[New Sig !]

Looks much better. Good job.

[Skateboarding]

There's no ollie in the trick. All I do is push down the middle of the board to flip it as I jump in the air and then kick it back before it spins all the way.

[Space Travel in GTA]

Stop bashing the kid, videogames are UNREALISTIC. I can't see R* letting us go into space anytime soon, but I could see myself playing GTA in space. I think it'd be iinteresting.

We're not bashing him, we're being realistic. I thought Rockstar Games went a little far with the San Andreas storyline and going into space would be absolutely crazy. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

...Now if they have a GTA far in the future...then it might make a little sense.

[Space Travel in GTA]

This would work better in other games such as Duke Nukem...but not GTA.

GTA is mainly about organized crime. So going into outer space would not only be unrealistic, but pointless as well.

It takes loads of highly trained and highly intelligent people to operate a space shuttle...so high jacking one is next to impossible.

I think people are looking to Rockstar to add everything into one game and not just any game…Grand Theft Auto.

Yes, Rockstar has shown that they could add a shit load of features into their games, but there comes a point where one particular game can’t go much further except for new characters, locations, stories and scenarios.

[Skateboarding]

Well, all I know is I flip in too casper, and then do a shuv-it and land on the board. I also just learned how to land it in manual.

Wow, landing a casper must have been tough to do at first.

I figured out how to do this one trick...not sure what it's called, but I have my front foot in the middle of the board hanging off half way and my back foot over the back wheels. Then I jump up with my back foot kicking the board down with my front foot and kicking it back up before I come back down to land on it.

I'm not sure of it's actual name, but I'm gonna call it a flip kick.

[TOXIC's GFX]

What about me Toxic? :'(

[Is God Real]

If you're all really that bothered... live feed.

OH NO!!! It's happening!!!!

[New Sig !]

Well That Is Because I Did it in almost 10-15 minutes and didn't take more care of that.

Then why would you post a topic about a signature that you half assed?

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just curious.

I don't post a topic about my signatures and what not unless I put a lot of effort into it and find it to be good myself.

[New Sig !]

I like the background picture you have. The only thing is that the fade ins are slow and jumpy.

[Is God Real]

Well there are loads of things in the bible that are metaphors. Who said that these 7 days were Earth days? We could have been organisms when God created us and then we could have evolved.

Then if you noticed, pretty much everything that was mentioned in what you posted was all basically in the correct order.

So far this thing caused 1,000 people or so to commit suicide and also caused a group to act against them in a severe way...I'm not seeing an upside to this whole thing yet.

How do you know they are metaphors? Were YOU there when the Bible was written? How do you know they were intended to be metaphors or the literal word of God?

And as I said, if people aren't mature enough to deal with the situation, who cares if they die? They had it coming anyway.

To you the bible is wrong...so why would you care if it was to be looked at literally or metaphorically?

That's NOT what I asked you and it's irrelevant; if you can't answer the question then don't, but don't change the subject randomly.

Woo, calm down. If you couldn't tell...what I said isn't really an answer to your question. Besides that...how could you ask me what YOU think about the bible???...doesn't make any sense.

There are a lot of Christians that believe that a majority of the stories in the bible are metaphors and others are literal. I find the one you posted to be semi metaphoric and literal.

[Is God Real]

Anyways, the thing MIGHT not even work. Like the people in that lab in Greenwich or something trying to get to absolute 0. They say once they reach it, everything it touching will freeze. Which is pretty crazy... I don't think they'll reach their goal. But that's science.

It's gonna be even harder to get it to work with hackers constantly trying to stop them.

[Is God Real]

Well there are loads of things in the bible that are metaphors. Who said that these 7 days were Earth days? We could have been organisms when God created us and then we could have evolved.

Then if you noticed, pretty much everything that was mentioned in what you posted was all basically in the correct order.

So far this thing caused 1,000 people or so to commit suicide and also caused a group to act against them in a severe way...I'm not seeing an upside to this whole thing yet.

How do you know they are metaphors? Were YOU there when the Bible was written? How do you know they were intended to be metaphors or the literal word of God?

And as I said, if people aren't mature enough to deal with the situation, who cares if they die? They had it coming anyway.

To you the bible is wrong...so why would you care if it was to be looked at literally or metaphorically?

Well I'm tired of going off topic so PM me if you want....unless you want the topic to continue to go off topic then please continue to talk about this.

[Is God Real]

Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth in a week. (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

# First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

# Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".

# Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

# Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

# Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

# Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Evolution says humans (even organisms) didn't come along until much longer after the Earth was formed. And even then humans didn't come until millions of years later after other animals.

Well there are loads of things in the bible that are metaphors. Who said that these 7 days were Earth days? We could have been organisms when God created us and then we could have evolved.

Then if you noticed, pretty much everything that was mentioned in what you posted was all basically in the correct order.

So far this thing caused 1,000 people or so to commit suicide and also caused a group to act against them in a severe way...I'm not seeing an upside to this whole thing yet.

[Is God Real]

It would disprove a part of it, to a point. I mean. The Bible says God created Earth in 6 days (rested on the 7th). It's possible I suppose that he could have DONE the whole Big Bang Theory, but then that's where the evolutionists and christians separate.

...What part is disproven by evolution?

If someone lies once, what stops them from lieing again? As in, if one thing is wrong (Bible) then what stops everything from being actual fact from fiction?

What's wrong about the bible?

Ofcourse all my thinking is theoretical and I don't really care for the topic, I'm just kinda bored and figured I'd throw something in. Although I'd like to know (genuinely) why it wouldn't prove religion (We're talking from Christianity... all of them are different) wrong.

I can't answer that unless you tell me which part of evolution you think disproves religion, christianity in particular. There are many different things that people have said and there are many different answers. So I can't base my response just off of the fact you feel that evolution disproves religion.

[New Sig]

It looks pretty good. Are you planning on making a matching avatar?

As an idea, try rounding off the edges of the sig. It might fit with the swirl affect.

You're doing a good job with your graphics. Keep up with the new styles.

[Is God Real]

I hate it so much when people post a video over 2 minutes long to answer a simple question.

EDIT: Evolution, if true, does not disprove religion...at all. I don't see why so many people think it does.

[Skateboarding]

I'm almost able to get into a casper and flip out of it...I'm not too sure what the flip would be called. I'll have to get a picture of the foot placement so everyone could get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Quick question: I've heard various wording with 'caspering out'. I hear people say flip out, and casper out. I'm confused, is there a difference?

I'm not too sure myself, but I'd assume they mean the same thing. Caspering out might just mean that they're flipping the board back over from a casper to land. Then flipping out would be adding to the trick...sort of like a combo. I honestly don't know, it could be either of those or something totally different.

[Skateboarding]

I'm almost able to get into a casper and flip out of it...I'm not too sure what the flip would be called. I'll have to get a picture of the foot placement so everyone could get an idea of what I'm talking about.

[Is God Real]

Here's something: Why can't they just leave it? Trying to find out more about the universe should remain a mystery to us, I mean yeah, it's interesting that we can take a step forward in technology and find out all the answers, but getting the answers out from something like this is just something which is a waste of time. Best keeping it unknown, because then people can believe in the theory or god. I mean, if these scientists want to think the world was created from the Big Bang, then so be it, but proving it with these types of measures is potentially dangerous and causes a few people in the world to cause suicides or stuff like that.

Plus, they could even destroy someone's belief system for god, in which alot of people believe in.

Finding the origin of our existence is a waste of time? Why? Because religion tells you what happened and you should blindly obey it? l2/Age of Reason

And those people deserve to live? Believe whatever the hell you want to, but if it is PROVEN that you are wrong and you're too immature to deal with it, your life is inconsequential.

I don't really consider it a waste of time...but why do you think it isn't? There are supposedly a lot of things we could learn from this if it all goes well...but that's it. It's not really gonna get us anywhere besides being able to put more info in textbooks.

I really never have understand how people can believe in something as stupid as religion.

"We don't know how that works, god did it!"

...I don't think people have really thought that way for over a thousand years... Besides, this "Big Bang Theory" actually supports the idea of their being a God/s even more so than the original idea that our universe has always been here. Just felt like pointing that out. TV does some good at times.

[Future Technology]

When you say if we are useless why don't we kill ourself, thats just stupid, because as far as I am concerned wasps are useless, but they don't kill themself.

Wasps actually have a purpose...they're part of the cycle of life. We don't really have a purpose other than the ones we create.

Its because we have a will to live. Its just robots with artificial intelliagence would see us as inferior, for example,

We die of old age, Robots would probably live more than 5 times as long as us, before they rusted out, and they can easily could be repared.

Also they wont die as easily as us, because they are mostly armoured all over.

If you really are scared about it, then carry a big magnet round with you. (Warning, dont buy ny games or use your phone when you have it with you, or you will ruin them)

When you were saying about the microchips that stop you dieing, that is a good idea upfront, but really doesn't work. Placing somthing in the brain is an EXTREMILY DANGEROUS PROCEDURE. One mistake and you are dead. If you do live that then the earth will become overly populated, and it would soon come to the point where people over the age of 160 (im saying this, as its the age of Futurama) would have to be rounded up and killed, I would much rather die peacfully at abpout 90 years old

We are getting pretty close to being able to live on other rocks.

[Is God Real]

Don't believe.

If it were to happen tomorrow, it would be all over news, but to me, this is just some shit which makes people worry about it. They use maps or any images which can make everyone think this is happening.

It actually was all over the news this morning...

[TOXIC's GFX]

Lulz, what you want...?

Don't forget about me.

[Anti-Gravity]

There are a few inaccuraccies in your post.

Firstly, mass and density aren't separate things. Density is just mass in a particular volume. The other big thing that affects it is distance.

I never said they were separate, but in the equation they are.

Secondly, you say we can't prove anything with antimatter cos we don't have any. That's not true, we've been making it since 1995.

This is why I try not to use Wikipedia. I've seen so many things on Discovery Channel about antimatter and assumed that we've experimented with it before, but when I went to make sure...Wikipedia said something else. Since most people on here worship Wikipedia...I decided to just go with what that said so I could stop researching. Thanks for pointing that out.

You say mass/density causes gravity, and thus cancelling it will negate the effect of the gravity. This is a bit lopsided. The mass of (say) the planet causes the gravity which pulls anything else with mass (eg us) towards it. This is where weight comes in, with the mass times the gravitational force.

Yes, but without mass...no weight, no gravitational pull. That's how I viewed it.

As you have all hinted at, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is the key, and so beating gravity is very simple.

We can slow down the effect of gravity by exerting some upthrust. Imagine a parachute, or even just plain old resistance of a person in the air. The air exerts a force on us, which removes some of the effect of the gravity, so we fall slower.

We can equalize the force completely by standing on the planetary body - such as the ground or a building. This stops us moving down at all, so the force pulling us down is equal to the force holding us up.

We can overwhelm that balance by using more force to push ourselves up, by jumping or using a lift/elevator or aircraft etc. So the force pushing us up is greater than the force holding us down, so overall we go up.

We can also 'float' in a gravitational environment by free-falling. If we were inside a box which was falling through the sky, we would fall at the same rate and be able to float around inside that box (relative to the box) with very little effort.

But anti-gravity means defeating gravity without this opposing force.

Exactly, we have ways to slow the effects of gravity with air resistance and escape it with thrust, but it isn't getting rid of it.

Antimatter acts the same as normal matter - it has positive mass and positive energy content, and thus reacts the same to gravity as normal mass.

Ok, then we don't have to worry about that anymore. Now we could just focus on how we could take away mass from matter without destroying it. Even though matter can't necessarily be destroyed.

If gravity was carried by gravitons (like light is photons), then it stands to reason we could have an anti-graviton. However the existence of either of these has not been proved, and all experiments so far have failed. Mathematically it also fails to fit into the unified theory with the four forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).

Negative mass is a funny concept, but it doesn't seem to fit into our main existing theories, most notable general relativity. There's a funny quote at WP which outlines one of the problems:

"Negative mass also seems to suffer from problems similar to the gravity shield. Forward pointed out that a negative mass will fall toward "normal" matter as normal, while normal mass will fall away from the negative matter. Forward noted that two similar masses, one positive and one negative, placed near each other will therefore accelerate in the direction of the line between them, away from the negative mass. Notice that because the negative mass acquires negative kinetic energy, the total energy of the accelerating masses remains at zero."

And before you start talking about levitating frogs, that's simply diamagnetism, which creates an opposite repulsive magnetic force.

There is supposedly a way to change matter into light, which isn't taking away all of it's mass, because light does have mass, but this would allow us to use a very low amount of energy to get speed.

The way to supposedly change matter into light is by bouncing ultra high frequencies, medium high frequencies and low frequencies off of the object in a certain pattern and speed. Not sure if it's true, but people have apparently done this before with it working.

[Vice City: Hitman Asset]

Hmmm...Well if you don't mind, would I be able to use your idea for Liberty City Stories and or Vice City Stories?

If you ever get them then I'll pass the responsibility back over to you if you want me to.

I've just been really bored lately since my PS3 is messed up and I'm looking for something to do...and your idea seems pretty fun.

[Anti-Gravity]

So it is not necessary that to cancel the effect of gravitation either of mass or density should disapper.An equal force exerted from the opposite direction is enough to feel weight-less.

Yeah, I believe that would be considered thrust of some sort.

If we were to achieve anti-gravity by means of anti-matter, I doubt it would be all that useful to us.

Well I was thinking along the lines of converting matter into antimatter. Right now it's just a theory of mine, with not too much supporting it.

Now if we were able to some how convert matter into antimatter...then we'd have to see if antimatter is affected by gravity at all. Basically, we'd want to find out if antimatter is affected by gravity before we attempt to convert matter into antimatter.

I'm pretty sure we'd be able to figure all of this out using some physics equations, but since I can't remember the correct ones needed for this particular problem, I'll have to improvise...in a way.

Let's look at the mass of the Earth as +6X10^24 and an average person as +70. Now if both of these positives create an attraction, then what would cause this attraction to be canceled? Thinking in a somewhat mathematical sense, if both masses were equal then they would have either no attraction to one another or most likely, or definitely in a physics sense, would be equal. So if gravitational attraction is caused when either an object is larger in mass than the other or when they have the same mass, then what else is there to cause cancellation of gravitational attraction? Maybe if one does not have mass or, if possible, negative mass. That got me thinking that maybe antimatter might appear massless(…?) to regular matter.

Now let me remind you, mass and density causes gravitational attraction. So it doesn't matter how much more massive something is, a less massive object could actually have a greater gravitational attraction, depending on it’s density.