Has your opinion of issues changed because of WF?

No comeback necessary. Happened to most of us at some point, growing up

Because of WF, and learning the rationale behind positions different from mine, I know now who I have to kill and why.

How could I forget?!?!?!?!?!

I now believe in teh Baba!

That's pretty revealing about how fucked up your mindset is.

And much like the force of gravity, an unwanted government can be escaped with hard work and ingenuity and the courage to dare.

Precisely. Gravity, though the weakest of the fundamental forces of all scales discerned by modern physics, is the strongest in the macro world in which we live. Its limits are theoretically infinite, and it serves as the force by which entire groups of galaxies are held together.

Even the pretense of "escaping" galaxy is only in reality a specific use of it. Going into orbit is really nothing more than falling forever toward an ever-receding horizon, and one does not fall without gravity. Achieving escape velocity from Earth only results in subjection to a different gravitational field -- the Sun's. Even in escaping the Solar System one is still subject to the gravity of nearby bodies, however slight, and one is always subject to the gravity of stellar groups and the Galactic core.

If anyone here has actually done the equivalent of achieving orbit, even as futile as it may be in this respect, I'd be very surprised. But in the end, the only way one can actually truly escape gravity is to exit this universe, and I'm pretty sure no one has actually done that.

Whatever one might think of it, gravity exists and exerts an influence, whether one might ask for it or not.

I did once. I got better.

I recommend reading "Death By Black Hole" before you speak any more on gravity.

You know, I normally don't care about these things, but this is just...odd.

I make a harmless joke at no one's expense...certainly, if you wanted to neg me on principle, you could've found one that, I dunno, makes sense?

You're very odd...

Nothing I've said is contradicted by any reference to black holes. Black holes themselves are nothing more than bodies with such gravitational force that not even light can escape them.

Moreover, a body falling into a black hole is effectively "frozen" near the event horizon for the purposes of the rest of the universe, tidal effects notwithstanding for the moment.

Interestingly, any sentient being that falls into the hole in such a way that he could survive the journey would simply see the entire future of the universe flash before his eyes in the distorted field of vision remaining to him as he fell through the event horizon. He would fall into the hole and (according to some physicists), emerge through a "wormhole" either somewhere else or into an entirely new universe. Or, most likely, he would be crushed by gravitational and tidal forces.

Certainly nothing about this suggests that gravity can be escaped. Quite to the contrary.

Wow.

You're not nearly as smart as you try to sound.



Look up the book, Excelsius, AT LEAST, before you spout gobbledygook.

As I've said, nothing pertaining to the influence of gravity is contradicted by references to black holes. If by your citation of the book, you're speaking of commentary on science that uses black holes as part of a metaphor, your point is absurd, since nothing about that approach has anything to do with what has been said about the presence of gravity.

My account of black holes and what happens when one falls through them is generally accurate or plausible, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. The implication that it is not only serves to indicate to me that you yourself are unaware of these facts.

You're still an idiot.

The book, by world-renowned physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, is a collection of essays on astrophysical topics, ONE of which is called "Death By Black Hole", which is also the name of the BOOK, which contains articles on FAR MORE than just black holes, including a few fascinating articles about the nature of gravity.

So yes, you are a willfully ignorant idiot. There's no way, if you'd bothered doing even a simple Google search, that you wouldn't have realized all this. You speak in fancy lingo to sound smart, but it's all hot air, as I'd surmised from your idiotic religion thread.

Congratulations, Asyncritus. No one will ever call your posts pedantic or dull again.

Who asked for a fucking symposium on gravity? Anyone?

The book does not dispute anything I've said about gravitation, because the main tenets of gravitation have not changed fundamentally in the last several decade and the book is clearly more recent than that.

The book probably posits theories concerning gravitons, speculates on nature of the universe as a curved entity, and draws parallels between string theory and multidimensional domains and our present experience of gravity. However, gravity is known to be the strongest macro force and it remains theoretically infinite in extent, which are my main points, and nothing that a recent book of this sort says would dispute that.

Nor, by the way, would the book dispute the description of black holes that I've given, for similar reasons.

At least Asyncritus knows what he is talking about and is well-informed.

If you can dispute the essentials of what I said -- the two points I mentioned -- then do so. If you cannot, then your purpose is refuted by your own failure.

I remind you that I stated these points from the beginning:

Show me I'm wrong, and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, you're engaging in pure jawjackery.

I'm seriously not gonna waste my time on you. You've already demonstrated unequivocably (sp?) a willingness to speak from a point of complete ignorance on a subject. Why would I waste my time informing someone with no desire to inform himself?

Excelcius - I believe that the point is not so much that what you said was wrong, but instead completely irrelevant.

Your statement reveals an inability to prove what I said was wrong. Further, my disregard for what the book said is immaterial, since regardless of what the book said, the two main points still held.

That could be. But I didn't read it that way, since Rosencrantz said that before I spoke more about gravity, I should read the book he mentioned. This implied to me not that what I said was irrelevant, but that it was wrong. In doing so, he showed his own ignorance of the matter, since nothing in the book he mentioned could have proved what he apparently claims it does, and it certainly does not refute the main points that I made that gravity is powerful and inescapable.

Zero Gravity Chambers disagrees!

Every once in a while, though I have to say it happened a lot more the first couple of years I was on the net. Lately I've seen most of the topics already. But I often find information I wasn't aware of when someone else brings up a topic I wasn't that knowledgable about prior.

I remember the first opinion I changed, and shockingly enough, it was on the issue of guns. Prior to this shift I had no problem with anyone who met the existing criteria owning or carrying handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

But, I did not think just anyone should be able to buy and maintain a fully automatic handgun, rifle, shotgun, or classic machinegun. My view on that has changed dramatically thanks to some rational and calm debates on the subject.

I am now of the mindset that if you can afford to purchase, equip, and maintain a 155mm towed howitzer or larger, go for it so long as you don't infrindge on anyone else's rights in the process. If shootER can afford to buy a fully armed tank and he can make it street legal, he should go for it. I just wanna be the gunner.