PsiPog.net
View topic - True Invisibility
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Constructs » True Invisibility
| True Invisibility | |||
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:34 am | |||
DemonHunter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 |
I think none of you can judge what is possible and what is not. Including
me, but still i can say that you are very wrong with your 'opinions'. 
|
||
| Back to top | |||
| Don't feel bad, I hate lots of people. on Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:16 am | |||
Eldibs
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 |
Granted, we can't determine possible and impossible. However, probable and improbable CAN be determined. It's incredibly improbable that someone would learn to teleport or perform actual invisibility. It's highly probable that I hate you because you've once again brought back a dead topic, and stated that we are "wrong with out opinions." Opinions are never wrong, no matter what, nor are they necessarily right. The nature of opinion is that it can't be proven or disproven. That is what separates opinion from fact. | ||
| Back to top | |||
| Posted on Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 am | |||
DemonHunter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 |
Well anyway there's no such thing like probable or improbable, because it either happens or not. 50-50 chance. for everything. | ||
| Back to top | |||
| I say again, back up your statements with logic. on Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:10 pm | |||
Eldibs
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 |
Once again, you show your lack of reasoning. Do you have mathematical or scientific proof of this? Or is it conjecture? Regardless of the "pseudoscientific" topic of this site, we do look at things like valid logic and probability.
Now, here's why you're wrong. Let's roll a 20-sided die. Now, say I want to roll an 18, so I roll the die. Let's assume you are correct, there's a 50% chance it will land on 18. So then logically, if I were to roll the die 20 times, 10 times, it would land on 18. But then that would also mean that there's a 50% chance for it to land on any given number I pick. Since there's 20 numbers, that would be a total of 1,000% (20 * 50). Since we know that probabilities and chances only go up to 100%, the answer, while solved for correctly doesn't make sense, so the original assumption must be false, and thus you are incorrect. Probable and improbable do exist. So unless you're willing to back up statements like that, do not present them as facts. It's okay to say "I believe <insert belief here>," but you presented it as a fact. |
||
| Back to top | |||
| Posted on Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:44 pm | |||
shenlon2
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 |
If this statement were correct then there would be an equal chance of me turning into a chicken when I press the post button as there is of this post being posted… I must say that I totally agree with Eldibs |
||
| Back to top | |||
| Posted on Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:41 am | |||
DemonHunter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 |
Sorry, but i think you're way of thinking is too complicated.
Look at it this way. The probability for something to happen could be 1 to 3000000. In the moment when this event takes places in time and space it will either happen or not no matter what the probability was before. The event doesn't care how improbable it was. I mean there's myriad possibilities in each billionth part of a second for like maybe 1000000000000 things to happen, but only one or maybe 2005023523 of them will happen. It's hard to describe this idea through words, which are very limited, but maybe you can imagine. And apart of that a possiblity of 50 % doesn't mean that in 50 % of the cases the 18 is being rolled. It can be all the times the 18, but it can only be 3 times out of 20, too.
|
||
| Back to top | |||
| Posted on Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:53 pm | |||
Nightshade
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 |
I dunno if it was stated before, but since (in order to become invisible) you would either have to have light pass through you, or bend around you and then bend back into the viewers eyes, you would be unable to see. In order to see, light has to reflect off an object and into your eyes, so if you made the light pass through or bend around, it wouldn't hit your eyes. Also, if you did let the light hit your eyes, then your eyes would be visible due to the light reflecting back off of them and into the viewers eyes...Maybe let light bend around you and a small portion hit your eyes, then create a construct to constanty absorb and reflect light back into your eyes without allowing any light to hit a viewers eyes....Needless to say, this would be very difficult. | ||
| Back to top | |||
| And good thing it does get done. on Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:09 pm | |||
Eldibs
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 |
No, DemonHunter, your way of think is not complicated enough. And I completely understand what you're saying. In fact, I had the very same idea you're presenting, when I was like 7. Then, I learned about this thing called logic and reasoning.
While it's true that things either happen or they don't, there are still probabilities governing how likely they are to happen. Let's go back to the dice roll example. You roll a 20-sided die 20 times (we'll say it's one set). Now, there's a decent chance that you rolled one of every number, but it's still possible that you didn't. Now, if you were to roll 50 sets of 20, and average up how many times you got each number, I'm willing to bet that unless you're using weighted dice, you rolled an average of around 50 of each number (50 sets, 1 of each number per set). I say around 50 and not exactly 50, because being off somewhat is well within statistical boundaries for random chance. Regardless of the fact that things happen or they don't, there are still laws of probability determining the chances of those things happening. Besides, by your statement, I should be dead already. Think about it, every time I move, by your statement, there's a 50% chance I would die from it. Now, I've made a lot of motions in my life, and nobody is that lucky. Seeing as how I'm still alive, your statement must be false. And regardless of how complex me previous post is, it is still correct. Building a microprocessor is complex, but it still gets done. Not every problem has a simple solution, you have to look at things on a grander scale from time to time. And if that doesn't convince him, then could some of you please help me get through to this guy? |
||
| Back to top | |||
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Constructs » True Invisibility
All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.