With regards to Ascension

[PG15]

It's a damn TV show.

[Three PhDs]

Lord Sokar:

"It took an enormous amount but I've seen enough of your vapid posts to rouse me to action.

Erm, don't post 'em, spammer. And stop spamming, if I've been a member for almost 2 years longer and you have twice as many posts as me... you need to stop spamming."


ROFL! That's hilarious, Lord Sokar telling someone else not to spam!!! Priceless. As far as I remember he has single handedly killed at least two threads(the X304 thread and the SW thread spring to mind).

There is a massive difference between spamming and killing a thread.

[Lord Shiva]

I find it to be stupid. It's allegedly a "stage" in evolution where the subject learns how the become energy.

Firstly evolution doesn't have stages, it's an ongoing process characterized by the gradual propagation of novel traits. If anything it's spontaneous mutation, you don't "learn" how to evolve it just happens, and the fact that it's a near instataneous process, at one critical moment after sufficient nauseating platitudes about enlightenment and all that drivel have been inflicted upon you suddenly achieve this state, destroys any analogy. It's not evolution, it's revolution.

Secondly, things can't exist as energy! Have you ever seen a coherent ball of light, or a ball of heat? No, that's just stupid. Ascended beings emit energy, they're not made of it. If a persons body suddenly became energy it'd vapourize Cheyenne mountain. I wonder what triggers this magical transformation? Oh, that's right: enlightenment.

Thirdly, how do these ascendants observe without interfering? Apparently they've never heard of natural selection, thermodynamics or quantum mechanics (or that principle that is the analog of uncertainty on the macroscopic scale, can't remember the name). How do they see things with their invisible retinas or hear things with their insubstantial ear drums?

Lastly, it doesn't matter how sodding "enlightened" you are, you can't make energy. You can't make lightning happen or any of that other crap.

In conclusion .

You aren't very enlightened, my friend... Ascension is not within your reach yet.

[Eoin]

I find it to be stupid. It's allegedly a "stage" in evolution where the subject learns how the become energy.

Firstly evolution doesn't have stages, it's an ongoing process characterized by the gradual propagation of novel traits. If anything it's spontaneous mutation, you don't "learn" how to evolve it just happens, and the fact that it's a near instataneous process, at one critical moment after sufficient nauseating platitudes about enlightenment and all that drivel have been inflicted upon you suddenly achieve this state, destroys any analogy. It's not evolution, it's revolution.

Secondly, things can't exist as energy! Have you ever seen a coherent ball of light, or a ball of heat? No, that's just stupid. Ascended beings emit energy, they're not made of it. If a persons body suddenly became energy it'd vapourize Cheyenne mountain. I wonder what triggers this magical transformation? Oh, that's right: enlightenment.

Thirdly, how do these ascendants observe without interfering? Apparently they've never heard of natural selection, thermodynamics or quantum mechanics (or that principle that is the analog of uncertainty on the macroscopic scale, can't remember the name). How do they see things with their invisible retinas or hear things with their insubstantial ear drums?

Lastly, it doesn't matter how sodding "enlightened" you are, you can't make energy. You can't make lightning happen or any of that other crap.

In conclusion .

Remember that the ancients are millions of years more advanced than us and they'd have a greater understanding of everthing better, waaaaay better than we would and besides its only a show

P.S sorry if im repeating something someone said already, i havent got time to go through all the pages

[oogabooga]

Man there sure are a lot of wannabe professors here, some of the stuff being put forth as "science" is absolute nonsense. Perhaps a bit more googling might help some of the "instant experts" here. I would be interested to know what theory of quantum mechanics is confirmed by looking up at the stars in the sky? And as for the formation of a black hole requiring infinite energy - this is not so, dense massive stars can collapse into black holes, and there's thought to be a black hole at the centre of every galaxy.

Now why would a person becoming energy vaporize cheyenne mountain?. The light bulbs in the complex emit energy in the form of light - yet I wouldn't expect that to vaporize the place. Yes, I know it's only a tv show, but perhaps the ascended ones manipulate gravity in some way in order to maintain their form -just an idea. Gravity is one thing science has no real understanding of - it's effects and consequences yes, but it's fundamental mechanics? No.

I love the show and the stories and how they explore some of the scientific theories, but the occasional plot hole does grate (such as time travel). You know if science is right about the universe being infinite (there's much debate), then there is an infinite energy source to open wormholes (if you could somehow tap into it) and an infinite number of possibilities, an infinite number of worlds exactly identical to this one, with mirror images of ourselves even. Sounds silly but this is a consquence of an infinite universe and puts ascended beings in some context.

[Three PhDs]

Man there sure are a lot of wannabe professors here, some of the stuff being put forth as "science" is absolute nonsense. Perhaps a bit more googling might help some of the "instant experts" here.

I would have had a lot more respect for you if you'd posted this from your normal account.

I would be interested to know what theory of quantum mechanics is confirmed by looking up at the stars in the sky?

I assume by this, you're asking the same question that this person did:

That you can say quantum mechanics works, without any question is quite frankly stupid, we have managed to test this theory on our planet and the surrounding solar system. if you hadn't noticed we're on the outer edges of one of many galaxies in an estimated infinite universe, when you've been to every planet, moon, celestial body in the universe and tested quantum mechanics, let me know.

To which I answered:

That is perhaps the stupidest post I've come across on gateworld so far.

1. Why would the laws of physics (which we have shown to be true and constant across all realms we have been able to test them in) be any different elsewhere?
2. If the laws of physics were different elsewhere, our predictions regarding the movements of heavenly bodies, other galaxies, binary star systems etc would all prove to be wrong. Guess what, they're not.
3. If the laws of physics were different elsewhere, the sky would look differently to how it does now. Guess what, it doesn't.

I just don't get what drove you to say that. Have you tested gravity in Moscow? How can you possibly know without testing it that you won't float off into space if you go there? That's really about the size of what you just said. Man...

However, let me simplify it even more for you, as it appears to still have gone over your head.

1. Stars shine because of nuclear reactions in their core.
2. The size of a star is correlated with its mass and brightness.
3. Larger, brighter, hotter stars shine at colours closer to the blue end of the visible spectrum.
4. Smaller, dimmer, cooler stars shine at colours closer to the red end of the visible spectrum.

Ergo, quantum mechanics and the laws governing the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces must be the same in other stars elsewhere across the universe otherwise we might find stars that are small yet blue, or large yet red. The night sky would look different if the laws of physics were different elsewhere, yet it doesn't.

Get it now?

And as for the formation of a black hole requiring infinite energy - this is not so, dense massive stars can collapse into black holes, and there's thought to be a black hole at the centre of every galaxy.

You got that wrong too...

I said:

Because it's an indisputable fact that anyone can prove with a pencil and napkin to write on that any object with mass cannot travel at or beyond the speed of light without being infinitely heavy (thus collapsing into a black hole) and also requiring infinite energy. I really wish people would just "get" that. It's so simple.

In bullet points:
1. An object with mass travelling at the speed of light would gain infinite mass.
2. An object with infinite mass would collapse into a black hole.
3. Moving anything with infinite mass would require infinite energy anyway, so it's a moot point.

Now why would a person becoming energy vaporize cheyenne mountain?. The light bulbs in the complex emit energy in the form of light - yet I wouldn't expect that to vaporize the place.

Yeah, compare a lightbulb and a thermonuclear reaction, that's good thinking.

Yes, I know it's only a tv show, but perhaps the ascended ones manipulate gravity in some way in order to maintain their form -just an idea. Gravity is one thing science has no real understanding of - it's effects and consequences yes, but it's fundamental mechanics? No.

The mechanics of Gravity we don't understand? Did we just make a lucky guess when sending men to the moon, or probes to other planets?

[oogabooga]

Gosh 3 phd's (now that psuedonym says a lot now doesn't it? - and you really put the "psued" in psuedonym) you truly are deluded aren't you. There's no need to write in a condescending manner, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

It's quite funny you referring to respect when it's obvious you have no respect for anybody's opinion but you're own. Don't worry I can do without your respect.

In regard to the question "I would be interested to know what theory of quantum mechanics is confirmed by looking up at the stars in the sky?". Nope, I it was not the same question asked by the other member. You snidely refer to principles of classical physics. I repeat - what theory of "quantum mechanics" is confirmed by looking at the stars?. Like yourself I assume the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe (but of course we could be wrong).

You do seem to continually confuse quantum mechanics with classical physics though. (Whispered) Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the two theories don't mesh together too well at the moment.

Yes, I did misinterpret the comment about black holes, my mistake (I couldn't be bothered reading back through the posts to find it).

Why would I compare a lightbulb to a thermonuclear reaction?. I wasn't. You made that assumption. I made no mention of thermonuclear reactions. The original poster (Sokar) seems to presume a person becoming an energy being would instantly vaporise cheyenne mountain - I was merely illustrating there may not be that much energy involved.

As for gravity, do you really have some scientific background?, because you are having major problems grasping concepts. Sending men to the moon or probes to other planets does not require a total and complete understanding of the mechanics of gravity, if it did we would not have achieved those things. Primitive man could light fires but that didn't mean they understood the fundamental principles of how it worked. Yes, science understands the effects of gravity, but that is all. There are theories of course, but the graviton has yet to be discovered/detected (which would confirm some).

It seems to me that Sokar and yourself take delight in berating other members on this forum with your half understood ideas on physics and erroneous assumptions. Are you sure you're not a gou'ld? - you both seem to suffer from a god complex.

[Three PhDs]

Gosh 3 phd's (now that psuedonym says a lot now doesn't it? - and you really put the "psued" in psuedonym) you truly are deluded aren't you. There's no need to write in a condescending manner, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

When someone tries to undermine me using an alias, I'll be as condescending as I please.

In regard to the question "I would be interested to know what theory of quantum mechanics is confirmed by looking up at the stars in the sky?". Nope, I it was not the same question asked by the other member. You snidely refer to principles of classical physics. I repeat - what theory of "quantum mechanics" is confirmed by looking at the stars?. Like yourself I assume the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe (but of course we could be wrong).

Did you read the response I gave? Did you read about how the energy given out by stars is dependent on the laws and principles of quantum mechanics? I'm quite certain I pointed that out. Bottom line, if quantum mechanics were not right, or were different in other locations, the stars would not burn as they do.

You do seem to continually confuse quantum mechanics with classical physics though. (Whispered) Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the two theories don't mesh together too well at the moment.

Balls. Show me where I've confused the two.

Why would I compare a lightbulb to a thermonuclear reaction?. I wasn't. You made that assumption. I made no mention of thermonuclear reactions. The original poster (Sokar) seems to presume a person becoming an energy being would instantly vaporise cheyenne mountain - I was merely illustrating there may not be that much energy involved.

How do you describe, in terms of physics, the transformation from matter to energy?

As for gravity, do you really have some scientific background?, because you are having major problems grasping concepts. Sending men to the moon or probes to other planets does not require a total and complete understanding of the mechanics of gravity, if it did we would not have achieved those things. Primitive man could light fires but that didn't mean they understood the fundamental principles of how it worked. Yes, science understands the effects of gravity, but that is all. There are theories of course, but the graviton has yet to be discovered/detected (which would confirm some).

You implied we had no understanding of the mechanics of gravity, I called you on it, you lost, now this is a means of trying to save face.

It seems to me that Sokar and yourself take delight in berating other members on this forum with your half understood ideas on physics and erroneous assumptions. Are you sure you're not a gou'ld? - you both seem to suffer from a god complex.

Half understood ideas and erroneous assumptions? Rather than make accusations, call us on something. Find something we've said to be wrong rather than just make accusations.

[NoDot]

graviton

I'm going to jump in here with a somewhat off-topic comment. (this discussion has degraded into a physics debate it seems, so it might not be too off-topic.)

The concept of "Force Particles" has always seemed a bit odd to me, but isn't the name a misnomer? (ignoring Energy-Mass conversion)

[Giantevilhead]

Ascension is the Force or the Q of the SG universe.

[Zeus]

[QUOTE=Three PhDs]

However, let me simplify it even more for you, as it appears to still have gone over your head.

1. Stars shine because of nuclear reactions in their core.
2. The size of a star is correlated with its mass and brightness.
3. Larger, brighter, hotter stars shine at colours closer to the blue end of the visible spectrum.
4. Smaller, dimmer, cooler stars shine at colours closer to the red end of the visible spectrum.'

This is inaccurate red end of the visable spectrum denotes an object moving away from us and blue towards this is called dopler shift.

Astronomers measure the brightness of a star in this case according to a system originally devised by Hipparchus in 120 B.C. Hipparchus ranked the brightness of stars in the sky on a scale of 1 to 6 as seen from the Earth. The brightest stars he could see were classified as first magnitude and the faintest were sixth magnitude.

Centuries later we still use the magnitude scale of Hipparchus, although it has since been modernized.

The magnitude scale is logarithmic

[Three PhDs]

However, let me simplify it even more for you, as it appears to still have gone over your head.

1. Stars shine because of nuclear reactions in their core.
2. The size of a star is correlated with its mass and brightness.
3. Larger, brighter, hotter stars shine at colours closer to the blue end of the visible spectrum.
4. Smaller, dimmer, cooler stars shine at colours closer to the red end of the visible spectrum.'

This is inaccurate red end of the visable spectrum denotes an object moving away from us and blue towards this is called dopler shift.

Astronomers measure the brightness of a star in this case according to a system originally devised by Hipparchus in 120 B.C. Hipparchus ranked the brightness of stars in the sky on a scale of 1 to 6 as seen from the Earth. The brightest stars he could see were classified as first magnitude and the faintest were sixth magnitude.

Centuries later we still use the magnitude scale of Hipparchus, although it has since been modernized.

The magnitude scale is logarithmic

No mate, it's not inaccurate, you're just thinking of the wrong thing. Red shifting and blue shifting is what you're referring to, first discovered by Edwin Hubble.

What I'm referring to is the system of Stellar Classification. Larger stars -> Bluish White/White, Smaller stars -> Orange/Red

[Zeus]

Mate, my misinturpretation it was the way you wrote it sounded so like the dopler efferct. I now know what you mean.

[Three PhDs]

No worries.

[CZA]

Yay! We're all friends now!

But I really must point out that

In fact, so evolved that you would need to be able to access 80% or more of your brain's functionality (we use something like 10-15%, some more or less ).

Was disproved too long ago..