Editing Talk:1115: Sky
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As anyone who read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game_%28series%29 Ender's Game] know, "The enemy's gate is down". t must be noted that mentioned gate was in a zero-gravity environment so the usual definition of down being the direction gravitation is pulling us was not applicable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | As anyone who read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game_%28series%29 Ender's Game] know, "The enemy's gate is down". t must be noted that mentioned gate was in a zero-gravity environment so the usual definition of down being the direction gravitation is pulling us was not applicable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
The enemy's gate is down. | The enemy's gate is down. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
Furthermore, the last panel might be a reference to {{w|Nietzsche}}'s quote: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you". | Furthermore, the last panel might be a reference to {{w|Nietzsche}}'s quote: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you". | ||
Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
I think the comment about a bottomless hole is misleading but I am not certain. the mass of the walls of the hole as well as surrounding matter would create a definite gravitational force, as would any gases or liquids that fill the hole. There would be a point (or possibly surface or line) depending on the composition and shape of whatever the bottomless hole is in as well as the contents and shape of the hole itself where the net gravitational force is zero, with all areas surrounding this point (surface or line) having gravitational forces pointing in the direction of the point/surface/line, unless the hole is in a body that extends in one direction off into infinity, in which case the mass of the entire system would be continually collapsing into a black hole as the mass of the body is infinite. | I think the comment about a bottomless hole is misleading but I am not certain. the mass of the walls of the hole as well as surrounding matter would create a definite gravitational force, as would any gases or liquids that fill the hole. There would be a point (or possibly surface or line) depending on the composition and shape of whatever the bottomless hole is in as well as the contents and shape of the hole itself where the net gravitational force is zero, with all areas surrounding this point (surface or line) having gravitational forces pointing in the direction of the point/surface/line, unless the hole is in a body that extends in one direction off into infinity, in which case the mass of the entire system would be continually collapsing into a black hole as the mass of the body is infinite. | ||
− | |||
The comic also encapsulates a feeling about the sky. If you lie down in a flat area like the american southwest, all you can see is sky. All you can see is sky. All of the sudden, it feels like one little push could send you flying. You get the feeling that you are laying on a round, small surface, and are enveloped by a huge blue sky. In "Death comes for the Archbishop" There is a one line description of this feeling. | The comic also encapsulates a feeling about the sky. If you lie down in a flat area like the american southwest, all you can see is sky. All you can see is sky. All of the sudden, it feels like one little push could send you flying. You get the feeling that you are laying on a round, small surface, and are enveloped by a huge blue sky. In "Death comes for the Archbishop" There is a one line description of this feeling. | ||
Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
Shouldn't his beret be shown on the ground? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | Shouldn't his beret be shown on the ground? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
:[[291|Staples]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 14:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | :[[291|Staples]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 14:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
Anyone else reminded of the Stone Tower Temple from Majora's Mask? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.180|173.245.63.180]] 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | Anyone else reminded of the Stone Tower Temple from Majora's Mask? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.180|173.245.63.180]] 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Line 34: | Line 30: | ||
There may be another theme here, too: That a seemingly bizarre and unintuitive but irrefutable interpretation of reality may become the accepted interpretation, with implications that overturn our world view. We already saw this with {{w|General Relativity}} and the {{w|Grand Unified Theory}}. Maybe Beret Guy has hit on a {{w|Theory of Everything}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.152|173.245.54.152]] 13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | There may be another theme here, too: That a seemingly bizarre and unintuitive but irrefutable interpretation of reality may become the accepted interpretation, with implications that overturn our world view. We already saw this with {{w|General Relativity}} and the {{w|Grand Unified Theory}}. Maybe Beret Guy has hit on a {{w|Theory of Everything}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.152|173.245.54.152]] 13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | + | there are plenty dictionary definitions and physics of the term "down" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=define+down&oq=define+down&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&qscrl=1 -- generally speaking "down" is in the direction you move from a higher point (of energy) to a lower point (of energy) -- so the explanation as it stand saying that "there is no set rule for what is down" is plainly wrong, and as the opening definition of the explanation is warrant the entire explanation to be re-visited and re-written. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 17:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |
− | |||
− | there are plenty dictionary definitions and physics of the term "down" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=define+down&oq=define+down&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&qscrl=1 -- generally speaking "down" is in the direction you move from a higher point (of energy) to a lower point (of energy) -- so the explanation as it stand saying that " | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |