THE PACK Message Boards

Anook wrote:Well, now that I think about it....
After reading Sets response, I agree with him.

"Her." Not "him."

Oh, I'm sorry

I didn't know!

I'm sorry Set.

My strange love for debating has dragged this convesation WAY off topic...

...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...

I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.




Back on Topic:


A human, or even an entire family tree of humans with the dogface hair mutation and a mental disorder which regresses them to animalistic behavior is NOT a Werewolf any more than a Wolf-Therian is a Werewolf. IMHO.

People like that allready exist, or at least have existed. (Well...maybe never all together in a single person) ...but they are not Werewolves. ...just "wannabe's", fakers and sometimes troubled and in need of special treatment.

Now...if there was some rare mutation of wolf that someone discovered, whose unique saliva sometimes could "infect" a human, resulting in a complex hormone disorder which caused them to develop excessive hair, hyper-sensitized senses, steriod-like muscle growth, increased aggitatedness, increased hunger for protien, and a dermal condition which forced thier skin to regenerate more than usual...resulting in speedier healing for surface wounds, at the expense of constantly tender skin...

...or something as impossibly coincidental...

...THEN I would consider calling the condition TRUE Lycanthropy, and refering to those affected as "REAL" Werewolves.


Maybe.


It would have to be something pretty Fantastic and Extrordinary like that.

Vuldari wrote:...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...

I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.

They've been adding up since before you were born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_re ... g_of_light

[quote="Lupin"][quote="Vuldari"]...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...

I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]

They've been adding up since before you were born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_re ... g_of_light[/quote]
The Contents of that link can be summed up as..."We have seen that Light bends where there is alot of gravity."

That has allready been established. I see no explanations as to WHY is does.


"GRAVITY" is what we call the phenominon that keeps us from floating into outer space. We have made countless observations which confirm that it seems to affect all matter, as well as light, equally, and is disrupted and influenced only by other instances of itself, and by no other force (that we know of). ...but we honestly still don't really know what "IT" is.

It's like tracking an animal we have never seen before. We have seen it's footprints on the ground, and have observed the changes it causes in the environment where it has been...but to this day, we still don't really know what kind of creature it is. ...only that it is undeniable that, whatever it is...it exists.

I find that Einstein had the best explanation when it came to describing "gravity," in that one can think of an object in space as moving along a 2-dimensional plane that lies directly beneath the object. Now, the object, whatever it is, makes a dimple in its plane, and the more massive the object, the larger and deeper the dimple it makes. Gravity occurs when another, less massive object enters the first object's dimple. When the second object enters the first object's dimple, it goes around the dimple, hence the formation of an orbit. Also, if the object is massive enough, it can also influence the movement of the movement of the object that captured it, as is the case with Pluto and Charon.

[quote="Apokryltaros"]I find that Einstein had the best explanation when it came to describing "gravity," in that one can think of an object in space as moving along a 2-dimensional plane that lies directly beneath the object. Now, the object, whatever it is, makes a dimple in its plane, and the more massive the object, the larger and deeper the dimple it makes. Gravity occurs when another, less massive object enters the first object's dimple. When the second object enters the first object's dimple, it goes around the dimple, hence the formation of an orbit. Also, if the object is massive enough, it can also influence the movement of the movement of the object that captured it, as is the case with Pluto and Charon.[/quote]
Do you realise that this is using an example of gravity at work to describe itself?

The Dimple scenario is a great way to observe a remarkably accurate immitation of how large scale gravitational anomolies will behave (such as a meteor passing by a planet), but on a much more manageable scale to behold. ...however I still don't see how it really explains anything.

I actually find Einstiens "Dark Matter" theories to be much more facinating...although, overall, I think the man is a bit OverRated. He was Very, Very Smart...but not everything he said and theorized was correct, even though much of it seems to be.

Vuldari wrote:[quote="Lupin"][quote="Vuldari"]...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...

I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.

They've been adding up since before you were born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_re ... g_of_light[/quote][/size]
The Contents of that link can be summed up as..."We have seen that Light bends where there is alot of gravity."[/quote]

No. It states that light has been observed being deflected to a degree consistant with the predictions of general relativity. Which is why it's under the section "Predictions of General Relativity"

That has allready been established. I see no explanations as to WHY is does.

Perhaps you should try reading the entire article then.
Or this one: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

General relativity postulates that the geometry of space-time is non-Euclidean, and is curved in the presence of stress-energy (in this case, matter.) This deformation affects things propagating through it, such as light.

Vuldari wrote: Do you realise that this is using an example of gravity at work to describe itself?

Well, I'm sorry, but, I don't know how to use a ouiji board to communicate with Herr Einstein or Herr Newton for a more accurate explanation.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Vuldari wrote: Do you realise that this is using an example of gravity at work to describe itself?

Well, I'm sorry, but, I don't know how to use a ouiji board to communicate with Herr Einstein or Herr Newton for a more accurate explanation.

Figarou wrote:

...Fern Gully flashbacks...

Anook: Everyone thinks I'm a guy. And you know what? I've given up on correcting them. I'm not exactly "girly", and I know that. It doesn't bug me. Never has.

I have a problem with any kind of shapeshifter, it is not that i do not wish that shapeshifters are real it is my very small area (of MY particular brain) that says that there are just too many problem with MY view of werewolves however i do think that the many sightings are SOMTHING i just do not think they are werewolves.
However i do not rule out the fact that in time we may be able to have complete shapeshifting abilities (which would be SOOO cool

1. long posts about gravity scare me
2. if you well look at set profile its says right there THAT SHE IS A FEMALE! so look next time before you post

good for us!

LoyalReaperDragon wrote:good for us!

The nice people who make "Faces of Death" make a mint out of that particular piece of physics legislation, even.

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:The Contents of that link can be summed up as..."We have seen that Light bends where there is alot of gravity."

No. It states that light has been observed being deflected to a degree consistant with the predictions of general relativity. Which is why it's under the section "Predictions of General Relativity"

That has allready been established. I see no explanations as to WHY is does.

Perhaps you should try reading the entire article then.

General relativity postulates that the geometry of space-time is non-Euclidean, and is curved in the presence of stress-energy (in this case, matter.) This deformation affects things propagating through it, such as light.

I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.

Apokryltaros wrote:Well, I'm sorry, but, I don't know how to use a ouiji board to communicate with Herr Einstein or Herr Newton for a more accurate explanation.

It wouldn't help anyway...

...They didn't know either. NO ONE does. ...not yet.



I think this conversation is over. If anyone REALLY wants to continue it, or start over, they are certainly welcome to start a new thread.


Let's get back on the topic of "WEREWOLVES".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

geekboy1500 wrote:I have a problem with any kind of shapeshifter, it is not that i do not wish that shapeshifters are real it is my very small area (of MY particular brain) that says that there are just too many problem with MY view of werewolves. However I do think that the many sightings are SOMTHING, I just do not think they are werewolves.
However I do not rule out the fact that in time we may be able to have complete shapeshifting abilities (which would be SOOO cool.)

I agree with GeekBoy...This sums up two of my opinons on this matter.

1: Werewolf sightings are sightings of Something...but it isn't werewolves.

2: Though I do not believe that there could be a shapeshifting species (in the way movie werewolves change...I don't mean like catterpillar/butterflys) on our planet without us knowing of it...I DO believe that it is possible for such a being to exist...either through a path of evolution not-yet-followed (on earth), or by artificial creation.

I believe that a real shapeshifting werewolf could exist in the same way I think a space station the size of the "DEATH STAR" could exist. ...obvioulsly, is doesn't exist right now...but if the pieces were put together the right way...it could.

Vuldari wrote:I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.

No, there's a clause in there that wasn't in your summarization thats farily important, as it contains the entire point of the sentence.

How did you guys even get into this conversation? Even though you two are higly educated, but it looks to me you guys still get into the silliest arguements like everyone esle.

Vuldari wrote: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.

Shadow Wulf wrote:How did you guys even get into this conversation? Even though you two are higly educated, but it looks to me you guys still get into the silliest arguements like everyone esle.

Like you're one to talk

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.

No, there's a clause in there that wasn't in your summarization thats farily important, as it contains the entire point of the sentence.

...oh...please... you are stuck on the reference to the theory of "Relativity"?

How does that change anything? NO DUH it is consistant with established, accepted theories. Most things are. Scientists tend to make a big fuss when they are not. ...so it doesn't disproove the theory of relativity...why is that relevant to this conversation? ...which is supposed to be ended, BTW.

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.

Vuldari wrote:...oh...please... you are stuck on the reference to the theory of "Relativity"?

How does that change anything?

The fact that the predictions are consistant with observation is fairly important in figuring out what's correct and what isn't.

NO DUH it is consistant with established, accepted theories. Most things are. Scientists tend to make a big fuss when they are not. ...so it doesn't disproove the theory of relativity...why is that relevant to this conversation? ...which is supposed to be ended, BTW.

Well, you keep replying.

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.

Shadow Wulf wrote:

Vuldari wrote: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".