Youngtusk

Is this thread the best place to come to check for updates? I haven't read any scans in sooo long. I would love to get caught up and see where the story has gone.

Indeed, I think an afterlife would be awesome. Especially if it was designed by the person to inhabit it. But truth be told I imagine that death will be a lot like my experiences before I was born. At any rate, I think that death is important to keep in mind the purposes of life. If we were immortal then time wouldn't mean anything because it would be an unlimited resource. But with a limited amount of time it gives us purpose, drive, and the motivation to do extraordinary things with our lives. To me, even the idea of heaven undermines the miracle of living. That being said, I understand that the brain is exposed to high levels of DMT just before death. Imagine your dreams and how your sense of time is stretched-- dream experiences can last for several days but really only pass in seconds in the "real world" clock. So who knows what kind of strange dreams you will have in your final moments of life. And furthermore, they could last for years in your mind before your body finally gives out. That being said I don't necessarily fear death as much as I fear the consequences of my death to those who are left behind. Just thinking about leaving my wife and children behind, for example, sends a shiver down my back--and I don't actually have either! The dead do not suffer as the living do.

That is a stretch of an analogy but I see what you were trying to get at. You think it is possible then, eventually, to wield such a power? Or are you only speculating on the hypothetical of the power if such absolute knowledge were attained?

If there is a god it is beyond our capacity for comprehension. To understand a creator we'd first have to understand everything about it's creation. Seeing as how in our young ages of evolution that answers in science lead to more questions, this may take some time if it's possible at all. You think in several millions or billions of years we will figure out everything there is to know about the universe and reality? Or do you think we will never know everything about anything?

Good discussions. I saw Zeo mentioning the nature of the term metaphysics and I thought I'd throw in my two cents. It doesn't mean beyond physics as much as it means after physics because in Aristotle's written works these topics of philosophy would be physically following chapters regarding actual physics. Lacking a better name they became known as "after physics," or metaphysics. So it does mean beyond, but in a literal sense of physical arrangement. Needless to say the name has stuck.

I'm aware of the illusion of freewill, but if the earth is to be destroyed on 2012 like is predicted, then whats the point of doing anything? Why would anyone give credibility or thought to such an event as it is as futile as our future.

I don't give in to the 2012 ideas because I don't like the idea that our existence is so predetermined that we could predict our demise thousands of years ago. Whats the point of living if life makes its own choices? Besides, people made a huge deal about Y2K and that was an utter flop. The more thought we give to 2012 the more we empower it. I just think its all so silly.

I think the ordeal with 2012 is a grip of superstition and mysticism. I think people want something to happen. For that reason alone, something might happen afterall simply because it is the will or expectations of the mass.

That makes sense to me; theres no reason why matter can't be drawn through the siphon. Sure it may jsut be speculation, but its an educated guess and thats good enough for me.

I see, the Guyver doesn't eat or drink, so when it regenerates it must get that matter from somewhere, and that somewhere is the conversion of energy from the boost dimension. So...anyone have a theory of how it works...? Edit: The more I think about it the more it makes sense. The Guyver must be able to convert energy into matter on some level. The host needs oxygen to survive, and although I'm sure the Guyver can obtain that air supply from the atmosphere or water(when submerged), what about when Sho and Agito entered the Relic ship for the first time? It was filled with an unkown liquid solution. It could have been water I suppose, but if it wasn't then there wouldn't be oxygen in it for the Guyvers to absorb. So how would the suit give them oxygen? I also think it makes sense that the Guyver is capable of long-term survival in vacuum. Heck, if Aptom could survive in space long enough to launch his huge beam against Sho Gigantic, then I think its in the realm of plausibility that the GUyver can survive space. So where do these molecules come from?

Well my concern is in the GUyver's ability to convert the energy feed from the gravitational siphon into matter? Maybe with the gravity control orb or energy compresssors?

I've been reading a lot about converting energy into matter. I know that certain reactions can convert matter into energy, like fire. But what about the other way around? I've read that it can be done in super colliders but on a very small scale and at the expense of a lot of energy. Does the Guyver have the capabilities to pull this off on a more practical level? The Gigantic has plasma jets but as far as I understand that uses collected atmospheric gases in its reaction. Is there anyway a Gigantic could use this ability in total vacuum without charging up with matter first? If it could possibly be done, how? I ain't looking for any canon-official stuff here, just the potential or technical aspect of it.

Of course, there is a certain level fo tact involved. But you have to make it clear that you enjoy her company and want to spend time with her. I'm not saying call her everyday and leave her flowers every night. Just show effort.

Its harder to handle obesidty than you think. A many a folk consider it a disease, like alcoholism. Sure the brain can be rewired, but we're talking about 5 year olds that weight over a hundred pounds here, a lot of them. Yeah I don't about designing genes for kids. It would be cool, but its a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? I can forsee gene-trends surfacing, like its the cool thing to give your kid such and such traits. I think it would easily get out of hand. Although I think it would be awesome to design my kid, whats gonna stop me from making my kids with peak abilities? Whats gonna stop everyone from doing that? The world will just become overrun with elite genetically altered humans. Wierd drenn.

Actually, it was a woman. It was from a testimony called I, Rigoberta Menchu. As a child she watched her brother being burned alive by the Guatemalan army for trying to help her people as a guerilla fighter. She also lost both her parents, two brothers, a sister-in-law and three nieces and nephews to the Guatemalan security forces, all while working as peons on a plantation for eight months out of the year. Yes, if you try to ignore all the terrible things that happen everyday, you can find contentness. But a lot of people lack the analytical skills to do such. I can find appreciation in small victories, but i've learned to do it through a lot of reading and discussions. What do you expect a child to do with that sort of reality when they grow up?

I've been researching a lot about obesidty in children. If we could apply gene therapy to that somehow, I think thats the path we need to take. This coming generation may be the first in which they children die younger than their parents.

In my experience, all it takes to get a girl you like is persistence. Familiarity breeds liking; the more time you spend with someone, the greater your relationship becomes and the less important superficial things like looks become. Just have to stay driven and motivated. If you truly like a girl enough, you'll stop at nothing to get her.

Right, tell that to a Guatemalan Cashcrop worker who watched their brother be burned alive for resisting the corporate military. Tell them that happiness can be found within them. That aproach might work.

Thats exactly what people do believe! They feel that somehow their only purpsoe for existence is to be happy. This is further reinforced by media and social matterialism. Buy this and it'll make you happy, look younger and it will make you happy. DO this, do that, do this, do that. We act and think as if somehow we're entitled to happiness. This simply is not true.

Nice find, but I don't like it. It makes me dislike CHimps even more. I mean, they're fascinating, but scarey. They make me think of humans with even fewer impulse constraints from ethics and prinicples. Screw that. I say figues out what we need from them and then kill em all.

Just because Elites can fuel progress doesn't mean we should seek progress through elitism. Rationality, science, and compassion can also lead to progress. It may be a more difficult road to travel, but the rewards will be that much more gratifying. To know that we as a People conquered over the forces of old and evil, stepped above the superficiality that is fed to us, and promoted progres through education and empathy. This is true progress, because the movement is based on values that are carried by more than just an elite few who can be killed or assassinated. You can't assassinate a revolution.

Watched the video, very interesting ideas and points, but i'm too skeptical to fully accept all its conclusions. On believing in God, I don't doubt that theres a creator of the universe, I just think we're arrogant to believe that we know anything about it or anything about how it wants us to act. I mean, we don't even understand gravity and dark matter, how could we be so conceited to think we know anything about the creator of these mysteries? Ultimately, organized religion for the most part is a fraud in my eyes, with no reasonable backing. But on the idea of a One-World Government, yes it may bring about peace and human efficiency and progress, but its forced peace, forced progression. You're talking about controling a species of conscience beings like slaves. I think its a cop-out. If we can't earn peace ourselves as a society, we don't deserve peace. If we've come so far as a civilization to acknowledge natural rights and freedom and liberty and the like, and we can't progress ourselves to achieve these ideals on our own as people, individuals, then we deserve nothing more than to blow ourselves up into civil and social recession. Coercing the masses into submission is cheating, we don't deserve peace as a species if were too stupid to not make it work ourselves. I'd honestly preffer an extinction to totalitarian 'progress.'

I don't believe in any sort of religion, but I still feel my life has purpose. Its sad to me that People aren't satisfied with just living, they need something to live for. The universe is such a lonely place from our perspective, and yet People can't see the beauty in the fact that we're here and alive. So, if religion helps them, so be it. But my point is, why do People need something so abstract to live for? I mean, none of us asked to live, but we're alive anyway. Isn't that enough? Sure not everyone thinks like me, but they would if they would put their lives in perspective. Life is all we have, its the only thing we've got. If you can't appreciate life, then you've got nothing. Anyway, I think religion is a joke. I mean, here we are, so imperfect and ignorant we can't even understand things like dark matter and gravity, what makes us so arrogant to say that we know what the creator of these mysteries wants us to do, or how it wants us to act? Give me a break, even if this universe was created by a higher being, its so far beyond us I dare say its near irrelevant to our conceited existence. I don't need religion to appreciate life, I don't need religion to be thankfull for everything I have, i've just analyzed existence enough to come to the conclusion that i'm lucky to be here and that i've only got one shot at this, so it better be a damn good shot.

Awesome. Thats a trip but i'm starting to get it now. I guess if I want to fully get Relativity and SPecial Relativity than i'm gonna have to take a couple Physics courses huh? I prefer just asking you guys I just have one more question(for now ) regarding the Twin Paradox and reference frames. So, if one of the twins left earth and flew away, depending on whose reference frame you used would determine who would expereince time dilation and differential aging(relative to the other, of course). But in actuallity, dilation is tied to velocity as a function, so the closer to maximum velocity you get, the more dilation you'll experience despite which reference frame you choose to use. So even though to the space-bound Twin it looks like earth is accelerating away from him, in actuality its the space ship's velocity that determines dilation...right?

In that link you gave me, Zeo, it shows a graph and says that Time dilation is a function of maximum velocity and not acceleration. So, dilation has nothing to do with speed or acceleration, but only vector velocity. But what exactly does maximum velocity refer to here? I would assume its the speed of light, but I googled it and nothign came up. And Ryuki, thats a good idea, but theres very little, if any friction in space, because theres no gravitational force pushing matter against other matter. So that wouldn't work in space. In atmosphere it would, thats why we have things like Surf Boards, Wheels, and Slip-n-Slides. They're all friction-reducing apparatuses.