giants why so many fakes [Archive]

fabianfred

08-31-2008, 05:16 PM

It may not necessarily be faked....

In the Buddhist Scriptures they mention about the time when the next buddha will be born ... the Buddha Meitreya.... and his height will be 88 Feet....whereas the average joe will be about 72 feet....and the average life-span will be 60,000 years.
In nature everything changes in cycles...and that includes the life-span of man and our physical size.
We are entering the Age of Sunni...where all morals are gone and people will kill each other just like animals. Eventually the average age will reach only ten years and at that time five year olds will be able to have children. After a week of mass-killing orgy, the few survivors will come out of their hiding places and eventually be able to meet and join together, deciding to keep the precepts and live morally again.
Their offspring will live to 20 years, and theirs to 30 years, theirs to 40 years and theirs to 50 years.....theirs to 100 years, then 1000 years ...increasing to 100,000 years.

And the physical size will increase too relatively.

Outlaw---

08-31-2008, 07:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
why so much time wasted on faking this?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely the same reason you spend so much time "abstracting" snippets of physics into ridiculous claims that physics is wrong?

--Outlaw.

Outlaw---

08-31-2008, 07:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
It may not necessarily be faked....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you didn't have a look at Berg's reference link. And yes, I'll stop calling you Shirley.

--Outlaw.

fabianfred

08-31-2008, 08:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
It may not necessarily be faked....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you didn't have a look at Berg's reference link. And yes, I'll stop calling you Shirley.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no Shirley...I didn't.... but even if the pix are faked the concept is real enough to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monterey13

08-31-2008, 09:01 PM

I want some of the shrooms that FF has. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Pirschjaeger

08-31-2008, 10:57 PM

Hi Raaaid,

don't listen to others. Your question is very valid and a good one.

Many cultures, if not all, make some sort of reference to giants in their folklore. But folklore isn't limited to giants. Giants are as real as fairys, trolls, goblins, ghosts, demons, witches, gods, and *dragons.

Dragons are a bit different from the rest in that it's quite possible the legends were based on dinosaur fossils.

I think the legends and myths surrounding giants are a bit like fish (the one that got away) stories with lots of time to develop. Stories of giants were orally passed on and no doubt the 6 1/2 foot original grew as the story was retold.

So far, there is no physical evidence to support the existence of fairy-tale giants.

But as to why people do it I can think of a few reasons;

1) to get attention

2) they believe and want others to believe

3) jokes and hoaxes

4) good story tellers

BTW Raaid, it is physically impossible.

Consider the ant. It can lift 30 times it's weight. A human can barely lift twice it's own. An elephant cannot lift twice it's own. There a physical law in nature. The larger a living creature gets, the less it can lift relative to its own weight.

PanzerAce

09-01-2008, 02:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Consider the ant. It can lift 30 times it's weight. A human can barely lift twice it's own. An elephant cannot lift twice it's own. There a physical law in nature. The larger a living creature gets, the less it can lift relative to its own weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the body structure and what parts of the body are used to lift object, rather than the size. By your analogy, fruit flys should be able to lift 50 times their weight, and butterflys wouldn't be in so much danger just from people from touching them.

Metatron_123

09-01-2008, 04:14 AM

Funny that you brought this issue up.

While I worked at the airport, a colleague of mine kept coming up with conspiracy theories and strange biblical stories, one of the things he showed me was this.

I have a hard time believing it (especially as this info came from a guy that was trying to convince me that WW2 was a jewish conspiracy [be sure])

But isn't the second link an actual news report?

LEBillfish

09-01-2008, 05:41 AM

I used to believe in giants.........Then I just found out Tom Jones had a thing for socks......

K2

raaaid

09-01-2008, 06:05 AM

this reminded me of the story pirschjaeger told once about unususal men in china covered their bodies wih hair that would trade with no personal contact with locals

what if forbidden aerchaelogy has some truth?

why to make such a hoax as the indin news

it could be mistraslated but there are some ribs way too big even for a whale

what if we are being continually lied by the media

Outlaw---

09-01-2008, 07:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
what if we are being continually lied by the media
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only person lying to you is you.

If you read the info in Berg's post then you would know that it was part of a photo competition. Only a total moron, or someone who WANTS to lie to themselves would ask any questions after the 2 minutes it takes to see EVERYTHING necessary to debunk what you posted.

If you did NOT read his post, then I believe the same still holds. You claim you are looking for the truth but you are not really because you WANT to believe the lie. To accomplish this you simply ignore the truth

The same is true with the Bigfoot hoax that came about recently. One of the guys involved had ADMITTED TO HOAXES in the past yet many people still believed he was telling the truth this time. They want to believe so bad they lie to themselves.

If you did not read his link and the above is not true, then what was the real reason you didn't read it?

If you did read it, why is it so hard to see that it was simply a Photoshop competition that some dork decided to make into a fake news report?

--Outlaw.

raaaid

09-01-2008, 07:50 AM

i was talking on the indian news report

was it part of the photoshop contest?

you overlook things and its me who is not reading?

if we had been born 1000 years ago who would be saying earth is rounded and who that is flat

oh i can picture you so easy going agaisnt mainstream church daring to say earth is rounded

joeap

09-01-2008, 08:01 AM

Media do lie, and more often they get things WRONG.

Not everyone who went against the Church was right, some said the Earth was round but others may have said it was not flat but rode on the back of turtles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

raaaid

09-01-2008, 09:34 AM

yes and that photoshop contest could explain one giant eskeleton but there are hundreds different pictures circulating on the net just image google giant skeleton

i also saw pictures of human skulls with horns

this is no proof for me who disregards many of my odd experinces as hallucinations

but if i disregard such a solid prove as its my vey own eyes would be stupid believing the media blindly

so its POSIBLE or not that some of this giants are true, theres no definite proof one way or the other

i think that of being not convinced or anything, being unsure is the sanest position and i know my mind works right when i hold that position like now

i think both outlaw and fabian fred position are of certain conviction and i think this to be a not very sane position, doubt is better

Pirschjaeger

09-01-2008, 09:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Consider the ant. It can lift 30 times it's weight. A human can barely lift twice it's own. An elephant cannot lift twice it's own. There a physical law in nature. The larger a living creature gets, the less it can lift relative to its own weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the body structure and what parts of the body are used to lift object, rather than the size. By your analogy, fruit flys should be able to lift 50 times their weight, and butterflys wouldn't be in so much danger just from people from touching them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partially, but I'm sure of what I've written. As mass and weight increase, the load bearing qualities of organic materials fail to keep up.

But I wouldn't put flying animals/insects in with ground dwellers. That wouldn't be very logical.

Pirschjaeger

09-01-2008, 09:59 AM

joeap

09-01-2008, 01:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i think both outlaw and fabian fred position are of certain conviction and i think this to be a not very sane position, doubt is better </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt is a good thing in the right amount, it does keep you sane, prevents you swallowing bs as well as from becoming arrogant I think.

Aaron_GT

09-01-2008, 02:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Partially, but I'm sure of what I've written. As mass and weight increase, the load bearing qualities of organic materials fail to keep up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short levers are inefficient in terms of moving things, but they also are not so prone to bending forces (the limit is that as a lever tends to zero length there can be no bending whatsoever). To be able to lift the same relative amount a human would need thicker bones to avoid them breaking even if the human had sufficient muscle mass.

Urufu_Shinjiro

09-01-2008, 02:17 PM

I distinctly remember from highschool biology that there is a limit to how large certain creatures can become and maintain their shape. The example used was King Kong, the teacher explained that at that size his legs would have to have been larger around than his body in order to support a mammal that size. If there was a giant say even 20ft tall a human shape would be unable to support itself.

DuxCorvan

09-01-2008, 03:10 PM

I doubt the delicate and unstable structure of erect human backbone could develop to such size without collapsing due to weight and mass displacement.

On the other side, I can't imagine the scenario needed for humans evolving that way. It's just a pile of dark age traditional boll*cks.

Pirschjaeger

09-02-2008, 12:39 AM

I used to frequent the gym. At 120kg I was finishing my squats with 266kg x 8 reps.

That was enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV

09-02-2008, 12:17 PM

You can get some really tall men, though...

Ok, I`ll get my flying coat.

Pirschjaeger

09-03-2008, 01:36 AM

Whirlin_merlin

09-04-2008, 09:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I distinctly remember from highschool biology that there is a limit to how large certain creatures can become and maintain their shape. The example used was King Kong, the teacher explained that at that size his legs would have to have been larger around than his body in order to support a mammal that size. If there was a giant say even 20ft tall a human shape would be unable to support itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You remember your highschool biology well.

Something else to consider, an elephant has only a limited capacity to jump, you dont need to drop one very far to break it.
A giant human would have to be very careful indeed.

Mass increases in direct proportion to volume.
Volume is a cube but cross-sectional area (i.e leg bone cross sectional area) is a square.
As an animal gets taller volume 'goes up' faster than cross section.
The same 'law' affects things like lung surface area as well, don't forget O2 consumption is linked to volume.

This means there is an upper limit to how big an 'in proportion' human could grow and still function. Working out that limit is beyond me but I'm sure it's been done, google time.

Aaron_GT

09-04-2008, 10:13 AM

It's no accident that the largest current animals are in the sea.

If you look at the leg bones of some of the larger dinosaurs they are immense, and they were probably at the upper limit of any mobile animal life possible on earth.

Pirschjaeger

09-04-2008, 10:27 AM

Bigger is always possible but then you'd need multiple systems. Imagine something with a set of lungs and a heart and circulatory system for each leg then one more separate system for the rest.

Possible doesn't necessarily mean logical.

Carpetbagger1

09-04-2008, 03:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Bigger is always possible but then you'd need multiple systems. Imagine something with a set of lungs and a heart and circulatory system for each leg then one more separate system for the rest.

Possible doesn't necessarily mean logical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partly true, but the size limit is far higher than you might think.
Think Barosaurus or Brachiosaurus.
These annimals had weights in the 20-80 tonnes range.
Height at the shoulders at over 8 meters.
Large animals and humans need not be weak. (but the trend is twords smaller creatures having a greater strength to weight).
Fairytale giants are just that, fairytales.
The outside groth limits are probed by giants every so often
by people like "Andre the giant".
He never stopped growing and his condition killed him.
Think of a person like Andre 2,000 years ago.
He would have been between two and three times the height of the average
person.
Add a little imagination and you have a 20' tall person.
88' tall Buddah??????

CB

SeaFireLIV

09-04-2008, 03:56 PM

The problem with some of you guys is that you use far too much logical scientific analysis to everything. It may look clever, but if life shows one thing, it NEVER goes exactly to the numbers. Only sometimes.

This is why when something happens that `shouldn`t` by Human standards of science, you all get so ultra shocked.

Whirlin_merlin

09-05-2008, 12:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The problem with some of you guys is that you use far too much logical scientific analysis to everything. It may look clever, but if life shows one thing, it NEVER goes exactly to the numbers. Only sometimes.

This is why when something happens that `shouldn`t` by Human standards of science, you all get so ultra shocked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So so wrong, it's not shock when something happens that 'shouldn't', it's facination and interesting.
Resorting to fantasy explinations as opposed to rational ones just seems so dark ages.

raaaid

09-05-2008, 02:32 AM

i dont see why cubic rule should limit huma size

double size 4 times more weight but 4 times more muscle as well

a guy with 4 times more muscle than me can lift 4 times more weight

Pirschjaeger

09-05-2008, 03:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Carpetbagger1:
Partly true, but the size limit is far higher than you might think.
Think Barosaurus or Brachiosaurus.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi CB,

my post was in reply to Aaron's. He had mention dinos. I was thinking in terms of twice their sizes. But there are so many other factors to consider ranging from circulation to food availability.

I recently read that insects are limited in size by their 'breathing tubes'. Much bigger and the resulting friction of the air passing over the surface area of large tubes would render the insect useless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFire:
The problem with some of you guys is that you use far too much logical scientific analysis to everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My first line of logical reasoning started with the flying spaghetti monster but that quickly failed when the blasphemous "Why?" was asked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Pirschjaeger

09-05-2008, 03:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The problem with some of you guys is that you use far too much logical scientific analysis to everything. It may look clever, but if life shows one thing, it NEVER goes exactly to the numbers. Only sometimes.

This is why when something happens that `shouldn`t` by Human standards of science, you all get so ultra shocked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So so wrong, it's not shock when something happens that 'shouldn't', it's facination and interesting.
Resorting to fantasy explinations as opposed to rational ones just seems so dark ages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Not 'shocked' but rather excited. I love it when new information adds to the idea that life and reality are so incredibly amazing.

Science fiction pales in comparison to science.

SeaFireLIV

09-05-2008, 03:20 PM

So I guess if you two saw a 30 feet tall giant striding towards you all, you`d be out with your magnifers saying, "Absoluuutely faaascinating!"

Rather than "Guess we were wrong. RUUUUNNNN!"

Outlaw---

09-05-2008, 05:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I recently read that insects are limited in size by their 'breathing tubes'. Much bigger and the resulting friction of the air passing over the surface area of large tubes would render the insect useless.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that it undermines the previous discussion on large animals with internal skeletons, but, there were ancient insects many times larger than those around today. Think dragon flies with 3' wingspans.

--Outlaw.

Badsight-

09-05-2008, 08:19 PM

http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/mandarinia1.jpg (http://imgboot.com/)

Outlaw---

09-05-2008, 09:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/mandarinia1.jpg (http://imgboot.com/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As one who screams like a little girl and runs insanely from practically any flying & stinging insect, if I ever came face to face with one of those Japanese Hornets I would soil myself heavily and then simply drop dead. If the above is not a Japanese Hornet, add it to that list.

IIRC, they kill several people a year.

Interestingly, native honey bees kill them by latching onto them en masse until the hornet overheats and dies. Many defenders die in this way but it saves the hive. Imported honey bees (higher production I assume) don't have this instinctive behavior and 10 or 12 hornets can kill an entire hive (hundreds if not thousands) easily.

--Outlaw.

Whirlin_merlin

09-06-2008, 01:02 AM

Pirschjaeger

09-06-2008, 01:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I recently read that insects are limited in size by their 'breathing tubes'. Much bigger and the resulting friction of the air passing over the surface area of large tubes would render the insect useless.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that it undermines the previous discussion on large animals with internal skeletons, but, there were ancient insects many times larger than those around today. Think dragon flies with 3' wingspans.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No undermining. You are assuming I'm referring to insects only of today. The largest insect known to have existed was bigger than a man.

Whirlin_merlin

09-06-2008, 01:39 AM

It appears that the large insects of the past were around when the O2 partial pressure was higher. With 'more' O2 you can get away with a proportionally smaller exchange/transport system for your mass.

Friendly_flyer

09-06-2008, 02:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont see why cubic rule should limit huma size

double size 4 times more weight but 4 times more muscle as well

a guy with 4 times more muscle than me can lift 4 times more weight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not quite how it works. The strength of a muscle is proportional to the area of a cross section of the muscle. If you take four muscles, mould them into a clump and make a cross section, it would ha have something like 1,3 to 3 times the cross section of the single muscle, depending on shape. Thus the gains in weight would rise faster than the raise in strength as you add mass to the muscle. The result is that a guy having four times your muscle mass would be stronger than you, but not four times stronger. There are limits to growth.

Aaron_GT

09-06-2008, 02:39 AM

The other side effect of size is that the ratio of surface area to internal volume changes as 1/r for a sphere (although only theoretical animals for order of magnitude physics calculations tend to be spherical).

The upshot is that small animals are more subject to fluctuations in external temperatures. Large animals can keep warm more easily but have more problems keeping cool. Hence at the poles there tend to be fewer small land animals and polar penguins are larger and why elephants have large ears.

Pirschjaeger

09-06-2008, 02:51 AM

If Raaaid believes in giants after this thread, then there is no help for him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DuxCorvan

09-06-2008, 03:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
So I guess if you two saw a 30 feet tall giant striding towards you all, you`d be out with your magnifers saying, "Absoluuutely faaascinating!"

Rather than "Guess we were wrong. RUUUUNNNN!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fortunately, they are not wrong, and they won't ever see any 30 feet tall giant striding towards them. Having an open mind does not mean you have to be gullible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
It appears that the large insects of the past were around when the O2 partial pressure was higher. With 'more' O2 you can get away with a proportionally smaller exchange/transport system for your mass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely right. Most of those insects lived during the Carboniferous period, when air contained far more oxygen than today, allowing beings with limited respiratory systems to grow much bigger than today's species.

SeaFireLIV

09-06-2008, 04:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
If Raaaid believes in giants after this thread, then there is no help for him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe in giants now! I`m a convert! 30 feet giants do exist!!!

raaaid

09-06-2008, 05:02 AM

this is very interesting:
double height, 8 times more volume 8 times more weight but just 4 times cross section

yep that rules out giants if its true that muscles force depend on cross section

but then the original question arises why the indian news report on a giant?

thats my problem i need explanations for everithing, i dont understand how you are able to leave these detaiels unanalized, i cant

though im not sure this is very good

DuxCorvan

09-06-2008, 05:24 AM

Emerging videogame marketing:

http://viralsxposed.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_viralsxposed_archive.html

raaaid

09-06-2008, 05:46 AM

haha just like the simpsons angel

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

though ill be convinced when i see hieroglyphics in the indian video, havent seen them before
edit:
yep seen then now, thats a rational explanation

but what about the hundreds photos of giant skeletons on the net, a photoshop contest just justifies one giant skeleton

unless the subject of the contest were giant skeletons

whats the rational explanation of hundreds if not thousands of photographs of giant skeletons on the net?

DuxCorvan

09-06-2008, 05:57 AM

Fashion. The first one was cool, so there's imitators all around, trying to do the same, and show-off their PS skills.

Fashion. Just like all those 'catz' pics with funny 'lolz' remarks and quotes.

Ppl does not tend to be original, you know.

raaaid

09-06-2008, 06:21 AM

yep thats posible check this out:

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikz0glgvAus

i think thats from where my being truman paranoia comes

nowadays everything can be faked and my wanting to believe in god makes me think that the only posibility god exists is many of the real world being a fake

ill never believe in god karma or whatever crab as long as things like child abuse happens

but as said my wish that god existed kind of make me suspicious some things in this world are faked

when i get very stoned i get the wild theory that if you try to do something horrible you cant you have not free will for it, god just doesnt let you to

but well im agnostic and more of unbeliever than believer

Outlaw---

09-06-2008, 08:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
You are assuming I'm referring to insects only of today. The largest insect known to have existed was bigger than a man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No assuming involved. Insects are a class of animals and share the same characteristics regardless of the time in which they lived. Ancient insects were just as restricted by their O2 transport system as modern insects. However, as others pointed out, it is likely that the higher partial pressures of O2 in the past (highest during the Carboniferous and early Permian) allowed very large insects to develop despite their limited O2 transport systems.

Could you imagine being a fire fighter in that atmosphere? Aside from the much more ferocious fires you'd have to fight off the giant insects drawn to the flame! Each bug zapper would have to come with its own power plant.

--Outlaw.

Pirschjaeger

09-06-2008, 09:03 AM

Isn't that what we've been saying? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

raaaid

09-06-2008, 11:01 AM

anyway i qustion wether muscle force depends on cross sectional section

a thing a long guy is gonna punch much stronger than a thick short man

a short guy will have advantage on hand wrestling but due to levering advantage

but long muscle will be stronger than a short one with same cross section, more ability to change shape farther

so the cubic rule is as valid for weight as for force

and besides you could turn it around a giant 100 times bigger coul be considered a normal person in a hundred times smaller planet

there for a 100 times bigger giant would feel 100*100*100 less gravity, they would be amazingly agile

Pirschjaeger

09-06-2008, 11:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
anyway i qustion wether muscle force depends on cross sectional section

a thing a long guy is gonna punch much stronger than a thick short man

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. The force from a well executed punch comes from the ground (so to say). Then there's the CoG to consider.

raaaid

09-06-2008, 11:19 AM

haha have the feeling you are some short by the way you sound

am i right

DuxCorvan

09-06-2008, 11:49 AM

I'm kinda short. IF you're tall, just consider not how strong I'd hit you, but WHERE would my fists land, given our difference in stature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Pirschjaeger

09-07-2008, 12:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
haha have the feeling you are some short by the way you sound

am i right </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on your definition of short. I'm 6ft. If you are 7, then yes, I am short. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

raaaid

09-07-2008, 04:20 AM

hey im 6 feet also and im not short

Whirlin_merlin

09-07-2008, 02:15 PM

SeaFireLIV

09-07-2008, 05:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
So I guess if you two saw a 30 feet tall giant striding towards you all, you`d be out with your magnifers saying, "Absoluuutely faaascinating!"

Rather than "Guess we were wrong. RUUUUNNNN!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIkZ42cmiTA

I thought it was vaguely relevent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be a classic if it smashed him in the face. Vaguely relevant. Though such a show is more to impress students with no real knowledge of life than to prove anything.

Pirschjaeger

09-07-2008, 11:49 PM

Teachers need to impress students with facts in order to inspire thought that might lead to further learning. As far as proof goes, he proved a fact.

Facts are relevant.

raaaid

09-08-2008, 05:45 AM

having faith in science is as stupid as raining sun its contradictory

science is the oposite to faith

in fact his faith of no posibility of the ball hitting him is false, science states that

if the cable had broken at the right time he would have broken his nose

in fact i beg this trick gets extended and some science fanatic gets a broken nose by a broken string, its a matter of time this happens and its recorded on video

it would be great if it hit right in his balls, posible according science isnt it

edit:

oh id wish so much to have telekinesis and while watching this trick cut the cable with my mind so he got hit right in the balls
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

edit:

humm im even thinking of making a fake video of myself making the trick with somebody else cutting the cable at the exact time as to get hit right in the balls, with protection of course

hey it could be fun, i could make some money on domestics videos program and i could prove science fanatics aint better than muslim fanatics

and then with that money i could build my triangles piano

well have a project in mind

Pirschjaeger

09-08-2008, 05:55 AM

Science requires faith. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

Recently, in a discussion with a fluid engineer, I asked if he knew the boiling point of water. He said "99.974 ?C".

I asked if he ever tested this and he said he hadn't. I asked how he knew that 99.974 ?C was the boiling point of water. He said it's in all the text books.

The point is, he has to have faith that 99.974 ?C is correct.

Having faith in something is not a bad thing. Having faith in something without the slightest shred of evidence or not having the possibility to test something, is bad.

Of course we cannot individually test every fact for ourselves. We have to have faith in the findings of others. This is why the scientific community is always skeptical of new findings.

They need proof rather than blind faith.

SeaFireLIV

09-08-2008, 06:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Teachers need to impress students with facts in order to inspire thought that might lead to further learning. As far as proof goes, he proved a fact.

Facts are relevant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn. Yes, I was born yesterday.

raaaid

09-08-2008, 06:18 AM

yep thats exactlly why i think people can get so easily cheated

i did research on the net and found out that galileo had experimented with balls rolling down a ramp and big balls and small balls go dwon at the same rate

i experimented it and big ball always fell 1st

im not saying this goes against science but i could have had faith on both samll and big ball going down at the same rate because i was taught galileo did exactly that very same experiment with that outcome and my faith would be wrong

just watch the truman show, have you got a definite proof the whole world is not lying to you in an odd conspiracy

no you cant even know if the world exists or is a dream you just have a gurantee of your own existance

i think the educative system should taught us to question things, but they do the oposite they teach us to have faith

hell my faith tells me this world must be a stage cause god cant be that evil, thats faith

that a pendulum ball is not gonna hit me cause my teacher said so is not faith its gullibility, as said it can hit you by breaking the string

when i was 6 my teacher would use to lift me by the ears, should i waste my faith beilieving that person?

faith is for sublime things, for ordinary things its gullibility

science is atheist, so having faith in science is having faith in god not existing, magic not existing cause thats what god makes , magic

its like saying i have hope to die forever i have faith in god not existing nor magic, faith in science, hope to not exist any more, or no hope

thats what faith in science means for me

myself some times im scientific, so i question everithing

others time i have faith and believe this world is a stage and so much sickness is faked

and others time i have no hope, i believe everything the people in power tells me, this is what i call faith in science

Pirschjaeger

09-08-2008, 06:24 AM

"Yawn. Yes, I was born yesterday."

Your argument is tough to beat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Whirlin_merlin

09-08-2008, 09:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
So I guess if you two saw a 30 feet tall giant striding towards you all, you`d be out with your magnifers saying, "Absoluuutely faaascinating!"

Rather than "Guess we were wrong. RUUUUNNNN!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIkZ42cmiTA

I thought it was vaguely relevent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be a classic if it smashed him in the face. Vaguely relevant. Though such a show is more to impress students with no real knowledge of life than to prove anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's the whole point, the ball wasn't going to smash him in the face. Science is useful because it allows us to make predictions, predictions that you can bet your life on (or atleast your nose on). It was a rather nice example of that principle.

As a follow up experiment I would like to see the Pope repeat it but take a step forward after releasing the ball, whilst every Catholic in the world prays for the sanctity of the papal nose.

I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't put his money where his nose is.

As to faith in science, the faith in science is that the universe is consistent. This is not 'blind' faith but based an accumulated evidence and experience.
If the universe is consistant then knowing that every pendulum ever observed has behaved a certain way (and having a theory that explains and fits this) means that you can have faith that all pendulums behave this way, without needing to measure and observe all possible pendulums.

Sorry that is an awful sentance to read, I hope you get what I mean.

SeaFireLIV

09-08-2008, 10:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

As a follow up experiment I would like to see the Pope repeat it but take a step forward after releasing the ball, whilst every Catholic in the world prays for the sanctity of the papal nose.

I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't put his money where his nose is.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but this is where you and many others miss the point. You don`t test God. You don`t say, "hey, Lord, I`m going to throw myself off a building. Stop me and prove you exist!"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:

As to faith in science, the faith in science is that the universe is consistent. This is not 'blind' faith but based an accumulated evidence and experience.
If the universe is consistant then knowing that every pendulum ever observed has behaved a certain way (and having a theory that explains and fits this) means that you can have faith that all pendulums behave this way, without needing to measure and observe all possible pendulums.

Sorry that is an awful sentance to read, I hope you get what I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it`s not really faith, is it? Faith is NOT having the absolute `I can touch or experiment` evidence. Faith is BELIEVING that it is true without evidence. Many times jesus was asked for proof by people and at least twice he berated them as foolish and blessed were those who could believe without the proof.

It ain`t easy in our times to believe without proof, I do understand.

The scientist isn`t really showing faith. It`s like a gambler or poker player who never plays unless he`s guaranteed he will win.

It`s not faith at all.

I suppose you can call belief in God a blind kind of faith. It`s a bit like falling backwards with random people walking about and expecting a stranger to catch you, but that`s kind of what it is.

Yet in other ways, one could say that evidence of a God is all around if you just look. So the faith is not quite so blind after all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Pirschjaeger

09-08-2008, 10:59 AM

Faith is BELIEVING that it is true without evidence.

False

Faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
"”Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

#1 is the same faith a fluid engineer has in the rule that water boils a nearly 100 celcius at sealevel. It is based on the results of the tests made by others.

Blind faith is a belief in something without any evidence at all, hence 'blind'.

Whirlin_merlin

09-08-2008, 11:02 AM

Sea, the Pope thing was abit of a gag, if he really did it and I was god I'd make sure the ball hit him double hard just for being daft.

As to the rest, I don't think any of it has anything to do with the existance or not of god.
Just trying to explain what I think concerning faith within science, we are quite agreed that it is different from faith within religion.

@Raaid you refer to science as atheist, it is neither atheist or theist. There is a strong link between science and athiesm. In that by providing alternative, naturalistic and evidence based explinations for things like the variety and adaption of species etc it opens the mind that god (or other supernatural agents) may not be needed to explain things. If they are not needed it raises the probability that they are not. Atleast that's how it was for me. You will however find plenty (although in my experience a minority) of scientists who are theists.