Thought of the day thread 💡

Offline

May 2013

11012

The theory of the Big Bang is just that... a theory. It has many flaws and many things that don't fit with it.

Quantum theory states that the universe never had a beginning.
Red shift observations of distant stars can show contradictory red shifts that say that some parts of the universe are moving in the opposite of the rest.

I believe personally the universe to be infinite, at least in what we consider a physical form.

The Big Bang theory has many flaws. I don't believe we will ever find a way of knowing the true nature of the universe and how it was came into existence.

The theory of parallel universes (Timeline by Michael Chrichton, author of Jurassic Park, is a great book btw! Movie was meh... but book was an awesome read~) is something i have always loved, even though it is more science fiction than possibility. It is based on interactions between particles... that we assume hit particles from another dimension... without even understanding how come they hit each other... (Dual-slit experiment)

Mar 28, 2015 2:20 AM

#54

Offline

Jul 2009

139

natsunootouto said:
The theory of the Big Bang is just that... a theory. It has many flaws and many things that don't fit with it.

Quantum theory states that the universe never had a beginning.
Red shift observations of distant stars can show contradictory red shifts that say that some parts of the universe are moving in the opposite of the rest.

^citation needed - and one from a renowned physics journal - preferably with a good impact factor.

Most of the questions/assumptions people made about the universe here are already pretty much explained with observational and experimental data to back it up(too bad physics education is really bad in school). While I'd never recommend wikipedia for an information source, as there are tons of misconceptions and outright wrong statements there - I guess it's somewhat easier to understand for people than a physics paper with half the pages made up of formulae and graphs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

P.S. If anybody's really interested I can recommend popular science books on physics or rather cosmology(popular means easy to understand in this case) written by people that are known not to write bs.

KRKodama said:

When you want to defend a point you have to use your own words only, for it to be valid.

Mar 28, 2015 2:35 AM

#55

Tyrantarmy6

Offline

Jul 2013

36274

The problem that I have with the Big Bang is that it would mean that the universe pretty much came in to existence from nothing. I like to think that if such a thing as the Big Bang happened, that there was something that came before it. Maybe that the universe also has a life span and goes through stages like a star. It ends up expanding and then it implodes; leaving behind materials to start over again.

Of course that is just me coming up with stupid ideas without any foundations to base it on :P

Parallel universes is also an interesting idea~

For those who seek perfection, there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Mar 28, 2015 3:09 AM

#56

Offline

Jul 2009

139

You're thinking of cyclic models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model) - there's too much empirical evidence that the universe will just continue to expand though, and that it will get colder and colder (not a nice end from a human's perspective - on the other hand all life on Earth would be long gone extinct before that happens). The Big Bang theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing - that's a common misconception used for sensationalism - like the usually wrongly explained formula E=m*c^2 in school(e.g. omg mass depends on speed! - not) - it's actually E0 = m*c^2, E= E0+Ek, where E0 is the potential energy and Ek is the kinetic energy. For a kinda serious book on cosmology I'd recommend Liddle's "An introduction to modern cosmology" - though it requires a certain mathematical foundation, or some of the papers of Zeldovich and Novikov.

KRKodama said:

When you want to defend a point you have to use your own words only, for it to be valid.

Mar 28, 2015 3:17 AM

#57

Tyrantarmy6

Offline

Jul 2013

36274

I'm terrible at mathematics so I'll pass on that book xD
It's just that an explosion doesn't happen just because. There's always something that caused it and thus I like to think that the big bang is no exception. Whatever might have caused it

It's funny though that whenever I think up some kind of idea, there's always already some kind of theory like it out there xD

For those who seek perfection, there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Mar 28, 2015 5:55 AM

#58

Offline

May 2013

11012

criver said:

^citation needed - and one from a renowned physics journal - preferably with a good impact factor.

Most of the questions/assumptions people made about the universe here are already pretty much explained with observational and experimental data to back it up(too bad physics education is really bad in school). While I'd never recommend wikipedia for an information source, as there are tons of misconceptions and outright wrong statements there - I guess it's somewhat easier to understand for people than a physics paper with half the pages made up of formulae and graphs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

P.S. If anybody's really interested I can recommend popular science books on physics or rather cosmology(popular means easy to understand in this case) written by people that are known not to write bs.

Here is the link i read. Don't get me wrong, i don't believe in either this or the Big Bang ^_^

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

And here you go~ 30 little problems with the Big Bang Theory with references
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF

Anyways, it's up to you to believe what you want, but the fact remains that it's still a theory and will remain a theory unless it is proved.

Do you really think your time scale of 'i lived 100 years~' applies to the universe? We are just a billionth of a nanosecond flash of light in the life of the universe and we try to guess what happened when it came to be. With machines and technology we don't even understand to boot.

Mar 28, 2015 7:53 AM

#59

Offline

Jul 2009

139

If I were you I'd rather not use phys.org for anything else other than entertainment - it is worse than Wikipedia in some cases - you'd be better off sticking to an actual physics journal. I shouldn't even comment on that other pdf - it's mostly a pdf made up of citations taken out of context - this is by no means a scientific paper. There's a reason there are renowned journals and "other journals", even in the "good" journals sometimes you see mind-blowing bs - but that usually happens so rarely that you can overlook it, however this is not the case (sadly) with most of the "other journals". Do not take things you read on the internet at face value - while you've got a wealth of information - most of it is outright wrong. The bad thing with physics is that it usually requires quite the background to be able to tell if somebody's spouting bs. There are some authors that try to explain some things in a fashion that would be understandable for people that have just graduated from high school - usually the minimum is some basic knowledge of calculus. Well whatever I digress.
it's still a theory" - 0:37-1:15 - I couldn't have said it better. Sure theories are not facts - but they are a lot better than wild guessing.
"Do you really think your time scale of 'i lived 100 years~' applies to the universe?We are just a billionth of a nanosecond flash of light in the life of the universe and we try to guess what happened when it came to be."
What I think doesn't really matter, and it doesn't matter how insignificant humans may be compared to the universe - it doesn't have anything to do with the intellectual abilities of (some) humans. And "guessing" is definitely not the right word when you've got so much data to back up most of your claims - guessing won't get you far as a scientist - there's a reason most actual physics papers contain mathematical proofs backed up by tons of experimental and observational data - that's as far as you can get from guessing. Guessing would be the philosopher's job - a simple example - any high school kid that has actually learned some calculus can prove that Zeno's paradox is actually not a paradox.
"With machines and technology we don't even understand to boot." - now this is just wrong on some many levels - you just dissed pretty much all engineers. While there are some incompetent people among engineers - saying that they don't understand technology is pretty harsh.

KRKodama said:

When you want to defend a point you have to use your own words only, for it to be valid.

Mar 28, 2015 8:08 AM

#60

Tyrantarmy6

Offline

Jul 2013

36274

Do we really understand those machines and technology? We know we can send information from A to B by using methods like infrared, but how does infrared do this? Isn't that the same as saying that you understand quantum mechanics just because you know a few things it can do?

For those who seek perfection, there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Mar 28, 2015 8:18 AM

#61

Offline

Jul 2009

139

Believe me - we understand technology better than any student studying engineering would like to. The question whether we understand it would actually be funny to an engineer I guess - because usually it's the other way around - you have to understand a concept thoroughly to make it work irl, rather than just invent something magically and then try to understand it(it just doesn't work this way). You'd be amazed at how much math & physics goes into making just a bridge(differential equations is a fine example). On the other hand it is not strange at all that the consumer doesn't need to know how things operate - nowadays most of the devices are made so even a monkey could use them. It's really the other way around about technology and science - people have the theory and concepts down to build marvels - however they lack the resources.
It's a lot easier to prove something theoretically (and you'll know it's true), and harder to apply it practically. An easy to understand example(since I am studying this) for an otaku I guess is computer graphics - we have the whole theory down to make 100% photorealistic computer graphics - the issue is we don't have computers that are strong enough to make this happen in real time- hence people make an abomination out of physical laws just to get the highest realism to computation time ratio.

criverMar 28, 2015 8:22 AM

KRKodama said:

When you want to defend a point you have to use your own words only, for it to be valid.

Mar 28, 2015 8:21 AM

#62

Offline

May 2013

11012

criver said:
If I were you I'd rather not use phys.org for anything else other than entertainment - it is worse than Wikipedia in some cases - you'd be better off sticking to an actual physics journal. I shouldn't even comment on that other pdf - it's mostly a pdf made up of citations taken out of context - this is by no means a scientific paper. There's a reason there are renowned journals and "other journals", even in the "good" journals sometimes you see mind-blowing bs - but that usually happens so rarely that you can overlook it, however this is not the case (sadly) with most of the "other journals". Do not take things you read on the internet at face value - while you've got a wealth of information - most of it is outright wrong. The bad thing with physics is that it usually requires quite the background to be able to tell if somebody's spouting bs. There are some authors that try to explain some things in a fashion that would be understandable for people that have just graduated from high school - usually the minimum is some basic knowledge of calculus. Well whatever I digress.
it's still a theory" - 0:37-1:15 - I couldn't have said it better. Sure theories are not facts - but they are a lot better than wild guessing.
"Do you really think your time scale of 'i lived 100 years~' applies to the universe?We are just a billionth of a nanosecond flash of light in the life of the universe and we try to guess what happened when it came to be."
What I think doesn't really matter, and it doesn't matter how insignificant humans may be compared to the universe - it doesn't have anything to do with the intellectual abilities of (some) humans. And "guessing" is definitely not the right word when you've got so much data to back up most of your claims - guessing won't get you far as a scientist - there's a reason most actual physics papers contain mathematical proofs backed up by tons of experimental and observational data - that's as far as you can get from guessing. Guessing would be the philosopher's job - a simple example - any high school kid that has actually learned some calculus can prove that Zeno's paradox is actually not a paradox.
"With machines and technology we don't even understand to boot." - now this is just wrong on some many levels - you just dissed pretty much all engineers. While there are some incompetent people among engineers - saying that they don't understand technology is pretty harsh.

Like i said, i do not agree with either theories, and I can plainly see that Phys.org is filled with lots of stuff ... uhmm... questionnable XD.

I was not making fun of engineers. The most intelligent scientists in the domain of quantum mechanics do not understand it. Quote Wikipedia : 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~ Richard Feynman'

We use machines like MRI's that use every part of quantum mechanics... but we still do not understand the underlying principle as to why quanta act as they do.

Like TyrantArmy6 said, we use quantum mechanics EVERYWHERE, and it has been proved by its effects. That doesn't mean we understand it. Engineers know that something will happen when using quantum mechanics as the base of construction, but fail to understand why it does what it's supposed to do and doesn't do something else instead.

Look at light itself. We still do not even have one theory that proves everything about light and all it's contradictions. Still, we use light (telescopes, redshift, etc etc.) to try to find out the origin of the universe! ^_^ We don't even understand our bodies yet, and why our bodies stop regenerating brain cells after a certain number of years...

I was not dissing anyone. I'm just stating the facts, and the facts are that we do not understand 1 percent of our existence.

The universe itself is imo infinite. Now that Hubble has been overhauled, we see farther out and farther out... is it going to stop? Are we gonna find a 'under construction' sign at the end? or just plain nothing? I don't think so. We humans, who created for ourselves 'time', cannot comprehend what 'infinity' means.

Mar 28, 2015 8:48 AM

#63

Offline

May 2013

11012

And criver, btw, i am not in any way trying to remove anything from what you said or put your sayings down.

I can clearly see that you are an avid reader and researcher in this domain and have read lots of documentation. For that, I am happy to have your opinion.

But i am just trying to say that everyone of us understand very little. Yes, we can read and make mathematical formulas to prove the universe, but the theories will remain theories until it is proven. The fact is that quantum mechanics have been proven! It works magnificiently when dealing with light, matter and energy.

Big Bang Theory is still a theory. Universe expansion is still, while being mathematically, something that can be calculated and checked, not proven in any way.

Mar 28, 2015 8:51 AM

#64

Offline

Jul 2009

139

'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~ Richard Feynman' - rather than quote Feynman, I urge you to read his book, and then tell me you do not understand quantum mechanics. While there are things we still do not know as to the nature why something is the way it is - we know exactly how things work in tech we built. Your argument is like saying we don't know if there's anything underlying quarks - so we don't know how to make a snowman - because a snowman is made up of atoms, which are made up of quarks.

"We use machines like MRI's that use every part of quantum mechanics... but we still do not understand the underlying principle as to why quanta act as they do." - Actually we know how MRI works - you usually can't make anything complex if you don't know the underlying principles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_magnetic_resonance_imaging - if you need a more elaborate explanation on how it works I can find it no prob.

"fail to understand why it does what it's supposed to do and doesn't do something else instead." - that's highly inaccurate.

"Look at light itself. We still do not even have one theory that proves everything about light and all it's contradictions." - what do you have to prove about light exactly? You have empirical data - you have models (that are proven) of light so I don't get what the issue with light is. Google photons, then you may have other questions which are in the field of particle physics - if you're wondering what they are researching at CERN - it's exactly in the field particle physics - or rather at high energies.

"We don't even understand our bodies yet, and why our bodies stop regenerating brain cells after a certain number of years..." - That I agree with, though it has no relation to my point - our bodies are not human made technology - we still cannot make a body from scratch and use mother nature - while I sure can make you a remote control from scratch.

"I'm just stating the facts, and the facts are that we do not understand 1 percent of our existence. " - I never said how much we understood about our existence - I'm just stating that I could take apart your computer for example and give you/or find you an explanation, about how every single piece of it works - even citing physical laws. For better or for worse - we know exactly how technology that we built works (internals included) - applied physics is based on theory - and that theory has a pretty great background in terms of empirical evidence, logical/mathematical proofs, experimental and observational data etc. Sure you can use a device as a black box - it's usually the way it's meant to be used - that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of pages explaining every little thing about it, organized in some library/database.

"cannot comprehend what 'infinity' means." - sure we can - philosopher and mathematicians work with infinity since forever - even in high school, kids learn basic calculus and work with infinite sequences. Many notable theorems in mathematics use the definition for infinity to prove various facts - we have even empirical evidence in the field of applied mathematics. And I shouldn't even begin to explain how basic the notion of infinity is for physics - it's common to have an integral in physics spanning from -inf to +inf.

P.S. For the prev post - no worries I just like to discuss things. And I agree that a theory that has not been proven is just a theory, but I'd like to emphasize that a theory is a lot of times better than any guess. Btw the universe's expansion is proven - we have the empirical data proving it - check out Hubble's law(there's a reason it's a law and not a theory - or read this(still I don't recommend wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Measurement_of_expansion_and_change_of_rate_of_expansion). Big Bang on the other hand is a theory - that I agree with - the issue - why we can't prove it - is that we cannot hope to ever recreate experimentally what you'd call "the beginning" - while experimentally we've managed to recreate things quite close to t=0 (by accelerating particles to energies that they had during the early universe), it's really unlikely we'll ever be able to know what was at the beginning. Still we can hope xD

criverMar 28, 2015 9:02 AM

KRKodama said:

When you want to defend a point you have to use your own words only, for it to be valid.

Mar 28, 2015 9:10 AM

#65

Offline

May 2013

11012

^_^ I agree with you Criver.

A theory will always be better than a guess thats for sure.

I think we have ventured far from our original thought of the day though (Monia won't be happy XD)

What i can say though for a last thought is that we have proof of many models and things in the universe with mathematical and physical experiments. It just adds up.

I'm just saying :The universe and it's laws are perfect. Mathematics and Physics can work exactly because the laws work as they do.

When many things don't add up, we go on to the next theory or try to prove the current theory wrong. It's how everything in physics has always been.

Don't get me wrong. I never said i believed Big Bang was wrong nor was other theories. I'm just being a skeptic since there are MANY contradictions in everything. But to assume one theory is right and not try to explain these contradictions with another theory would mean to stagnate and just go with the flow.
Experiments like particle experiments at CERN are exactly there to try to learn new things and reasons for how things came to be and act while in a certain state.

natsunootoutoMar 28, 2015 9:15 AM

Mar 28, 2015 12:15 PM

#66

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

I dont think there's anything wrong with venturing from the random thought. As long as we are talking the same subject and discussing about it. There's nothing wrong with it. This is not a CD topic, this is a thread where one could discuss his thoughts on the random thought and go along with the flow of the thought.

I believe in that the universe is expanding, accelerating away from that center point. One day will come that the only thing we can observe in space would just be our galaxy,the milky way because all the other galaxies would just have just moved away so far that we can't observe them anymore.

I also believe in the multiverse theory. Not in the parallel universe theory. I believe that everything we have discovered in space so far has always been in a number more than one.

There was a time when we thought Earth was the only planet orbiting the sun.
Then we discovered that there were 8 other planets along with Earth.

Then we thought sun was the only star, then we discovered billions of stars.
We discovered the milky way galaxy and thought it was the only galaxy in the universe.

Then we found out that there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
So same way, we have discovered a universe.. Then we might discover that there are many other universes too since it's been the case so far.

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Mar 28, 2015 12:17 PM

#67

Offline

May 2013

11012

True, who knows what we may yet discover!

Mar 28, 2015 6:20 PM

#68

Offline

May 2014

16745

New Thought! Is their a Multiverse? Multiple existences in space time where every single possibility is its own universe?

(Staying the same since it wasn't rally discussed, but someone can post something new)

-eupho-Mar 29, 2015 6:29 PM

Mar 28, 2015 9:33 PM

#69

Offline

May 2013

11012

Yeah, this theory would make each choice a different universe ... a
one where Hitler won the war, Japan is still an empire and the nuclear bomb stayed in Germany. :)

In fact, some facets of the double slit experiment could show this as a possibility.

As to whether or not this is true.. well traveling to another universe coucod be awesome but who knows... one could land in a universe where gravity is stronger, nuclear fission happens easily.. etc..

Apr 1, 2015 7:07 PM

#70

Offline

May 2014

16745

Cats vs Dogs, which is better? Which do you prefer and why?

Simple Thought is simple..

Apr 1, 2015 7:13 PM

#71

Mkim

Offline

Jan 2013

10764

You're on MyKittyList using a cat set

and you make such questions?

HERETIC! CATS ARE DEFS THE BEST ONES.

gone bai bai

Apr 1, 2015 7:17 PM

#72

Offline

May 2014

16745

That's why I asked Cats vs Dogs and not Kitty vs Dogs or Kitty vs Cats..

I prefer cats for their lazy "charm", they're warm and fuzzy and don't make too much of a mess or cause too much trouble.
(I would say it's mostly because they're warm and fuzzy and cuddling with them)
[spoiler]

Apr 1, 2015 7:27 PM

#73

ZoulReaper

Offline

Dec 2014

363

Dogs!
Cats are more self-sufficient meaning they are more likely to wander on their own and need less care...it seems nice but I enjoy taking a dog out for a walk, how excited they get when they see you and how dependent they are on you.
Sadly due to such difference in behaviors dogs aren't as lucky to survive out in the streets in comparison to cats.
Still...puppies are awesome..kittens are too but...
[spoiler]

"The real nightmare continues in reality." - Carach Angren
"If I turn into 9 giant tentacles would you still love me?" -John H.

Apr 1, 2015 9:14 PM

#74

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

Dogs.

But my religion do not let me touch dogs so I have to stick with cats and other pet animals ._.

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 1, 2015 11:59 PM

#75

crushingmayhem

Offline

Jun 2010

7268

I have both, but I'm more into cats because they seem easier to handle at least in my opinion. Plus, they are smarter from what i've seen so far. My opinion may be biased but that's just my preference. My dog just likes to play and doesn't show much emotion when compared to my cats.

Apr 2, 2015 1:21 PM

#76

Offline

May 2014

16745

Also Dogs need you too walk them.. All the time!

Even in a blizzard.. So.. I would find it annoying.

Apr 5, 2015 12:00 PM

#77

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

New thought:

All these zombie apocalypses and people rising from the dead..

How do you think the concept of zombie or ghouls came to us for the first time?

Did some guy randomly think of such a situation or was it like something that actually happened or a similar epidemic occurred in history which began all these stories?

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 5, 2015 8:13 PM

#78

Offline

May 2014

16745

It could have started with any giant epidemic I think, some giant disease kills a bunch of people, and maybe a person was infected and "died" so they went to barry him, but before they barried him he started to move since he didn't die yet..

Apr 6, 2015 7:11 AM

#79

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

yenten said:
It could have started with any giant epidemic I think, some giant disease kills a bunch of people, and maybe a person was infected and "died" so they went to barry him, but before they barried him he started to move since he didn't die yet..

That sounds like the beginning of a vampire story xD

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 6, 2015 1:12 PM

#80

Offline

May 2014

16745

I suppose, but it could also very well be a zombie story..

Apr 7, 2015 7:53 PM

#81

Offline

May 2014

16745

New Thought!... (This thread isn't that fast, come on guys we need different people to post ideas every once in awhile.. If you want to be next then please PM an admin or just say it here..)

Anyways, What if you are not alive, but instead you are dying or about to die and your "life" right now is just really a "flashback" of sorts of your life?

Apr 7, 2015 9:31 PM

#82

Mkim

Offline

Jan 2013

10764

yenten said:
What if you are not alive, but instead you are dying or about to die and your "life" right now is just really a "flashback" of sorts of your life?

Damn sonny, I derped hard reading that 3 times.

About the possibility that my life right now is aaaaaaaaalllll fake. It doesn't matter, or better, if I cared, I would be just wasting time and possibly my sanity away.

If all I'm living now is fake, if this is a flashback of my life, if this is just a dream of a butterfly, if I'm just a little particle and this universe actually composes a new other giant universe that's composed of universes, it is not to be concerned.

This experience feels new, I have no recolection of living what I live each instant nor I know what will happen, and that's enough to let me keep going, if I already lived this, I can live it again because I have no recollections of it.

Meow woof cat talk that's it from me.

gone bai bai

Apr 13, 2015 5:36 PM

#83

Offline

May 2014

16745

New thought!

Why do people have Déjà vu?

Apr 13, 2015 5:47 PM

#84

Harus

Offline

Mar 2013

12814

I've heard / read somewhere its quick brain synapse failure, i'm not sure how that would cause the Déjà vu tho...

Apr 13, 2015 11:20 PM

#85

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

I think it's because our brain messes up with chronological order of storing the memories. As it takes some microseconds before we realize the things we have already seen. In those microseconds brain puts the memory in the wrong memory address and poof, we have what we call de ja vu.

Or the code of the matrix is altered.

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 13, 2015 11:43 PM

#86

Manjuu

Offline

Mar 2009

17588

I honestly think (or would like to believe) that when we die, we actually just loop back to the start of our lives, open to numerous possibilities, with our memories probably continually stored, being stocked up on an external container of unknown origin. De ja vu is caused by a relapsing of our memories which may be because we are trying to access that container unknowingly, which may be triggered by our desire of the unknown.

Apr 14, 2015 12:50 PM

#87

Offline

May 2014

16745

@Manjuu, so you are saying that when we die we just start our lives again and again each time with a possibility to do something different and when in our new life we do something sometimes you remember memories from your last loop?

@M_F_M, I also think that would be the most probable, your brain is in a setting and it takes a couple milliseconds for it to process things and in that time it could overlap with a past memory that is very similar, like lets say the settings are similar, and your brain just cant't figure out what the past memory is but it knows it's gone through something similar.

Or you can use the Steins;Gate explanation where (possible spoiler.. Déjà vu happens because you are remembering something from a different timeline

Apr 15, 2015 9:22 AM

#88

Manjuu

Offline

Mar 2009

17588

^Yes, exactly. That's just one of my theories though, and that's the tip of the iceberg of my thinking that this is actually just a 'Life Simulator' stuck in an infinite loop.

Apr 15, 2015 11:35 AM

#89

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

Different timelines? But that only happens if you have traveled between them timelines.

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 22, 2015 2:51 PM

#90

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

It's been a while since the last thought.. and the thoughts so far has been quite deep.

I will keep it simple this time.

Football is the most popular sport in the world. Why do you think it is the most popular?

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

Apr 22, 2015 2:55 PM

#91

SweetMonia

Offline

Aug 2008

41107

Because somehow, it has been marketed well around the world. Or maybe because it wasn't associated with a certain culture.

These are my guesses~

~Vive La Miémorrina~

Play Lolita Caramel | Admire My Artworks
Follow Me On Twitter | Read My Drawing Blog

Apr 22, 2015 4:07 PM

#92

Offline

May 2014

16745

Multiple things, like marketing as Monia said, and the fact that it has pretty simple rules and that you don't really need anything except for a ball and some people to play would also help.

Apr 22, 2015 4:33 PM

#93

SweetMonia

Offline

Aug 2008

41107

Yeah, the lack of basket surely makes it easy to play the game~

~Vive La Miémorrina~

Play Lolita Caramel | Admire My Artworks
Follow Me On Twitter | Read My Drawing Blog

May 11, 2015 10:58 PM

#94

Offline

Jun 2014

12842

Lemme try again.

What kind of food makes you happy?

Whenever I smell my mom's delicious biriyani, no matter how sad,depressed or down I feel, I would always cheer up. I dont know why, but eating good food or smelling good food always cheers me up.

Team Blackbeard||Hot Seat Thread||-主人-様 <3||DIE

May 12, 2015 1:11 PM

#95

Offline

May 2014

16745

I also love my moms cooking, but when she makes chicken wings, well then it gets even better, I can't help but cheer up then if I'm sad or depressed, or etc.

Jul 19, 2015 1:54 PM

#96

Offline

May 2014

16745

Let's try to revive this, maybe?
Remember if you want to give a thought just PM an admin, or tell them while chatting, or you can just post one after a day if no one is scheduled to do so
---

Why do people love music so much? What makes it so special to people?

Jul 19, 2015 2:21 PM

#97

Offline

May 2013

11012

Music~

It can make us cry, it can make us laugh and it can entrance us completely~

What makes it special?

Well, from a young age we love to do noises, play out with scratching things and banging things together. We hate some noises and we love other noises.

We love music i think in a kind of instinctual way imo. Don't you love to hear birds sing? Maybe we just tried out our ways of making noises and all~ Any infant that hears soft music will love it and fall asleep to it (usually XD)

As for what makes it so special... well its usually the harmony! Anybody can make noise... but blending noise into a harmony and a blend of tones that fits is quite something else. Its the perfect harmony and tone of music that appeals to us. Why does a violin concert make us wanna cry and a rock show or electronic music make us wanna dance or move? It's the tone. A fast tone will make us move and a slow tone will make us listen, as if entranced.

Look at the violin. Its usually the gradation from slow to fast that makes us entranced by it. It can sound tragic, it can sound happy, it can sound like you want it to, just by changing the tone/pitch and the speed and at the same time harmonizing all those notes.~

Oct 5, 2015 7:54 PM

#98

TimeToRepent

Offline

Dec 2012

33550

*bump*

This is how it all begins.

My RYM|My Last.Fm|My Steam

Jan 26, 2016 6:19 PM

#99