Infinity VS. Gog
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Sentry
Can this girl take on the all powerful Gog?
Here are her stats. A little old, but something to gauge her power:
Debate.
Sentry
Gog finally falls.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Sentry
Gog finally falls.
Bad writing you mean spacetime is one thing. What a silly character
Sentry
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Bad writing you mean spacetime is one thing. What a silly character
Bad writing? You mean like upgrading Superman to incalculable limits? Like upgrading Aquaman with telepathy to match Xavier's? Infinity is in top 5 marvel beings in the marvel hierarchy. Look at DC's big wigs. Lucifer, Michael, Spectre's full potential. Again I say to you to each their own.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Sentry
Bad writing? You mean like upgrading Superman to incalculable limits? Like upgrading Aquaman with telepathy to match Xavier's? Infinity is in top 5 marvel beings in the marvel hierarchy. Look at DC's big wigs. Lucifer, Michael, Spectre's full potential. Again I say to you to each their own.
stress
dawsey28
wow Gog is getting a lot of threads lately. Gog...
...loses badly.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Bad writing you mean spacetime is one thing. What a silly character
See what I mean when I say "bias"?
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
See what I mean when I say "bias"?
Not at all Gog would lose this.It doesn't make Infinity any more sensible
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Not at all Gog would lose this.It doesn't make Infinity any more sensible
Ever heard of a guy named Mxyzptlk?
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Ever heard of a guy named Mxyzptlk?
He is equally silly but created long ago for infinity there is no excuse
whirlysplat
Originally posted by whirlysplat
He is equally silly but created long ago for inity there is no excuse
5th d is still better science than dividing space/time
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
5th d is still better science than dividing space/time
Is it really? I'll remember that next time I see a hotdog/airplane or a walking building.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Is it really? I'll remember that next time I see a hotdog/airplane or a walking building.
not the execution (try and keep up) the concept
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Ok. How so?
well space and time are one they cannot be divided this is part of the special theory of relativity.
We live in a 3 d universe 4 if you include time. A being from a higher plane could basically do what he wants here in the way you can on a 2 d sheet of paper so hotdogs and walking buildings are a kind of extreme (and extemely silly) extension of this.
Cosmic Cube
The theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity.
It is theorized that different dimensions could exist in the spaces between subatomic particles at different frequencys. This theory has nothing to do with the geometric dimensions (length, width, depth.) Time is not a dimension. Paper isn't two dimensional.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
The theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity.
It is theorized that different dimensions could exist in the spaces between subatomic particles at different frequencys. This theory has nothing to do with the geometric dimensions (length, width, depth.) Time is not a dimension. Paper isn't two dimensional.
Please look here
http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.html
and here
http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~sjg/class/1010/wc/geom/homer2a.html
and here
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-03/msg0022730.html
and here
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/gr1.html
I will explain all this if you need me to
no paper is not but in 1905 when that idea s first used to explain higher d's it was expected student would not take it literally
all these theories need modification now with string theory
Cosmic Cube
Theories and speculations. Obviously, laws are more tenacious than theories.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Theories and speculations. Obviously, laws are more tenacious than theories.
a
ll science is the
oretica
l even the stuff which works
I know
i'm a scientist (actually true)
Cosmic Cube
No. It isn't. That's why there are theories, and laws.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by whirlysplat
a
ll science is the
oretica
l even the stuff which works
I know
i'm a scientist (actually true)
Even Laws are theories and open to revision in science
Beyonder
Infinity. Gog would have trouble with Thanos much less Infinity.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
No. It isn't. That's why there are theories, and laws.
laws are theories open to revision.
Newtonian Physics is based on laws, Quantum mechanics is based on probability. The laws of Newtonian physics do not work on the very large or the very small. E.g. in a black hole everything goes infinite. An electron can be anywhere and everywhere around the nucleus of an atom in any of the shells or sub shells. Please don't argue on this CC its not like Doom v Doomsday anyone who knows Science reading this thread will laugh at you.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
laws are theories open to revision.
Newtonian Physics is based on laws, Quantum mechanics is based on probability. The laws of Newtonian physics do not work on the very large or the very small. E.g. in a black hole everything goes infinite. An electron can be anywhere and everywhere around the nucleus of an atom in any of the shells or sub shells. Please don't argue on this CC its not like Doom v Doomsday anyone who knows Science reading this thread will laugh at you.
Theories are open to revision. Laws are not. Educate yourself.
Black holes are theoretical. Nothing about them is law.
You're being very arrogant. I know quite a bit about physics. Don't insult my intelligence.
Mider
Gog was destroying the multiverse He might have a chance at defeating Infinity and even if He does lose its not a shameful thing She is a cosmic level being like Eternity still He might win
Cosmic Cube
Gog was destroying the multiverse? When?
Mider
Those laws are made up by humans there not totally and utterly undisputable a black hole has gravity so strong it sucks in light and even slows down time does that make sense in any laws? No but none the less it happens.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by Mider
Those laws are made up by humans there not totally and utterly undisputable a black hole has gravity so strong it sucks in light and even slows down time does that make sense in any laws? No but none the less it happens.
Black holes haven't even been proven to exist. They are theoretical.
The Laws of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Mass/etc. is indisputable, except by God. But you'd have to actually know the laws to know whether they're disputable of not.
Mider
In Kingdom so ive heard.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by Mider
In Kingdom so ive heard. Any evidence?
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Black holes haven't even been proven to exist. They are theoretical.
The Laws of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Mass/etc. is indisputable, except by God. But you'd have to actually know the laws to know whether they're disputable of not.
I am afraid you are wrong here is an example of a law being revised
http://physics.about.com/cs/alternativeideas/a/unification_rk_2.htm
I rest my case
And the use of the word "tends" by Newton in the first law of motion should have got you wise to things anyway
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
heres the clincher
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1984ApJ...286....3F&db_key=AST
Milgroms "revision" of Newtons laws where he looks at the problem of momentum in isolated systems not beind conserved as Newtons law states it must be.
Sorry mate
you look silly now
whirlysplat
Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am afraid you are wrong here is an example of a law being revised
http://physics.about.com/cs/alternativeideas/a/unification_rk_2.htm
I rest my case
And the use of the word "tends" by Newton in the first law of motion should have got you wise to things anyway
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
heres the clincher
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1984ApJ...286....3F&db_key=AST
Milgroms "revision" of Newtons laws where he looks at the problem of momentum in isolated systems not beind conserved as Newtons law states it must be.
Sorry mate
you look silly now
Oh and finally heres Einsteins violation of the second law of thermodynamics bottom of the page because it didn't fit with his superior model of the universe:
http://physics.about.com/cs/alternativeideas/a/unification_rk_3.htm
All these ideas are open to change!
Look up the word epistomology to see how science works
You still look silly
chin up
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Not at all Gog would lose this.It doesn't make Infinity any more sensible
When you personify an abstract, they can't help but be extremely powerful.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
When you personify an abstract, they can't help but be extremely powerful.
Good point Swanky thats why a being like Q works better, the concept is still abstract the being is not
kgkg
Originally posted by Beyonder
Infinity. Gog would have trouble with Thanos much less Infinity.
ditto
Infinity whould own.
whirlysplat
Yes Infinity would win doesn't makeCC's understanding of science any better though. check out the preacher v infinity to see her lose!!!
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Good point Swanky thats why a being like Q works better, the concept is still abstract the being is not
I think it was an accident that Q ended up so awesome though.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I think it was an accident that Q ended up so awesome though.
In what sense, no sarcasm i'm interested
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
In what sense, no sarcasm i'm interested
I don't mean power-wise. I mean popularity wise. You can't plan that magic, baby!
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I don't mean power-wise. I mean popularity wise. You can't plan that magic, baby!
True i don't see him used on this forum though
Swanky-Tuna
There was a Mxyzptlk vs Q thread a while ago but nobody was really into it. For A) he's not a comic I don't think, and B) He's pretty much like Beyonder before he was retconned. Not much you can put him up against with jazz like that.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
There was a Mxyzptlk vs Q thread a while ago but nobody was really into it. For A) he's not a comic I don't think, and B) He's pretty much like Beyonder before he was retconned. Not much you can put him up against with jazz like that.
True enough, do star trek comics count?
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
True enough, do star trek comics count?
Probably but if so few people here watch the show, I don't think they'll be reading the comics.
Xplosive
Infinity takes this.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Probably but if so few people here watch the show, I don't think they'll be reading the comics.
good point, they don't seem to readr preacher either
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
good point, they don't seem to readr preacher either
SoK got around though. Mostly for the retard guns the dumbass Preacher God gave a freakin' cowboy ghost. It lead to the conclusion that DC gods are idiots.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
SoK got around though. Mostly for the retard guns the dumbass Preacher God gave a freakin' cowboy ghost. It lead to the conclusion that DC gods are idiots.
It never was the sandman replacement it was intended to be by DC, but it has some nice ideas at times
Swanky-Tuna
Cosmic Cube, what if somebody finds out it works a different way and that law ends up wrong?
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Cosmic Cube, what if somebody finds out it works a different way and that law ends up wrong?
Laws state facts, such as, "all matter is composed of atoms."
Theories state a fortified hypothesis, such as, "all organisms are composed of cells."
If it wasn't proven, it wouldn't be a law. An unproven "law" is a theory.
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Laws state facts, such as, "all matter is composed of atoms."
Theories state a fortified hypothesis, such as, "all organisms are composed of cells."
If it wasn't proven, it wouldn't be a law. An unproven "law" is a theory.
But what if a law is proven to be wrong as science advances? Obviously some won't change but some might.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
But what if a law is proven to be wrong as science advances? Obviously some won't change but some might.
None of the laws are that flexible. For example, atoms have been proven to exist. Unless reality itself somehow changes this fact, the law will remain intact. Theorem are built around laws.
whirlysplat
Oh dear poor old Cosmic Cube had to return this time with an even more confused post. He needs to look up the word epistomology till he does every post makes him look more silly. because he is now in complete conflict with his original statement that laws are "indesputable".
He is now agreeing but trying to make out he did all along.
Bless him.
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
None of the laws are that flexible. For example, atoms have been proven to exist. Unless reality itself somehow changes this fact, the law will remain intact. Theorem are built around laws.
My original post and expansion
5th d is still better science than dividing space/time
well space and time are one they cannot be divided this is part of the special theory of relativity.
We live in a 3 d universe 4 if you include time. A being from a higher plane could basically do what he wants here in the way you can on a 2 d sheet of paper so hotdogs and walking buildings are a kind of extreme (and extemely silly) extension of this.
his flawed repy
The theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity.
It is theorized that different dimensions could exist in the spaces between subatomic particles at different frequencys. This theory has nothing to do with the geometric dimensions (length, width, depth.) Time is not a dimension. Paper isn't two dimensional. Black holes haven't even been proven to exist. They are theoretical.
The Laws of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Mass/etc. is indisputable, except by God. But you'd have to actually know the laws to know whether they're disputable of not.
My explanation of why he is wrong with evidence
Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am afraid you are wrong here is an example of a law being revised
http://physics.about.com/cs/alterna...cation_rk_2.htm
I rest my case
And the use of the word "tends" by Newton in the first law of motion should have got you wise to things anyway
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/...ewton3laws.html
heres the clincher
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...&db_key=AST
Milgroms "revision" of Newtons laws where he looks at the problem of momentum in isolated systems not beind conserved as Newtons law states it must be.
Oh and finally heres Einsteins violation of the second law of thermodynamics bottom of the page because it didn't fit with his superior model of the universe:
http://physics.about.com/cs/alterna...cation_rk_3.htm
All these ideas are open to change!
Sorry mate you look even sillier now
whirlysplat
A few links on the duel spelling of epistomology for you cc
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric/rhetoricaltheory/epistomology.org/
http://members.tripod.com/Mary_Duffy/BIBepistomology.html
http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0631192581
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-5971_Quantum_Epistomology.html
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/03/11/112328.HTM
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~janknegt/r0156.html
http://www.superior-termpapers.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
http://www.writeapaper.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
I believe their is a minor distinction somewhere, to do with process and methodology and knowledge. Epistemology stresses process. Epistemology stresses knowledge.
but for my purposes the words were interchangable.
you still look silly cc
whirlysplat
Originally posted by whirlysplat
A few links on the duel spelling of epistomology for you cc
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric/rhetoricaltheory/epistomology.org/
http://members.tripod.com/Mary_Duffy/BIBepistomology.html
http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0631192581
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-5971_Quantum_Epistomology.html
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/03/11/112328.HTM
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~janknegt/r0156.html
http://www.superior-termpapers.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
http://www.writeapaper.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
I believe their is a minor distinction somewhere, to do with process and methodology and knowledge. Epistomology stresses process. Epistemology stresses knowledge.
but for my purposes the words were interchangable.
you still look silly cc
GalacticStorm
LORD GOD!!! That was some gd research. Very interesting. This thread has changed into a science lesson and it is quite clear who the victor is. People just get back to the topic of this thread or move on. We all hav our strengths on this forum Swankys is humour, Draco's is DC, Mine the Xmen. Whirlys is physics. There are no contenders people leave well alone!!!
Swanky-Tuna
I'm also an awesome archer.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/zanpanzer/archery.jpg
whirlysplat
Found the distinction Epistomology is pure scientific knowledge sadly its in a teext book not a link will scan it when my scanner is connected again. Since moving its still in a box.
whirlysplat
Oh and as for the scientist bit I have an HND in Apllied Biology from Notts Poly, A BSc hons from Southbank, A postgrad cert in integrated Science from Goldsmiths and A PGCE in Science also from Goldsmiths College University of London.
You'd know if you had a degree using others research is not plagurism
Hey and how about that crazy revision of the laws of thermodymanics shit.
and that crazy two ways of spelling epistomology.
Guess getting my facts right does make me a bigot
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Never claimed it was mine Cubist.
However its all true hey what about the Epistomology bit?
whirlysplat
Damn that Cubist his a Square, never responds to my IM's when I ask if his having a good day and takes everything so personally. Its a shame.
sylvanelf
You may be rather intelligent, and you may be able to debate moderately well, but you're still an ass about it.
sylvanelf
Oh yeah, and this makes it all right:
whirlysplat
Originally posted by sylvanelf
You may be rather intelligent, and you may be able to debate moderately well, but you're still an ass about it.
Ain't that the truth
whirlysplat
Oh and in cubists defence in most closed Newtonian Systems he is completely correct. Unfortunately we live in the string theory, quantum crazy universe which just refuses to obey laws.
His assumption black holes are just a theory is true as well, however, were about to get a picture of ones shadow next year.
Crazy huh
Infinity Watch
LOL who looks silly now?
whirlysplat
Oh and on black holes you are quite right they are theoris but as I state
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/dec99/shadow.htmld they will be very concrete very soon.
this one is especially interesting
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/headlines-1.html
and like I said before CC
we live in a crazy universe open to change
as ever I look forward to reading you reply and hearing more of your fascinating intellect. Hey you seem quite a bright guy, how come you never got a degree. I've met loads of Americans with them
PS I love the way you always pick up on spelling
Thats a sign of a certain kind of learning style, fascinating.
Have a nice day
Sentry
Regardless, Gog falls.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Sentry
Regardless, Gog falls.
Oh I know that
Jason8200
Ok I dont care who has what degree and who has graduated from which school. I have a degree and I could care less if all of you do or do not. You all are so far off subject that it is retarded. You all dont sound like educated people at all... you all sound like little kids on a playground saying..."My dad can beat up your dad!" ... "nuh uh... my dad and mom will beat up you and your whole family!"
In comics logical answers are not always there. If you don't realize that then you need to stop buying them and sign off the KMC Forums.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Jason8200
Ok I dont care who has what degree and who has graduated from which school. I have a degree and I could care less if all of you do or do not. You all are so far off subject that it is retarded. You all dont sound like educated people at all... you all sound like little kids on a playground saying..."My dad can beat up your dad!" ... "nuh uh... my dad and mom will beat up you and your whole family!"
In comics logical answers are not always there. If you don't realize that then you need to stop buying them and sign off the KMC Forums.
Cool
whirlysplat
Wheres my buddy Cosmic Cube?
I am a big enough man to say we've had a disagreement but can we still be pals
Paola
WITFW?!?!?!
what is this?
explain... quickly... before I fall asleep yawn
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Paola
WITFW?!?!?!
what is this?
explain... quickly... before I fall asleep yawn
I have apologised for not taking CC seriously, he has yet to respond
whirlysplat
Sill no reply to my apology from CC and its been days
Now thats silly
Swanky-Tuna
I think whatever victory you've gained is a hollow one, whirlysplat. I'm pretty sure most people just stopped reading at "Laws of Thermodynamics" and started again at Paola's post.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I think whatever victory you've gained is a hollow one, whirlysplat. I'm pretty sure most people just stopped reading at "Laws of Thermodynamics" and started again at Paola's post.
Iagree totally swanky, I'm just seeingnow how high I can get the post count on this thread
Its "spamtastic"
Swanky-Tuna
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Iagree totally swanky, I'm just seeingnow how high I can get the post count on this thread
Its "spamtastic"
It's true!
+1
Science science science.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
It's true!
+1
Science science science.
leonheartmm
all laws are basically theories, nothing can actually be a true law in science.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Sill no reply to my apology from CC and its been days
Now thats silly
Whatever apology you have made, I accept. I don't post here every day.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
all laws are basically theories, nothing can actually be a true law in science.
Laws are the derivative of theorem proven to be constant. No theory that cannot be proven to be irrefutable can be a law.
The topic of this thread died long ago. Everyone knows who wins.
whirlysplat
Yup me, but seriously I think for most of the thread we were at cross purposes anyway and to stubbourn to admit it. I said Laws coould be revised. A point you never really discussed and you said Laws were stronger than theories a point I never discussed. I said laws like the conservation of mass could be revised (Which they have been) and I said th a lot of modern laws are about to have to change for new science to work. E=MC2 theory which led to the A bomb is about to go and the knock on affect to the Laws it is based on may well require revision. So CC whilst I enjoyed our disscusion, I unfortunately was fishing with you and you took the bait, for that I am sorryOriginally posted by Cosmic Cube
Whatever apology you have made, I accept. I don't post here every day.
Laws are the derivative of theorem proven to be constant. No theory that cannot be proven to be irrefutable can be a law.
The topic of this thread died long ago. Everyone knows who wins.
Cosmic Cube
Originally posted by whirlysplat
So CC whilst I enjoyed our disscusion, I unfortunately was fishing with you and you took the bait, for that I am sorry
Did I?
whirlysplat
I don't know did you
Only you will ever know
whirlysplat
2 more 2 800 readers of this thread Spamtastic
whirlysplat
At the 805 level bump Spamtastic 195 to the 1000
whirlysplat
809 its spamtastic
MERCILOUS
Whirly, you sure do spam alot. I come on the thread thinking that someone has added something to it and instead I see "bump" or some other garbage. It's becoming annoying.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
Whirly, you sure do spam alot. I come on the thread thinking that someone has added something to it and instead I see "bump" or some other garbage. It's becoming annoying.
whirlysplat
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Grind
875poata swnky 125 to go spamtastic
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.