A BEAUTIFUL DAY FOR SCIENCE FICTION

Tossrock

Urian wrote: »

Blaket wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

The theory of relativity isn't the most complex idea.

And it's just a theory. I personally think the universe is so completely huge and complex beyond our comprehension that to think we know any real answers about it when it comes to scale that large is kind of naive.

No you are stupid.

As an idea it is fucking genius tell me someone else that came up with the idea that time was able to be adjusted that the speed of light was no longer a constant.

As a concept to understand to teach it is simple. As an idea it is revolutionary.

It has also managed to stand up since 1915 or whenever it was proposed. Shit in 1923 I think Einstein went, hey here is an experiment to test it. And it worked.

People who don't want to see how the universe is made are people without large aspirations in life.

Hahahaha this is funny do you have some kind of vendetta against me you sad pathetic fuck? This is the second post you have replied to me of saying I have no aspirations in life based on nothing but your own dipshit internet judgement.

You didn't say anything to disprove my opinion that thinking we know universal truths about, well, the universe, is simply foolish. Just because you can apply realities we know to be true on our planet to the surrounding planets, maybe even the solar system, doesn't guarantee the entire rest of the universe, which keep in mind is only even fractionally observable because the light from other galaxies and stars supposedly haven't even reached us yet. We can assume we are right, but there are no facts, and that's all im saying.

I'm not saying the theory isn't of value, it is of value and it's a great breakthrough of human critical thinking, applying a well thought out reason and explanation to something that most people have never approached. It is a revolutionary idea and I respect it. I want to see how the universe is made, but I'm not going to 100 percent subscribe myself to any concept and not think of other possibilities or other unknowns. I'm just trying to avoid any certainty unless it's absolute proven fact, which unfortunately is not often found.

backpedal backpedal backpedal

Tossrock wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

The theory of relativity isn't the most complex idea.

And it's just a theory. I personally think the universe is so completely huge and complex beyond our comprehension that to think we know any real answers about it when it comes to scale that large is kind of naive.

Fuck you.

Urian

Oh ok backpedal because you want me to mean something I didn't because you made an assumption on the first post that you want to be correct so you can justify being an asshole negative fuck saying fuck you.

Houk

Urian wrote: »

Oh ok backpedal because you want me to mean something I didn't because you made an assumption on the first post that you want to be correct so you can justify being an asshole negative fuck saying fuck you.

So basically what you're saying is that you'll accept the theory unless something else comes along to disprove it or explain things better?

Well, hey, welcome to the scientific process. Here's your bunson burner.

Urian

Houk wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Oh ok backpedal because you want me to mean something I didn't because you made an assumption on the first post that you want to be correct so you can justify being an asshole negative fuck saying fuck you.

So basically what you're saying is that you'll accept the theory unless something else comes along to disprove it or explain things better?

Well, hey, welcome to the scientific process. Here's your bunson burner.

Not necessarily explain things better but explain things in a different way that still works on some factual levels. And even then I won't take it in higher regard than the other theory unless it's able to disprove that theory in the telling of it's own theory, or something ridiculous like that.

I mean i'm pretty much open to any theory or explanation as long as it's not bullshit. To give an extremely simple example, i'll take the theory of relativity over "god did it" any day of the week, obviously. The more thought out and the more researched the answer, the better, but being aware of the fact that it's not fact when it isn't is also important.

Houk

Urian wrote: »

Houk wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Oh ok backpedal because you want me to mean something I didn't because you made an assumption on the first post that you want to be correct so you can justify being an asshole negative fuck saying fuck you.

So basically what you're saying is that you'll accept the theory unless something else comes along to disprove it or explain things better?

Well, hey, welcome to the scientific process. Here's your bunson burner.

Not necessarily explain things better but explain things in a different way that still works on some factual levels. And even then I won't take it in higher regard than the other theory unless it's able to disprove that theory in the telling of it's own theory, or something ridiculous like that.

I mean i'm pretty much open to any theory or explanation as long as it's not bullshit. To give an extremely simple example, i'll take the theory of relativity over "god did it" any day of the week, obviously. The more thought out and the more researched the answer, the better, but being aware of the fact that it's not fact when it isn't is also important.

Okay, so...

I mean, again, you're basically saying "i believe in the scientific process". There's no actual scientist out there that would say "well guys, we found it! got the theory, that's it, everyone go home!" Especially when you're talking about the study of space. I'm just not sure what you're trying to say I guess, other than that you believe in the scientific process?

Urian

Houk wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Houk wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Oh ok backpedal because you want me to mean something I didn't because you made an assumption on the first post that you want to be correct so you can justify being an asshole negative fuck saying fuck you.

So basically what you're saying is that you'll accept the theory unless something else comes along to disprove it or explain things better?

Well, hey, welcome to the scientific process. Here's your bunson burner.

Not necessarily explain things better but explain things in a different way that still works on some factual levels. And even then I won't take it in higher regard than the other theory unless it's able to disprove that theory in the telling of it's own theory, or something ridiculous like that.

I mean i'm pretty much open to any theory or explanation as long as it's not bullshit. To give an extremely simple example, i'll take the theory of relativity over "god did it" any day of the week, obviously. The more thought out and the more researched the answer, the better, but being aware of the fact that it's not fact when it isn't is also important.

Okay, so...

I mean, again, you're basically saying "i believe in the scientific process". There's no actual scientist out there that would say "well guys, we found it! got the theory, that's it, everyone go home!" Especially when you're talking about the study of space. I'm just not sure what you're trying to say I guess, other than that you believe in the scientific process?

Yeah, I do.

Houk

Urian wrote: »

Yeah, I do.

Well...cool! I'll mark you down.

Faricazy

Except, when you say "it's just a theory" you are discrediting the amount of work that went into it. Yes, it's a "theory", but it's a theory that has stood for a century and as far as we can tell is true. There's a difference between being open minded and going "this can't be right because we don't yet understand everything there is".

Urian

Faricazy wrote: »

Except, when you say "it's just a theory" you are discrediting the amount of work that went into it. Yes, it's a "theory", but it's a theory that has stood for a century and as far as we can tell is true. There's a difference between being open minded and going "this can't be right because we don't yet understand everything there is".

I never said it can't be right. I'm just saying it might not be right.

Faricazy

Urian wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

Except, when you say "it's just a theory" you are discrediting the amount of work that went into it. Yes, it's a "theory", but it's a theory that has stood for a century and as far as we can tell is true. There's a difference between being open minded and going "this can't be right because we don't yet understand everything there is".

I never said it can't be right. I'm just saying it might not be right.

Yes, it might not be, but a century's worth of research has yet to disprove it.

You take what you can get and you roll with it. You can't always be going "what if this isn't right?" Scientists need new theories when old ones have holes poked in them. This one has not.

Urian

Faricazy wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

Except, when you say "it's just a theory" you are discrediting the amount of work that went into it. Yes, it's a "theory", but it's a theory that has stood for a century and as far as we can tell is true. There's a difference between being open minded and going "this can't be right because we don't yet understand everything there is".

I never said it can't be right. I'm just saying it might not be right.

Yes, it might not be, but a century's worth of research has yet to disprove it.

You take what you can get and you roll with it. You can't always be going "what if this isn't right?" Scientists need new theories when old ones have holes poked in them. This one has not.

You're right.

Houk

Faricazy wrote: »

Urian wrote: »

Faricazy wrote: »

Except, when you say "it's just a theory" you are discrediting the amount of work that went into it. Yes, it's a "theory", but it's a theory that has stood for a century and as far as we can tell is true. There's a difference between being open minded and going "this can't be right because we don't yet understand everything there is".

I never said it can't be right. I'm just saying it might not be right.

Yes, it might not be, but a century's worth of research has yet to disprove it.

You take what you can get and you roll with it. You can't always be going "what if this isn't right?" Scientists need new theories when old ones have holes poked in them. This one has not.

and perhaps more importantly, "theories" often lead to a number of scientific breakthroughs that will stand even if the original theory is somehow disproven

Bloods End

I think the point is

Lightsaber SNAP-HISS BWWWWOOOOOOOOO

Kazhiim

I'm glad he isn't doing brave new world

terrible book

Centipede Damascus

Olivaw wrote: »

Probably

I am forced to wonder who of

it was Skull Man

darleysam

Well I've never heard of this book, but Ridley Scott doing sci-fi again can only be good things.
I am happy.

Rampant Entity

I looked for the book at Chapter, but alas, I was unable to find it. This Chapters in particular though generally sucks ass when it comes to having good books; everytime I went there looking for a certain book I'd leave empty-handed.

Faricazy

for some reason this book is now a bitch to find online

that's weird

it says there will be a reprint in may 2009

uhhhhh

what the hell publishers

Rampant Entity

Shit, goddamn.

Amazon then?

Blake T

Faricazy wrote: »

i'm saying that one screen per city is not going to make him any money

I find that amazing.

I live in a dinky city of 1.5 million people and we have three different cinemas that can do that.

New York gotta step up man.

Rocky

Kazhiim wrote: »

I'm glad he isn't doing brave new world

terrible book

O man I don't know if you're joking or not.

Kazhiim

Rocky wrote: »

Kazhiim wrote: »

I'm glad he isn't doing brave new world

terrible book

O man I don't know if you're joking or not.

As far as the big dystopian future books go (1984 and the like) it's an awful read

it's also I guess the one that has come the most true but whatever

Rocky

I've always held Brave New World and 1984 as my two favorite dystopian books, but then again I haven't read many.

Edit: If Cat's Cradle is considered in anyway or form dystopian I lied, that is my favorite book.

Killjoy

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin is another really good one.

Olivaw

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

Olivaw wrote: »

Probably

I am forced to wonder who of

it was Skull Man

How sad

Penguin Incarnate

Man, Brave New World kind of sucks.

Kazhiim

Penguin Incarnate wrote: »

Man, Brave New World kind of sucks.

This man gets it

Penguin Incarnate

1984 (or Fahrenheit 451) are superior in every way to Brave New World.

Faricazy

guys i can't find my copy of slaughterhouse five

seizureorbs

I love fahrenheit 451

I need to read 1984, though

man I really wanna go back to strand in new york

that was a really great bookstore

Faricazy

it's allright

hard to find stuff

seizureorbs

it did take me a long time to find stuff yeah

and I never did find any of the cormac mccarthy they supposedly had

but it had nice prices and a pretty good selection

Faricazy

just ordered a 2003 edition of forever war

that's the one with the eyepatch dude in the OP

16 dollars shipped for "used-like new" from amazon marketplace

uberneko

Rampant Entity wrote: »

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

Blackhawk Down was a great movie

OH GOD FUCK YES WE NEED THE SCI-FI EQUIVALENT OF THIS YES

Someone may have posted this, but:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/02/alien-invasion-flick-battle-los-angeles-finds-a-director/

Liebesman made a pitch that featured "a whiz-bang presentation that showed his specific vision and passion for the project, described as Black Hawk Down meets Independence Day."

QuestionMarkMan

uberneko wrote: »

Rampant Entity wrote: »

Centipede Damascus wrote: »

Blackhawk Down was a great movie

OH GOD FUCK YES WE NEED THE SCI-FI EQUIVALENT OF THIS YES

Someone may have posted this, but:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/02/alien-invasion-flick-battle-los-angeles-finds-a-director/

Liebesman made a pitch that featured "a whiz-bang presentation that showed his specific vision and passion for the project, described as Black Hawk Down meets Independence Day."

Halo?

the cheat

Penguin Incarnate wrote: »

1984 (or Fahrenheit 451) are superior in every way to Brave New World.

1984 is fantastic. brave new world was pretty good, still. just started reading fahrenheit 451. it is intriguing.

Shorty

Penguin Incarnate wrote: »

1984 (or Fahrenheit 451) are superior in every way to Brave New World.

Yeah, unless you don't like surrealist, non-descriptive, impenetrable writing.

the cheat

i don't blame you for knocking a book or two for the writing style. i personally hate books written in heavy dialect.

Shorty

Yeah, I picked up a copy of Trainspotting, then put it down two minutes later.

Mysst

I picked up your mom and then put her down two minutes later.

That's a lie, your mom is too heavy to pick up.