colours of certain items in them. Like, there was this one dream (and I believe I've spoken about this on this very board before) ...
It involved a supermarket, lots of people sitting around in deckchairs and reading books, newspapers and assorted things. I pull out a deckchair, sit down and start nosing through my own whatever-it-is. At this point, a multi-coloured Dog wandered up to my somniferous avatar and declared a hearty "Hi!"
I recall that Dog being multicoloured, I still can't remember what colours he was though. I think he was striped and rainbowish, can't say for sure.
I think this might be why they're convinced that we don't dream in colour ... because they reviewed a bunch of people like me who're terrible at remembering certain details of their dreams. :p
----
Then again, it's not exactly colours that I have trouble with alone, either. If I remember my dreams correctly (which I likely don't), it seems that anyone who isn't involved within the particular story of a dream is faceless. Much like that recent and very creepy episode of Doctor Who. Just wandering vague bodies with no particular detail to them, plodding around and doing vague and unimportant things.
From this, I have to assume that some people can simply retain more knowledge about their dreamscape than others and I'm one of those who, whilst being able to grab the gist of dreams, has trouble with the details.
Hmm... Perhapsit's possible to dream too many colors. As you said, the dog in your dream was multi-colored, but you couldn't remember exactly what colors the dog was. Maybe you can only dream a limited number of colors, 16-bit color on your computer seems to be a fitting analogy. Same would go for your faceless random characters. If, in your dreams, it's not important, why put detail into it? Seems probable that your brain would be conserving 'processing' power, much like a video game.
I'm particularly pleased by this analogy.
It would make sense though that the mind wouldn't stress itself over details, going simply for broad creativity rather than uninteresting minutae. After all, it isn't the concious mind that's in the driving seat when we dream, it's that part of the mind that handles little details and the comprehension of them. Which is why I believe we also can't read when we're dreaming.
In all honesty, the main reason I would avoid using a word like bitch in the comic is because I'm well aware of the impact it has in our society. In DMFA standards it likely wouldn't even have a meaning, much less an insult. The closet it would come would likely be in describing a non-sentient canine...so it would be the equivalent of anyone here calling someone a chimpanzee.(which while some anti-evolutionary folk might get upset, its considered pretty lame/mild in terms of insult) And even that comparison is prettly flat.
While I'm sure there would be very colourful and creative new swearwords to properly insult a various creature or being, odds are I won't bother too much. If the characters insult the other, I usually try to be more clever in their insults than resorting to a buzzword.
Do I dream in color? I think so, but that's kind of hard to really answer concretely. Dreams are an odd state of mind. I seem to recall reading that the areas of the brain that govern logic are supressed when dreaming. Given that, it's no wonder that dreams can be so illogical. I can't explain very well in words the things I remember from my dreams because no words exist to really describe them. It's often hard to differentiate between strands of thought in the way we would while awake. Interestingly enough, I have had dreams where I realized I was dreaming and had some amount of success in altering the outcome. For a while a couple years back I was frequently able to realize I was having a nightmare and then use a quick upper body movement to jerk myself awake. Anyway, sorry for the derail, just felt like adding my 2 cents in.
...Normally, I'd consider this off-topic, but as the question has been answered and a new topic presented I feel that this thread is fair game.
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 07:27:40 PM
*Snip* Do you dream in colour?
To questions like this, I reply
Does it matter? Is there any way of finding out one way or another? If not, then I really don't see the point. It's like asking 'Where did the matter that exploded in the big bang come from?' or (alternatively), 'Where did God come from?' Impossible to get a sure answer.
Quote from: Eibbor_N on July 13, 2006, 01:18:15 AMWhere did the matter that exploded in the big bang come from?'
Ooh ooh, pick me pick me! I had this theory awhile back about this particular matter. (No pun intended)
The way I see it, everything in the 'big bang' has and always will be. To begin, let's start near the end; Black holes ravage the universe, growing ever larger in mass and smaller in volume. The inconcievably large masses consum everything, even eachother. No matter what the distance, gravity will sooner or later cause these large masses to come together in one large super-black hole. All the matter in the universe in a single object the size of a micron. The gravity caused by this mass causes the black hole to fully collapse into anything but less than nothing. This is the time right before the big bang. What causes the black hole to explode? Not sure, but every element in the known and unkown universe combined in such a fashion is inevitably going to cause some sort of reaction. So yeah, the whole thing explodes spreading matter all across the universe. Then the whole thing starts over again.
Quote from: Eibbor_N on July 13, 2006, 01:18:15 AM
To questions like this, I reply Does it matter? Is there any way of finding out one way or another? If not, then I really don't see the point. It's like asking 'Where did the matter that exploded in the big bang come from?' or (alternatively), 'Where did God come from?' Impossible to get a sure answer.
Just to play devil's advocate (or maybe just the devil herself) those cavemen probably never believed in such far-fetched fantasies like the lightbulb. So we might figure it out one day. Or maybe not. :meh That is, assuming the apocalypse doesn't kill us all first. *whistles a happy tune* :boom
The big bang theory was always too normal for me, it didn't seem romantic enough. I prefer the idea of dimensional planes crossing over each other, myself, which would help explain the relatively flat nature of the Universe (we're in an envelope after all, pretty much, as opposed to a sphere).
Of course, those theories are unlikely and it's quite possible the Universe will have been borne of the most boring and predictable idea but the day I accept the most boring idea is the day I stop being Rowne!
I prefer the "It's all in your mind, Neo" version. Because that means that at some point I might get to ninja fight Hugo Weaving.
Gah, I should have known that my sign-off comment would be taken literally.
It's actually an obscure song by Bill Nelson from 1980. If I wanted to know if people dreamed in colour I would probably have asked the APF.
I should have used that line from 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' instead.
Quote from: Rowne on July 13, 2006, 01:53:30 AM
The big bang theory was always too normal for me, it didn't seem romantic enough. I prefer the idea of dimensional planes crossing over each other, myself, which would help explain the relatively flat nature of the Universe (we're in an envelope after all, pretty much, as opposed to a sphere).
That's just our Milky Way. The universe has a roughly sphericle shape.
Rowne Posted on: Today at 01:14:06
Quote from: Rowne
Eventually, I think that every word within the English language is going to have some kind of insulting or dirty connotation. I can see a distant century, let's say ... the 22nd, where people are running around and calling each other teapots, armchairs and waterfalls.
Like in Victorian England, it was quite hard to speak a sentence without mentioning at least 5 euphemisms for female genitalia, and another 3 for intercourse.
Quote from: Rowne on July 13, 2006, 01:53:30 AM
The big bang theory was always too normal for me, it didn't seem romantic enough. I prefer the idea of dimensional planes crossing over each other, myself, which would help explain the relatively flat nature of the Universe.
You mean like in the M-theory?
That's not exactly what I was thinking of but it's fascinating reading material and that's always appreciated. More distractions from other things I should be doing! I'll be sitting here reading M-Theory related things for a while to see if any of it clicks with what I was thinking of. Regardless though, it seems as though they're striking for the most outlandish of theories with 11 dimensions and I can't help but love that.
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 13, 2006, 03:55:34 AM
Gah, I should have known that my sign-off comment would be taken literally.
It's actually an obscure song by Bill Nelson from 1980. If I wanted to know if people dreamed in colour I would probably have asked the APF.
I should have used that line from 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' instead.
Heh... well, it made for interesting conversation. If pointless. Hey, FVK. We just wanna end your world...
Quote from: Hilary on July 13, 2006, 05:35:37 AM
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 13, 2006, 03:55:34 AM
Gah, I should have known that my sign-off comment would be taken literally.
It's actually an obscure song by Bill Nelson from 1980. If I wanted to know if people dreamed in colour I would probably have asked the APF.
I should have used that line from 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' instead.
Heh... well, it made for interesting conversation. If pointless. Hey, FVK. We just wanna end your world...
http://nice.purrsia.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=79;t=001967;p=18#000427
In any case, my query about the word 'bitch' in Furrae seems to have been answered adequately. If people want to talk about cosmology instead, that's cool. I think plasma theory is the way to go.
"Steady-State" versus "Big Bang" theories are fun, but the Big Bang appears to have overthrown all opponents. Apparently due to people liking the idea of things blowing up...
The bang-crunch-bang-crunch theory is another old one, as well. Only problem is, we can't tell anything about anything before the singularity, or afterwards, for that matter, so the difference between a single bang, and a series of bang-crunches is, from our point of view, irrelevant thought experiments.
I did note the recent threory put out by Hawkings and Hawkins (I think) that someone linked from their LJ - only problem is finding the damn thing.
Quote from: llearch on July 13, 2006, 08:19:02 AM
"Steady-State" versus "Big Bang" theories are fun, but the Big Bang appears to have overthrown all opponents. Apparently due to people liking the idea of things blowing up...
It has been observed that the cosmology theory-of-the-day often reflects the political climate and regime. I can't remember the complete list of examples given, but it went something like this:
* Ancient Greeks (?) decide the Universe is eternal
* (oppressive regime) decides Universe is finite
* (??) decides Universe is eternal (again)
* Dark ages: the doctrine of Creation
Ex Nihilo and the general concept that God made the Universe and He will eventually come along and un-make it
* 1900s : Steady-state theory
* Cold war : Big Bang theory
* Cold war ends : Cracks start to form in Big Bang
I'm fairly sure the Bang-Crunch thing has kind of faltered. It's been a long time since I've dealt with this kind of cosmology, but IIRC there were three basic 'fates' : Closed, Flat and Open. Closed is where the expansion velocity is small enough that it collapses again, Flat is where it is completely in balance, and Open is where it is large enough that it keeps on expanding. IIRC it was determined that we appear to have a Flat universe.
As I say, it's been a while, but I'm not convinced of the Big Bang theory myself.. it seems to have too many hacks and bodges to make it work.
*Charles nods* Beat me to it there. Gravity isn't the main influence behind the shape of the universe. Space itself is expanding, and with a flat universe it will do so forever. But that brings up the interesting questions of how fast is it expanding and what exactly is it expanding into? If it is truly expanding into absolutely nothing, a region devoid of even our quantum principles, there's no way to ever know the answers because we can only measure by referencing our universe! That's like trying to measure the speed a spacecraft is traveling while being sealed inside said spacecraft. We have no relative measure if everything outside is nothingness. But, that need not be true, since we can't see beyond the 'edge'. It could be that our current universe is in fact expanding into a previous one that simply expanded so much as to become stretched to the point where it had nearly become a pure vacuum. In that case, we may be the Nth universe in existence, in a string of endless expansions. *sighs* I need to be immortal... so much universe, so little time. :mowwink
I like to think there are multiple universes/dimensions each containing their own laws of physics and the whole thing about gravity being a relatively weak force due to it being 'shared' throught several dimensions. It all makes you think, which is good. It's fun to think what is beyond the universe, if their are other universes, or just nothing. (Man I could ramble on and on about this suff, it's just so intruiging.) Another fun thing to think about is that the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. Which brings up the question of how fast are we moving through time and space? How could we check? Is there anyone stationary object in the universe(s) that we could measure raltive speed to? Or perhaps the whole universe is moving... Ow, my brain hurts.
Quote from: ×HaZ×MaT× on July 13, 2006, 05:04:05 PMAnother fun thing to think about is that the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. Which brings up the question of how fast are we moving through time and space?
Lightspeed, that is why Photons don't age.
Quote from: ×HaZ×MaT× on July 13, 2006, 05:04:05 PMIs there anyone stationary object in the universe(s) that we could measure raltive speed to?
Thanks to Einstein there is no way of telling what is moving and what is standing still. :mowtongue
It really wouldn't matter, though, because if everything were maving at near the speed of light, whereas we would be moving through time very slowly, and suddenly nearly stopped, in which case we would all be moving through time extremely quickly, we wouldn't tell because it's all relative.
Quote from: ×HaZ×MaT× on July 13, 2006, 05:41:18 PM
It really wouldn't matter, though, because if everything were maving at near the speed of light, whereas we would be moving through time very slowly, and suddenly nearly stopped, in which case we would all be moving through time extremely quickly, we wouldn't tell because it's all relative.
We can get close by going to the extremes... I'm not so sure though, was some time since I read this but at 0 K there is no movement. At least no changes in movement, I think... err... :help
:mowdizzy
That would make a lot more sense if I knew what 0 K was.
Quote from: ×HaZ×MaT× on July 13, 2006, 05:58:17 PM
That would make a lot more sense if I knew what 0 K was.
Absolute zero , 0 kelvin, no heat at all.
Ohhhh, ok, I get it. Well, it's the molecules within the object that aren't moving relative to the object itself. However, the object could still move through a vacuum freely.
Well thanks for clearing that all up peoples
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 13, 2006, 03:55:34 AM
Gah, I should have known that my sign-off comment would be taken literally.
It's actually an obscure song by Bill Nelson from 1980. If I wanted to know if people dreamed in colour I would probably have asked the APF.
I don't know if anyone cares, or even if I'm supposed to do this, but I've just found the video for 'Do you dream in colour?' on YouTube. I've been looking for this for about 22 years.
The video was shot entirely on 8mm in his house, and it's just as freaky and cool as I remember - if not more so.
Since I'm not sure if posting a link to incredibly rare copyrighted film is considered virtuous in this forum, I'll just give directions:
Search for 'Bill Nelson' on YouTube. Currently DYDIC is about the third one down.
Enjoy.
I'm almost certain that this thread has had the most awesome off-topic branches ever (in the shortest time possible). Gonna check out the video once I'm done studying today's part, it sure sounds interesting :)
I vote this thread be reanamed 'The Abstract Theories Thread.' :razz
They're not abstract enough.
I mean, has anyone brought up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-)
That's just plain ridiculous. :rolleyes
Does anyone know if Lucas Oil exists? I see them sponsoring everything there is to sponsor in the lesser motorsports world, but have yet to see an actual product by them in any store.
http://www.lucasoil.com/
:razz
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on July 24, 2006, 01:04:14 PM
They're not abstract enough.
I mean, has anyone brought up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-)
RAMEN, BROTHER!
Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.
:funnay
I hate you clip! GO AWAY!!!!
*Ahem* Anyway.
On the subject of dreams, I'm afraid I've never remembered any of mine but one. It was a nightmare in which I figured out I was dreaming and, after doing some running from the monster I still couldn't do anything about, I got myself to wake up. I don't remember there being any color at all, but the dream did look like an old horror film to me, so maybe that's why the dream seemed black and white....
Oh and:
Hi! It's me first post! Joy!
Back on the subject of the expanding universe, something that was discovered around a decade or so ago that kind of threw a lot of things on their side, in terms of extreme cosmology (edge of known space/beginning of time type cosmology) has to do with those farflung quasars cosmologists like to look at. Everyone know they're flying off in 'outbound' directions, due to the universe expanding, but the whole open/flat/closed debate came up over how fast that expansion would slow down.
The problem is, the expansion actually ISN'T slowing down. It's speeding up.
Yes, the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up over time. Yes, the current models of gravity and other cosmic forces indicate it should be slowing down. No, no one (to my knowledge) has proposed a working reasonable theory of why. Either the current models and theories of gravity are fundamentally wrong in some way (my opinion rests here), or there's something else coming into play that has never been detected or identified before.
... or there's something wrong with the measurements. Not that that's likely.
Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"
What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)
... including the people who noted the discrepancy in the first place.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on July 27, 2006, 04:37:05 AM
Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"
What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)
How do we know it
is redshift? I always liked the theory that something is happening to the starlight over those distances causing it to 'decay' towards red. Blue light after all has both higher requencies and higher energy quanta.. which should make it the first to go, IMHO.
Indeed. Assumptions, see? Even I, while making a post about not making assumptions, fell into that one. :-)
There's an implicit red shift equals movement assumption, there, which is a reasonable assumption since we can't go look... but does it fit the *rest* of what we can see? Not that well. So what other assumption might we need to make to make it fit better? Nobody really knows. All we can say is, well, we think it's all expanding, and here's why, but we can't prove it, and we're trying to come up with a better explanation...
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 27, 2006, 04:46:34 AM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on July 27, 2006, 04:37:05 AM
Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"
What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)
How do we know it is redshift? I always liked the theory that something is happening to the starlight over those distances causing it to 'decay' towards red. Blue light after all has both higher requencies and higher energy quanta.. which should make it the first to go, IMHO.
Even if your 'decaying light' theory is correct, the light we recieve from very distant stars is shifting more to the red end of the spectrum.
In the current theory of "redshifting" this means that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
In your theory the universe would still be expanding. Measuring if the expansion is accelerating or not would be problematic, because we don't know the rate at which light would decay.
Scientists use the redshift theory, becuase , for now, there is no reason to believe that light actually decay. I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics wouldn't allow a quanta of light decay.
Of course, quantum mechanics could very well be wrong.
Scientists know that either Einsteinien physics or quantum mechanics is wrong: they're mutually exclusive. Scientists continue to use them, because they most accurately mimic the observed behaviour of the universe.
Quote from: BlueTiger on July 27, 2006, 01:25:45 AM
Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.
:funnay
:bunnycry
Actually... What they measure is not actually the light frequencies, but the frequency shift of the spike that hydrogen makes when it burns. And sodium, carbon, and all the other popular elements that you find making light in a sun.
So, when you burn hydrogen, you get a particular pattern of spikes. What they measure is how far you have to shift that pattern to make it match a "lab" pattern. Which is interesting, but not terribly useful in the sort of vague hand-waving argumentative discussions we're having here :-)
Quote from: Vidar on July 27, 2006, 10:29:16 AM
Scientists know that either Einsteinian physics or quantum mechanics is wrong: they're mutually exclusive. Scientists continue to use them, because they most accurately mimic the observed behaviour of the universe.
I won't claim to be a master of either, but I frankly don't see what problem there might be between quantum physics and Einsteinian physics. This only somewhat sticky point is gravity itself (Quantum Physics keeps trying to create "graviton" particles, so that there's a particle carrying the gravitic force... but this makes no sense, as such particles would have to travel faster then light (escape black holes), which isn't allowed to happen.). As I said, I think the problem is a basic misunderstanding of gravity. We've got a fairly good grip how it acts and measures on the small scale (astronomically speaking, within a solar system), but beyond that we run into bigger and bigger problems (the galaxy's gravity is wrong for how fast it's moving, the local group should be collapsing together eventually but isn't, the furthest galaxies seem to be being repulsed instead of attracted, etc).
Frankly, I think the problem is gravity is NOT a quantum force. It is NOT carried by a particle, and frankly isn't a "force" between objects at all. Think about it, a 9.8 m/s acceleration is felt any other time, except for gravity. Astranaughts in orbit report feeling no force on their body at all, despite the fact that they're STILL being pulled by gravity at almost the same rate as someone at sea level on the earth. Gravity travels faster then light, in fact appears to travel instantaneously. No material object, quanta or other, is allowed to do that I think that gravity is an interaction between matter and space itself, compressing the space around the mass, and thus stretching the rest of space time. That would allow for the instant propagation, and would also explain the near and far reactions of matter. Close things, both compressing the space around them, APPEAR to move closer, though neither one actually moves within space (hence why there is no feeling of acceleration, you're not truly moving). Things that are far away aren't affected very much by the pulling of space, but the same action stretches the space between them, making it seem that they are moving away. The galaxy mass issue is still present, but most of the other issues are actually explained by this.
Quote from: VidarQuote from: BlueTiger on July 27, 2006, 01:25:45 AM
Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.
:funnay
:bunnycry
The Clip guy wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at me. Thus the following sentance:
Quote from: BlueTiger link=552.msg14753#msg14753 date=1153977945
I hate you clip! GO AWAY!!!!
Sorry to inturupt the very good conversation you had going, just thought I'd clarify.
I'd like to say that this is the worst off-topic thread that I've ever seen, but we just topped this at TBK. :P A 14 page thread on the Middle East situation currently somehow turned into an Indianapolis Racing League rant/faux-roleplay.
Oh, I'm sure we've done worse at Nice... Haven't we? :-)
Yes. *remembers the random insanity thread*
How many pages was it again? Eightysomething?
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 05:24:21 PM"cleaver bitch"
Classic.
The definition of swear words such as 'bitch' get a bit fuzzy when considering the fictional nature of Furrae, though. It's hard to tell.
Hey, with a well placed new page, this may just get back on topic!
I have a feeling things might not be quite so simple. :<
Quote from: Damien Holtz on July 29, 2006, 01:39:57 PM
I have a feeling things might not be quite so simple. :<
I'll help.
Quote from: Damien Holtz on July 29, 2006, 01:27:38 PM
The definition of swear words such as 'bitch' get a bit fuzzy when considering the fictional nature of Furrae, though. It's hard to tell.
As has already been posited, my personal interpretation is that it would be calling someone an animal (i.e. non-rational), probably akin to calling someone a moron.
(I've never fully understood why calling someone a bitch is actually an insult anyway..)
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 29, 2006, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Damien Holtz on July 29, 2006, 01:39:57 PM
I have a feeling things might not be quite so simple. :<
I'll help.
Quote from: Damien Holtz on July 29, 2006, 01:27:38 PM
The definition of swear words such as 'bitch' get a bit fuzzy when considering the fictional nature of Furrae, though. It's hard to tell.
As has already been posited, my personal interpretation is that it would be calling someone an animal (i.e. non-rational), probably akin to calling someone a moron.
I think, since DMFA is Pai-Gon rated, we won't be seeing the word 'bitch' in it anyway. It's a nice point for speculation, but there can't be any actual right or wrong.
We might see it in Abel's story though, and then probably in the real-world sense too, since more and more elements of the real world have been creeping into DMFA as of late.
(I've never fully understood why calling someone a bitch is actually an insult anyway..)It's a mystery! But consider; why is 'f_____' considered an insult? It derives from f___, of course, but then why is 'f___' a swear word? It's just one of those linguistic quirks, and since humans are
born evil just humans, insults are bound to be part of any language, and bitch works just fine if you ask me.
Edit: Okay okay, I changed it :B
Quote from: Damien Holtz on July 29, 2006, 01:48:11 PM
I think, since DMFA is Pai-Gon rated, we won't be seeing the word 'bitch' in it anyway. It's a nice point for speculation, but there can't be any actual right or wrong.
As mentioned, it was for a fanfic someone was writing.. just made me wonder.
Quote
(I've never fully understood why calling someone a bitch is actually an insult anyway..)
It's a mystery! But consider; why is 'f_____' considered an insult? It derives from f___, of course, but then why is 'f___' a swear word? It's just one of those linguistic quirks, and since humans are born evil just humans, insults are bound to be part of any language, and bitch works just fine if you ask me.
D: Not here! Not here! This is the PG forum!
Hmm. Mayhaps we need to set the swear filter to change "Uck-Fay" with something more suitible. Like "Puppies".
I will use the OMG face, but only because the OMG face is my religion.
D:
Honestly, I'm positive the larger majority reading DMFA can take a bit of swearing... And (while I'm not positive) I think 'bitch' is a bit over the PG rating too...
I changed it though.
Quote from: BillBuckner on July 29, 2006, 01:55:28 PM
Hmm. Mayhaps we need to set the swear filter to change "Uck-Fay" with something more suitible. Like "Puppies".
I think it was on some sort of crazy web community I was on where the admins had constructed a swearing filter which filtered out ALL SWEAR WORDS OVER THE G RATING and changed them to 'chipmunks' or something similar.
Crazy crazy.
"Puppies" is something else, though. Chest puppies. So that'd have to be boobies getting translated to that...
Fire Truck, perhaps? Or maybe... maybe... Hmm. Thinks. How about "coital interface between two adult humans" ? That's going to play merry hell with any sentence you put together with it in :-)
Incidentally, I have been on one web-based chat where they had a filter that included all non-G-rated words, and had some rather strange ideas about what to change them to. It also included some ... personal choices of the admin of the box in question, so random words got changed to other random words. Which was entertaining when another group I'm on a mailing list with got the same software to set up their own chat - the admin there, presuming that we're all adults who can say whatever we like and cope with the results, generated a completely random list of words that got filtered. So you can say f__k, but you can't say, just as an example, cheese - that gets automatically changed to "fish" (note: this is not intended to make any sense :-)
I know some strange folks :-)
Come to think of it though, it seems the English language is one of very few languages that use straight out words as curses. In my experience with swears in other languages, a good number of them make some sort of reference to religion, however small. Others tend to be a little more complicated, but one thing's for sure - we've made plenty of words mean worse than they were intended to mean over the years. Maybe from too much use around sensitive people or giving these words so much extra meaning, but whatever it is, we're about || this close to making swearing illegal :laugh
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on July 29, 2006, 02:52:18 PM
Come to think of it though, it seems the English language is one of very few languages that use straight out words as curses. In my experience with swears in other languages, a good number of them make some sort of reference to religion, however small. Others tend to be a little more complicated, but one thing's for sure - we've made plenty of words mean worse than they were intended to mean over the years. Maybe from too much use around sensitive people or giving these words so much extra meaning, but whatever it is, we're about || this close to making swearing illegal :laugh
Yeah, now that I think about it...
I'm swedish, yeah? And in swedish there are all these words referring to 'devils', 'the devil', all that sort of jazz. Never thought about it that way before.
D:
Over two weeks later...
Quote from: icarus on August 16, 2006, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 05:24:21 PM
I've just been proofreading someones' fanfic.
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 05:24:21 PM
proofreading someones' fanfic.
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 05:24:21 PM
someones' fanfic.
Quote from: Tapewolf on July 12, 2006, 05:24:21 PM
fanfic.
SIR
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A CANON CHECK, SIR
Well it
isn't canon, but I'm trying to ensure consistency between the fanfics, at least. I can't tell whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. >:3
(Tries to figure out ways of producing that echo without using a computer - probably copying the recording multiple times and splicing the copies would be easiest)