My idea on what happens when you "Die."

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 16 May 2006 10:58

What if... When you die... you don't really die. Like... Say you get shot in the head, you live through the experience and the second that you die, you lose all memory of what happened, and start back out at the point where your life would be if you hadn't gotten shot.

I was thinking this today when I heard a beeping noise and my friend said jokingly, "Watch out, heh heh, it's a bomb." Started thinking... maybe it was a bomb, maybe I died and this is just my life continuing down a different path...

This would be a rather cool existence. However, what would happen when you get like... REALLY REALLY old... That would kinda suck... is there unlimited universes where people live to unlimited ages and life startes to suck ass because there is so much lack of space because no one is dying... Wait.. Nevermind. There are people dying in MY universe... making more room for me, the person who will never die... But that means my girlfriend and other loved ones will die... I really hope that isn't the existence that is true... I don't know what I would do if it were true...

It would all be a lie... copies of copies... My god... Now I wish I had never thought of this... Because then I would live forever in my concious mind without my loved ones... and they would live without me in their own universes... Kinda makes me wanna cry just thinking about it... because it's the ultimate trap that you wouldn't be able to escape, not even through death, because it would not exist for you...

I can't express just how much I hope this is not the case...

Peace,
Fred.

Hakker · Post by **Hakker** » 16 May 2006 11:30

I think you get buried when you die. end o' story.

that is a very interesting theorum, though. Sort of like reincarnation, but sorta not. I dont beleive it, but it sounds cool.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 16 May 2006 16:18

Fred you have a hell of a lot of creative energy. I imagine even with footbag you can't let it all out. You should write a book.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 16 May 2006 19:47

Should I? I mean... I was thinking this righ after I posted this. I was thinking that maybe I should write a book on all of my ideas. Like.. I had thought of a way to prove that the speed of light doesn't exist because it can't exist because it would defy all things that make sense. WHen I remember how I came to that conclusion I'll make a topic about it. It was during the time that I though Modified wasn't working anymore, lmao... So that was about 3 months ago, kinda forgot how I came to the conclusion, but it makes sense, I know that.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 May 2006 20:07

zzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
zzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
zzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
zzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 16 May 2006 20:54

Going off topic in regards to your comment abt the speed of light

A lot of the models of mechanics that are simple solutions of the laws of physics under basic boundary conditions break down at the speed of light. All constants approach zero. Part of relativity is that time slows down when you approach the speed of light. A lot of crazy stuff happens. It doesn't mean that the speed of light is bullshit, how would the internet work if information didn't travel at light speed? Relativity, the speed of light and quantum physics are very hard concepts to wrap one's mind around. Yours is a natural reaction.

Have you taken physics yet? I bet you would like it. Can you tell I love it?

Seriously though, write all this stuff down that you're thinking. Posts topics when it's coherent enough in your mind to post something about it. It's good to see more people who aren't robots.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 16 May 2006 21:38

Officially changing this subject, lol. Simply because I refuse to beleive in it... Or even think about it any more. It's too shitty of an existence for the idea to be something that I want to think about. I'll just deny it untill I see t happen, lol.

Anywho.

To start out this spead of light thing.

To start out. The universe. It has no end. How do you know this? Because if you reached the end of the universe, what's on the other side of that barrier? Durh, more universe. It is ever going, never ending. It's not possible for it to end. This makes sense to me, and I beleive it is accepted by many many people.

Now. The law stats that once the spead of light is reached, you gain infinite mass. This is called light, as we all know. Which is the reason you can see stars from all angles from any distance.However... Some stars are bright than others, and others are dimmer than others. If the light has infinite mass, then this dimming or brightness should not happen, it should all be the same. Light travels at the speed of light, and nothing can go faster, meaning it's all traveling at the same speed, they all have infinite mass, tehy should all appear just as visable. Am I correct?

Assuming I'm correct. I don't beleive any light is traveling at the speed of light. I beleive the amount of mass in light is finite.

Now... If you were to go out hundred of nitotrillions of lightyears away, and look at the sun... You would not be able to see it. You would not see our galaxy at all. Not becuase it is to small.But because the light doesn't extend that far, it becomes dimmer and dimmer and eventually is not visable anymore. This means 1 of 2 things is happening. Either the universe IS limited, and has a wall, or light just isn't traveling at it's fullest speed.

Now, the reason light would be hindered by the universe not being infinite is because. If the universe has a certain amount of square area, and light is traveling at the speed of light, that extra infinite mass has no where to go. So, if it has no where to go, it has no choice but to slow down to a speed that allows for there to be a certain amount of mass. Does this make sense to you?

The speed of light is only possible if there is an infinite universe for infinite mass to occupy. If we havn't seen something TRUELY move at the speed of light yet, that means either it's just not moving that fast simply because, or that the universe is finite putting limitations on speed.

I'm lossing my point now and I"m starting to hurt my brain, because I"m sick (Very sick, very bad stomach ache and something's wrong with my stomach... and yea, I feel like shit, lmao.) and i"m tired, adn I forgot alot details on this theory of which I hope to regain sometime soon becuase I all made PERFECT sense 3 months ago... Anywho... There's what I have right now...

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 16 May 2006 21:43

Oh, btw. X-Y graphs. Say the X axis extends infinitely, and the same witht he Y axis. In all the math books I've ever seen, it states that if you have a straight line ANYWHERE on an infinite plain, that it will always divide the graph in half. How can that be true?

Say you have that infinite graph. And the line goes through 83 on the X axis, and -22 on the Y axis. If X axis extends infinitly, and so does the Y axis, it doesn't matter... It's always going to be, Infinite + 83 on the X axis, and infinite - 22 onthe Y axis. So it's NOT divided in the center...

I mean... doesn't that make sense to you?

I don't know... some of these math books just don't make sense... at all.

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 16 May 2006 22:13

Light doesn't have mass dude-- that's why is can go at that speed. Light is just energy.

You should stay in school and try working off science if you want to talk science. You seem more into philosophy though: perhaps get a book on it?

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 16 May 2006 23:15

Switch Kicker wrote:Say you have that infinite graph. And the line goes through 83 on the X axis, and -22 on the Y axis. If X axis extends infinitly, and so does the Y axis, it doesn't matter... It's always going to be, Infinite + 83 on the X axis, and infinite - 22 onthe Y axis. So it's NOT divided in the center...

The thing to bear in mind that infinity is not quantifiable. Infinity has more to do with limits in math. The areas that are on either side of said line both extend out to infinity thus they have the same area and are equal to each other.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 17 May 2006 13:35

SandWraith wrote:Light doesn't have mass dude-- that's why is can go at that speed. Light is just energy.

You should stay in school and try working off science if you want to talk science. You seem more into philosophy though: perhaps get a book on it?

Light does to have mass. You need mass to have gravity. And light has gravity.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 17 May 2006 15:15

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... _mass.html

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 17 May 2006 20:21

Switch Kicker wrote:And light has gravity.

???????

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 May 2006 21:04

I think that Light and gravity are very similar. Both are velocities. Both are the maximum speed of information propagation in space. The speed of light and the speed of gravity are the same thing.
Light can be accelerated, but only at the expense of information loss.
Gravity was only recently experimentally confirmed to move at the speed of light.

Matter is not an arrangement of finite particles distributed through space in the new physics, Matter is a collection of waves. Spherical standing waves, where there are waves coming in, and waves goes out. Matter is 'located' at the center of the waves. All things are one thing, overlaping interactions of waves. Each piece of matters wave extends the entire range of the universe, weakening from the location of the matter.

Gravity is the interference created between collections of wave forms that alter the velocity of the waves in the space between the two objects. Gravity acts as if it comes from everywhere, and goes to a single point, cancelling out the in-waves of the wave form collection. The disruption of the wave form changes the 'location' of the objects to be closer to each other.

Light is a resonance energy. Light acts opposite of gravity, from a single point to everything. Light can only be emitted or absorbed by electrons as they rise and fall in defined quantum energy states. Light itself has no mass. Changes in resonance are passed between collections of wave forms. When there are many exchanges, we have visible light. When we measure a single event, we observe the illusion of the single photon. There is no photon, per se, but rather it's the artifact of observing a single resonance exchange, versus an interaction of tons of exchanges that have waves that interact with each other.

Since gravity acts on wave forms, and light IS a wave, gravity can act on light to changes it's path, as if light were matter. Light itself does not have gravity.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 May 2006 21:07

ugh, nice formatting.

Tsiangkun wrote:I think that Light and gravity are very similar. Both are velocities.
Both are the maximum speed of information propagation in space.
The speed of light and the speed of gravity are the same thing.
Light can be accelerated, but only at the expense of information loss.
Gravity was only recently experimentally confirmed to move at the speed of light.

Matter is not an arrangement of finite particles distributed through space in the new physics,
Matter is a collection of waves.
Spherical standing waves, where there are waves coming in, and waves goes out.
Matter is 'located' at the center of the waves.
All things are one thing, overlaping interactions of waves.
Each piece of matters wave extends the entire range of the universe,
weakening from the location of the matter.

Gravity is the interference created between collections of wave forms
that alter the velocity of the waves in the space between the two objects.
Gravity acts as if it comes from everywhere, and goes to a single point,
cancelling out the in-waves of the wave form collection. The disruption
of the wave form changes the 'location' of the objects to be closer to
each other.

Light is a resonance energy. Light acts opposite of gravity, from a single point to everything.
Light can only be emitted or absorbed by electrons as they rise and fall in defined quantum energy states.
Light itself has no mass. Changes in resonance are passed between
collections of wave forms.
When there are many exchanges, we have visible light.
When we measure a single event, we observe the illusion of the single photon.
There is no photon, per se, but rather it's the artifact of observing a single resonance exchange,
versus an interaction of tons of exchanges that have waves that interact with each other.

Since gravity acts on wave forms,
and light IS a wave, gravity can act on light to changes it's path,
as if light were matter. Light itself does not have gravity.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 18 May 2006 09:29

Tsiangkun wrote:ugh, nice formatting.

On that note, could somebody please ban BrainbridgeShred?

(I kid - but please do edit/delete that post)

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 18 May 2006 21:49

SandWraith wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:And light has gravity.
???????

You don't know that?!?! It's only been proven countless times... The first of which being from Einstein. Predicted an eclipse, and the crown of an eclipse is light being bent around the planet due to the gravity of the moon. This is why black holes are... well... black. They are planets taht are so massive and heavy that light itself can't escape it becuase the gravity is so powerful.

PLEASE tell me you knew this before posting that light does not have mass... Not that I disagree... But simply because light having gravity is more known than it not having mass...

Peace,
Fred.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 May 2006 22:19

I think you're wrong about light having gravity. Einstein's theory was that gravity bent space - not that light had gravity. Also I think theories on what gravity are have changed significantly. I think Cameron's explenation is a more accurate theory - quantum wave fluxulations.

That said light can have a theoretical mass and you can calculate it. I forget how but I'm sure you can find it in a physics text book. That doesn't mean it actually has a mass, but wave particle duality is an interesting topic.

Also the universe does have an edge according to the big bang theory. However due the fact that it is presumably expanding at the speed of light - we can never reach or see that edge. (because we'd have to go faster than the speed of light to do so.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 18 May 2006 22:25

Fred,
What Cameron is talking about has to do with wave-particle duality. Light
behaves as both a particle and a wave. In fact everything does, but for
most matter it's easiest for us to think of them as particles. But, matter and
gravity can be described purely as waves. So black holes can suck in light
because of wave interference, not because light has mass. I hate wave
physics so I won't try to elaborate on Cameron's post, but that is the gist of
it. Like I said before man, keep thinking the deep thoughts. If you want to
learn more, take physics (if you haven't yet) in high school and take quantum
physics when you get to college. It will really stretch your brain out, in a
good way.

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 19 May 2006 08:52

Switch Kicker wrote: You don't know that?!?! It's only been proven countless times... The first of which being from Einstein. Predicted an eclipse, and the crown of an eclipse is light being bent around the planet due to the gravity of the moon. This is why black holes are... well... black. They are planets taht are so massive and heavy that light itself can't escape it becuase the gravity is so powerful.

PLEASE tell me you knew this before posting that light does not have mass... Not that I disagree... But simply because light having gravity is more known than it not having mass...

Peace,
Fred.

Light does not have gravity. It can be affected by gravity. And yes, a lot of people know that. I would suggest you read a physics book though before you try to present your cutting-edge theories on the matter.