Real Werewolves, are they out there.

[Vuldari]

Well, you keep replying.

So do you.

Recognising that the phenominon plays by "the rules" like almost everything else in the universe seems to, does not bring us closer to knowing what it is yet. ...it just helps us to anticipate what to expect from it.

This is why I don't think you understand it: you have it backwards. It's not important that 'phenominon' plays by the rules. The important fact is that the 'rules' we came up with match the observed phenomena. The model has to match the universe, and not the other way around.

...and I don't think you remember what we are talking about.

We are not discussing the validity of the Therory of Relativity...we were discussing whether or not modern science has truely defined what gravity actually IS yet. At least...that is what I have been talking about.

How can two particles, or masses, not touching each other, with absolutely nothing between them or connecting them in the vaccum of space pull each other closer together? What is actually causing that? How can we be sure that there is actually "Pulling" going on when we can not detect what, if anything, is doing it? Obviously Something is causing them to move...but what is it? ...what is it REALLY?

We only see that light and matter is being moved, and see that the patterns of those movements are consistant with other actions observed in the universe, which reaffirms our theories that things will in fact consistantly behave in this way in all scenarios...and we have isolated the conditions under which this phenominon is found to occur ... around all matter in magnitudes exactly corelated to the amount of matter present and the density of said matter.

However, in spite of all of this useful, aplicable observation, we have not yet defined and explained what force is actually responsible for it, and how it achieves it's effects. In other words...we know it exists...and we know what it does...but we don't know how it does it or what it is. The same can be said about Light. It's a particle...its not a particle...its a wave...what is it?

So many unanswered questions.

[Lupin]

Well, you keep replying.

So do you.

It takes two to tango.

...and I don't think you remember what we are talking about.

We are not discussing the validity of the Therory of Relativity...we were discussing whether or not modern science has truely defined what gravity actually IS yet. At least...that is what I have been talking about.

Acutally, we were talking about what a scientific theory was, I just threw in an offhand comment about gravitational attraction being a theory. Gravitaional attraction is one of the things covered by general relativity.

How can two particles, or masses, not touching each other, with absolutely nothing between them or connecting them in the vaccum of space pull each other closer together?

Because they are not independent entities. They're *in* space and linked by space-time.

What is actually causing that?

The cuvature of space due to the presence of mass.

How can we be sure that there is actually "Pulling" going on when we can not detect what, if anything, is doing it?

But we can detect the curvature of space-time.

Obviously Something is causing them to move...but what is it? ...what is it REALLY?

The bottom of a gravity well has a lower energy potential than the top of one.

However, in spite of all of this useful, aplicable observation, we have not yet defined and explained what force is actually responsible for it, and how it achieves it's effects.

Once again, the curvature of space-time isn't a force anymore than the curvature of the bowl on my desk that holds my art supplies is a force.

The same can be said about Light. It's a particle...its not a particle...its a wave...what is it?

Just because something exhibits wave-like properties doesn't mean it's not a particle (as is the converse.) One can preform the double-slit experiment with atoms as well.

[Vuldari]

"Space-Time" is Bull$***...

I believe that is one thing that Einstien got wrong. It appears to explain alot of things, and nothing has been able to conclusively disprove it yet...but I belive that, eventually, the theory of "Space-Time" will be ammended. It is a complex and briliantly concieved theory...but a broken one. I am quite convinced of that.


Go ahead and laugh at me, and chalk this one up to "dilusional conceitedness" if you like, as I have no research or degrees in advanced "quantum" physics to back up my claims, but I believe that there is a fundamental error in the assumptions behind this school of scientific theory.

Vuldari's archaic sounding Hypothesis of Space-Time
Space and Time do not Exist.

They are not tangible things that can be bent, warped, or interacted with. They are abstract interpretations of things that, unfortunately, are currently beyond our intelectual capacity to properly comprehend...such as the idea of infinity. There are those who are dumbfounded by the idea of space going on forever, with no end, that they have devised very convincing sounding theories about how the universe is actually a finite amount of space, and that traveling far enough in one direction will lead you back to the other side (like passing through the gates on the sides of a "Pac-Man" board). ...which should be obviously seen as 'nonsense'...or so I believe.

Time can not be slowed, accelerated or backtracked. "Timetravel" (regardless of which great scientists shared fantastic theories about dragging black holes around at light speed, and nonsense like that) is impossible. You cant go back to what was, because it isn't there any more. There is nothing to go back to. It is right here...it's all just moved around. There is only "now". There is no "Then" and "Later" is just "Now" with things in new positions.

Yes, I am aware of some Nobel-Prize winning, (I think), research "Prooving" that space and time CAN and DO get warped, and I am allready vaguely familiar with it.

The research is sound...I believe they are just mis-interpreting the results. There quite likely ("Certainly", as far as the value of a theory is concerned) are other foces at work around us that we can not see and are not fully aware of yet, but CAN be interacted with, for extrordinary results like what many scientists have accepted as Warped Space-Time...but I seriously doubt they actually are "Space and Time Itself".


----------------------------------------------------------------------


So there you have it...



Vuldari is a Dilusional Psycho-Nut who thinks he knows better than Einstein and is Concieted enough to contest one of the Base Theories upon which most of Modern Science is built upon.

...even though he has never even attended a Physics Class.

Mathmatically speaking, the chances of me being wrong, and the rest of the scientific community being right are exponentially higher than it being the other way around.

But I stand confidently by my beliefs none the less, untill I am able to constructively attend a "Space-Time" Lecture/Debate with leaders in the field and either be convinced that I have been mistaken, or am able to proove my contest valid.



Like I have said before...to truely learn and progress, occasionally we must re-question EVERYTHING. If we miraculously got it right the first time, obviously the truth will not change...but there is certainly a great deal that we have still got wrong.


Never, ever, EVER stop asking questions.

[Edit: Corrected word usage...I had allready typed that word so many times, I didn't even stop to think about it. Also rephrased a perticularly stubborn sounding comment.]


(Note: For reasons I don't completely understand, this subject has been making me feel very angry and aggitated, and I realise that the minor points the whole thing started over are simply not worth the grief, so I have no intention on making any futher comments on Gravity, the definition and value of a "Theory", or the existance or non-existance of "Space Time". I apologise for disrupting the primary discussion.)

[Renorei]

Ahem....that's not a theory you have there Vuldari, that's a hypothesis.
*prepares for barrage of duckies*.

[Lupin]

Vuldari's archaic sounding Theory of Space-Time

That is not a theory.

1) It can't be used to explain anything other than saying 'we don't know.'
2) There's nothing which can be used to confirm or deny it specificly.
3) It's not backed by empirical evidence. (See point #2, and the whole reason this thread drifted off-topic.)

[Set]

1. long posts about gravity scare me

Agreed.

2. if you well look at set profile its says right there THAT SHE IS A FEMALE! so look next time before you post

Since when? *looks*

...Damn it, don't do that. I had it off for a reason.

Ahem....that's not a theory you have there Vuldari, that's a hypothesis.
*prepares for barrage of duckies*.

[Apokryltaros]

Oh, and one more thing: generally speaking, when looking at the interactions of particles of molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic levels, it's generally assumed that the particles interact with each other as according to electromagnetic, and not gravitational forces, given as how negative ions seek out positive charges regardless of whether or not the two particles are upside down, perpendicular, etc, and that the particles are too small to affect the gravity of each other in the first place.

[Lupin]

Oh, and one more thing: generally speaking, when looking at the interactions of particles of molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic levels, it's generally assumed that the particles interact with each other as according to electromagnetic, and not gravitational forces, given as how negative ions seek out positive charges regardless of whether or not the two particles are upside down, perpendicular, etc, and that the particles are too small to affect the gravity of each other in the first place.

Gravitational attraction is fairly weak anyway. A two-ounce magnet can overcome the gravity of the entire planet. (And makes a very nice clamp to keep my mouse cable from moving all over the place.)

[Apokryltaros]

Gravitational attraction is fairly weak anyway. A two-ounce magnet can overcome the gravity of the entire planet. (And makes a very nice clamp to keep my mouse cable from moving all over the place.)

You know what I've always wanted to do?
Take a big electromagnet and shove it in the face of some person with 20 or more piercings, and say, "Give me all your money and valuables! I have an electromagnet, and I'm not afraid to turn it on!"

[Vilkacis]

I haven't had the time to read this whole argument (and argument it seems to be, not debate!), but I have a few things I'd like to say whiile I'm taking a break from project busy-work.

Some of the things Vuldari said struck a chord with me. Not because he has made me think in a different way, but rather because he has stated concisely a number of things related to thoughts that have already been bouncing around in my own head. It's nice to know at least one other person thinks some of this stuff just defies common sense.

That doesn't mean we're right. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, either, so long as it involves more than sticking out your tongue and saying, "Nuh, uh!" or petty bickering about the most convenient semantic misstep. Many scientists, for all their claims to open-mindedness, get too comfortable and set in their ways. It's too easy to automatically say, "Wrong," to anything that defies what we "know." How boring.

(There is at least a grain of truth in the saying, "You know a good idea by the enemies it makes.")

A model is a model is a model, and any model of anything complex or not well understood is very probably flawed. Call it a hypotheses; maybe even call it a theory, or put whatever label on it that you want--there's always room for improvement.

Another general observation I'd like to make is that correlation is not the same as cause. A useful model is not necessarily the most correct one. One cannot simply declare it the one true answer because it seems to describe what (little) we know of reality. It's useful (maybe even correct), but that doesn't mean one should stop other possibilities from being explored, no matter how misguided, because sometimes those misguided attempts stumble upon something unexpected.

How often have we seen useful things come about because of mistakes?

Finally, I would point out that there need not be only one correct answer (if an answer can even be "correct"). Two models can be as different as night and day, but if they provide the exact same predictions in a situation, they are equally useful in that situation.

The point of everything I'm saying is not that one of us is correct or incorrect, but that it's really silly to get offended because the other guy's not listening to you. There are more pleasant partners to tango with than the ones who intentionally step on your feet.




One question on the side:

Obviously Something is causing them to move...but what is it? ...what is it REALLY?

The bottom of a gravity well has a lower energy potential than the top of one.

However, in spite of all of this useful, aplicable observation, we have not yet defined and explained what force is actually responsible for it, and how it achieves it's effects.

Once again, the curvature of space-time isn't a force anymore than the curvature of the bowl on my desk that holds my art supplies is a force.

You clearly have a much greater knowledge on this subject than I do.

I'm a bit confused by these points. In the first, you say there's a difference in potential energy, yet it is my understanding that potential energy, by definition, exists only in the presence of force. However, your very next point states that there is no force. Am I misinterpreting this?

-- Vilkacis

[Lupin]

A model is a model is a model, and any model of anything complex or not well understood is very probably flawed. Call it a hypotheses; maybe even call it a theory, or put whatever label on it that you want--there's always room for improvement.

Right, but even if the model is flawed, does it mater if it is in a way that never deviates with observed data? (Not that general relativity is one of these models.)

Finally, I would point out that there need not be only one correct answer (if an answer can even be "correct"). Two models can be as different as night and day, but if they provide the exact same predictions in a situation, they are equally useful in that situation.

Yep, this is why Newton is still taught. He's off, but it doesn't matter much in most everyday applications.

You clearly have a much greater knowledge on this subject than I do.

It confused the crap out of me when I first came across it, so I ended up reading everything I could about it. I still doubt I understand it completley though, I tend to be more of a visual person. Hopefully one day I can make some sense of Quantum Mechanics, as it's very conunter-intuitive.

I'm a bit confused by these points. In the first, you say there's a difference in potential energy, yet it is my understanding that potential energy, by definition, exists only in the presence of force. However, your very next point states that there is no force. Am I misinterpreting this?

What I was saying is that the curvature of space is an end result, and not a force. What I really should have said is that the object falling into the gravity well follows geodesic of the curved space time.

[Shadow Wulf]

IMHO, It is not good to believe in the words of scientists and textbook research with unquestioning religious faith. We will Never know Everything, and we will Always be at least partially Wrong and Confused about how the universe works.

Thank you, thats exactly how I feel with scientists Just because they say so, doesnt mean its always true.

Just to clarify my standing...I am not saying that anyone should ignore what scientists say since, "they don't know what they are talking about".

...becaue they DO.

If you can't trust the smartest people in the world, who CAN you trust?

I'm just saying that, it's a good idea to keep asking questions, even if they all Seem to have been answered allready. Sometimes asking a question that has been allready been asked, and answered, 1,000 times, for the 1,001st time will result in a different answer. ..a truer one.


Like when I was learning to paint, and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't make the blue paint look "Sky Blue".

I lightened and darkened it... I tried every shade of blue I could manage. But then I asked myself..."Is the sky really Blue?". So...I experimented and mixed in a little yellow to make it a Bluish-Green and, suprise suprise, there on my page was the elusive "Sky Blue".

I knew exactly what you meant. I do believe most of what scientists say is true. But I know that they can make mistakes, so like you said its always good to ask plenty of questions, the more you ask the more narrow the answer can become.

[Vilkacis]

A model is a model is a model, and any model of anything complex or not well understood is very probably flawed. Call it a hypotheses; maybe even call it a theory, or put whatever label on it that you want--there's always room for improvement.

Right, but even if the model is flawed, does it mater if it is in a way that never deviates with observed data? (Not that general relativity is one of these models.)

I don't believe so--that is, until our understanding grows to encompass the realm where our empirical data either:

a) cannot be explained by the model, or
b) runs afoul of said flaw.

We can see cases in the past where these have occurred. But until then, it doesn't matter because we can't do better. Different models might explore different questions, however. Short of accident, that's the only way to grow our knowledge. Bad questions can lead to good ones.

It confused the crap out of me when I first came across it, so I ended up reading everything I could about it. I still doubt I understand it completley though, I tend to be more of a visual person. Hopefully one day I can make some sense of Quantum Mechanics, as it's very conunter-intuitive.

It's something that has caught my attention time and time again. I think I'd like to take a deeper look into it myself.

What I was saying is that the curvature of space is an end result, and not a force. What I really should have said is that the object falling into the gravity well follows geodesic of the curved space time.

Can we conclude that there is a force involved, then? That is, the one that causes the object to fall into the well by enabling this difference in potential energy?

-- Vilkacis

[Lupin]

Can we conclude that there is a force involved, then? That is, the one that causes the object to fall into the well by enabling this difference in potential energy?

In classical physics yes. However the word line explination in relativity is a bit different, and is the reason why while you can use a rocket to move at a speed below escape velocity to leave Earth, you can't pull things out of a black hole with a rope or something. Space is so curved that there aren't any world lines that exit the event horizon.

[Morkulv]

[Lupin]

Excepted by you perhaps. Fact is that a theory isn't nesesarry true. A theory is more like religion in that way. You either choose to believe it, or not.

Or, you could choose to reproduce the experiment on your own and see if your results are consistant with the expected ones.

Science is science because it's reproducable.

(I actually set this up out of bordeom and the fact I had never tried it with my laser pointer. One day I plan to do this again with electrons too.)

Edit: I spel gud.

[Curan]

Fact is that a theory isn't nesesarry true. A theory is more like religion in that way. You either choose to believe it, or not.

I agree with you in that point where you are saying "Fact is that a theory isn't nesesarry true." Not having the absolute proof for a statement or a model is reflecting the trueth makes it a theory. Our theories are models which picture the the face of the nature, nor less neither more. Those theories are as long valid as their statemants correlate with observations beeing made. Otherwise they have to be rejected, to be modified according to the obversations or to be enhanced in that way that the new theory discribes the new phenomena correctly and having the old theory as part of itself.

I disagree with you when you are sayng "A theory is more like religion in that way."
The main character of a religion is faith. You have to belief though. And to belief means not to know. So statements beeing made in a religion doesen't need a proof, 'cause you belief in them. That's the main difference between science and religion (or myths).

Hmmhh ... I hope I could make my point of view clear.

[Mr_Moonlight]

To consider the question of whether or not there are creatures that can assume both man and wolf form, I will bring god into the picture for a moment. I, incidentally, do believe in (one omnipotent) god, and my view would be this: if god can create the entire universe from an unimaginably dense source of energy smaller than an atom, I would reason that if he wanted to, he could've also created creatures that could assume dual forms. In fact, upon consideration, one can see that such creatures do exist- think about how many living things morph from one body structure into another during their life cycle. Tadpoles become frogs, catepillars, butterflies, etc etc.

Now then, why he wouldnt create a man that could assume the shape of a wolf at will, I will say, is because it would be an uneven playing field- everyone knows that encounters between two different types of beings usually ends with the domination of the weaker by the stronger.

It would be a very different world, we know, if there were a species of humanoids that could just change into wolves at will and do what they please- I know for one that i'd do a few things I cant get away with now.... and maybe thats why god didnt create such beings, because he wanted us all to play on an even table, and to learn other ways to cope with the multitude of things that would ever want to make us change into an animal in the first place.

Somehow with all the mental diseases of varying malignancy that are resulting from people's inability to vent/work out their problems/find the remedy for whats eating their insides etc, I would say that our modern ways of coping today are not working.

So, maybe after all, it might be better to walk out into the moonlight at 2 am when no ones around, become the animal physically that most men are already on the inside, and just be free and do what we want- I cant think of a better cure for modern trappings- just dont follow after peter stubbe's example.....

Thoughts? This is my first post by the way, and I feel lucky to've found this board, on which I expect to read and participate in many interesting conversations ;-)

[Lukas]

To consider the question of whether or not there are creatures that can assume both man and wolf form, I will bring god into the picture for a moment. I, incidentally, do believe in (one omnipotent) god, and my view would be this: if god can create the entire universe from an unimaginably dense source of energy smaller than an atom, I would reason that if he wanted to, he could've also created creatures that could assume dual forms. In fact, upon consideration, one can see that such creatures do exist- think about how many living things morph from one body structure into another during their life cycle. Tadpoles become frogs, catepillars, butterflies, etc etc.

Now then, why he wouldnt create a man that could assume the shape of a wolf at will, I will say, is because it would be an uneven playing field- everyone knows that encounters between two different types of beings usually ends with the domination of the weaker by the stronger.

It would be a very different world, we know, if there were a species of humanoids that could just change into wolves at will and do what they please- I know for one that i'd do a few things I cant get away with now.... and maybe thats why god didnt create such beings, because he wanted us all to play on an even table, and to learn other ways to cope with the multitude of things that would ever want to make us change into an animal in the first place.

Somehow with all the mental diseases of varying malignancy that are resulting from people's inability to vent/work out their problems/find the remedy for whats eating their insides etc, I would say that our modern ways of coping today are not working.

So, maybe after all, it might be better to walk out into the moonlight at 2 am when no ones around, become the animal physically that most men are already on the inside, and just be free and do what we want- I cant think of a better cure for modern trappings- just dont follow after peter stubbe's example.....

Thoughts? This is my first post by the way, and I feel lucky to've found this board, on which I expect to read and participate in many interesting conversations ;-)

well we have 3 good debaters and a wealth of knowledge so you came to the right place

[geekboy1500]

if this is offensive to you i didnt mean it that way.


Can we PLEASEEE get off the topic of gravity, no one can truely explain anything because we don't have any truely concrete results, only theorys

[Vuldari]

if this is offensive to you i didnt mean it that way.


Can we PLEASEEE get off the topic of gravity, no one can truely explain anything because we don't have any truely concrete results, only theorys

Don't worry...I'm done.

(See red Note on bottom of previous post.)

[Vuldari]

To consider the question of whether or not there are creatures that can assume both man and wolf form, I will bring god into the picture for a moment. I, incidentally, do believe in (one omnipotent) god, and my view would be this: if god can create the entire universe from an unimaginably dense source of energy smaller than an atom, I would reason that if he wanted to, he could've also created creatures that could assume dual forms. In fact, upon consideration, one can see that such creatures do exist- think about how many living things morph from one body structure into another during their life cycle. Tadpoles become frogs, catepillars, butterflies, etc etc.

Now then, why he wouldnt create a man that could assume the shape of a wolf at will, I will say, is because it would be an uneven playing field- everyone knows that encounters between two different types of beings usually ends with the domination of the weaker by the stronger.

It would be a very different world, we know, if there were a species of humanoids that could just change into wolves at will and do what they please- I know for one that i'd do a few things I cant get away with now.... and maybe thats why god didnt create such beings, because he wanted us all to play on an even table, and to learn other ways to cope with the multitude of things that would ever want to make us change into an animal in the first place.

Somehow with all the mental diseases of varying malignancy that are resulting from people's inability to vent/work out their problems/find the remedy for whats eating their insides etc, I would say that our modern ways of coping today are not working.

So, maybe after all, it might be better to walk out into the moonlight at 2 am when no ones around, become the animal physically that most men are already on the inside, and just be free and do what we want- I cant think of a better cure for modern trappings- just dont follow after peter stubbe's example.....

Thoughts? This is my first post by the way, and I feel lucky to've found this board, on which I expect to read and participate in many interesting conversations ;-)

Facinating, well phrased and carefully thought out.

My own pesonal feelings about God aside, I think you make some very good points.


Welcome to the Pack, "Mr_Moonlight"!

[Lupin]

Can we PLEASEEE get off the topic of gravity, no one can truely explain anything because we don't have any truely concrete results, only theorys

Do note that it's phrases like this confuse 'theory' with 'guess' that started the topic drift.

[geekboy1500]

Also Einstien had dyslexia (i know iknow its off topic)

[geekboy1500]

On the topic of werewolfism (is that how you would phrase that ?) I think that it is a D I S T A N T possibility that werewolves are existing on earth right now, if you look at the bottom of the ocean for example, there are things there that we never even would have Dreamed about 30-40 years ago, why cant werewolves also fall into that catigory?