Jalenack | Home

We shall very angrily discuss the next time we meet…

Jackie, how about here? eh? eh?

Well…hmm..what to say….NOO!
Where the *@!#$% did you get the idea that space is infinite? Can you prove it? Ms. Sorg’s theory goes something like: If you zoom in close enough, there’s always more. Smooth out some wood with a sander, and it feels smooth, but if you put it under a microscope, its straight up chunky. However, she never mentioned that space is a continuum.

I hope you realize that you are directly disagreeing with many of the great scientists of all time, and many people with much higher IQs that you. So why isn’t there a planet made entirely of pot? It would break with a few scientific laws we are all aware of. Namely: gravity. There is no way Cannabis sativa could assemble itself into a “planet.” And by planet, I assume you refer to a body of mass revolving around a star. Cannabis Sativa would need to grow…obviously, and it cannot grow on itself, eh? It would need soil, water, and sunlight as all plants do. Contra Quod Eras Demonstratum

Now what?

Well if you guys insist that i rant HERE…grrr making me type…Andrew hit some good points, it would be very very unlikely for a planet of pot to develop in the first place. However, it is conceivable (sp?). You can imagine a planet of pot, and you cannot disprove the POSSIBLITY of there being one out there. However, you cannot prove that there for sure is one out there. Monkeys with typewriters will not give you Shakespeare, infinity will not give you planets made entirely of plant material.

ehh…I disagree Jackie . I agree with Ian about infinitum. If its infinite, anything and everything is within it. Same with numbers…if there is one number contained within infinity, then every number is also there. I’ve added a pic of the common cannabis plant just so we can see exactly what we are dealing with

an infinite number of number of monkeys could be typing “a” over and over again

True dat…True dat
Isn’t that proving my point though? If they could be typing “a” over again, couldn’t they also type “To beee, or bee” or “To be, or not to wee” or “To be, or not to be.” Eventually, a monkey will come up with the exact combinations of letters that Shakespeare came up with.

So Ian’s theory goes like this:

If there’s one, then there’s more.

it isnt couldnt they- thats what ive been saying
They could easily be typing that. I’m just saying that there isn’t any way that you can prove that they are. Say that monkeys like the letter a for some reason and ALL of them just pressed that button~its a possiblity ain’t it?

Nice point. But doesn’t everything have a randomness factor? The reason nature works so well is its ability to mutate and adapt and branch out. So eventually wouldn’t a monkey notice some other keys and be like “oo what does this one do.” Then they could go around exploring the keyboard, punching in random keys. And eventually Romeo and Juliet will result. Word.

You’re dealing with the principles of quantum physics here, I believe. Go see the movie “What The Bleep Do We Know?” (www.whatthebleep.com). They do a pretty good job of jogging your mind a bit.
The idea that since there are so many variations of things out there, then the one we dream up simply MUST exist, is intriguing, but perhaps a bit self-centered. Just because you can think of it does not mean that it has to exist. Did the pot planet *not* exist before you thought of it (undoubtedly under the plant’s influences, but that’s another discussion!)? Did it snap into being only because your thoughts gave it form? That seems to be essentially what this argument says. It’s an interesting concept, the planet of cannabis, but I don’t see it happening for many of the practical reasons that Andrew pointed out (gravity, grows in soil, etc).
I’m troubled that you believe that there is always more out there and expect everyone to take this as fact. I’m not fortunate to know Mrs. Sorg, so I don’t have the benefit of discussing this with her (and I haven’t taken a class on this subject for quite a few years), but I’ve always been under the impression that space/time is a continuum, resulting in something that doubles back in on itself. So if we start at point A and go on forever we’d end up at, well, point A again at some juncture. Perhaps there is a limit to space, but since it loops back in on itself, it’s an infinite loop.
Let’s see what we have to say now…

First off, Andrew, you are a genious that pic is perfect. Second, I give a full and wholesome apology to sean for leaving him out of my original post. He was indeed the creator of the idea that there is something far-fetched out there, although the proof was entirly my own.
Andrew, you seemed to miss one of the main points of my arguement, which was that there is absolutly no way that space is not infinite. No matter how far you go, you will always be able to continue. Even if there were some barrier, some monticure of deep space, what would be behind it? There would have to be something, if if that something was nothing. It would still exist. It could still be occupied by matter, even if it is a complete void now. That could be a different universe maybe, one with different laws of physics even, but it would still be space, and there is still the possibility of a pot planet. Props to sean for the laws thing. (He made me do it)
And about you’re guys monkey thing, even if you go down the line and all of them see to be pressing “a”, after an infinite number, eventually you’re gonna get one that pushes “b”, and then so on. Andrew’s right about that one.
You guys have been saying the same things for two or three posts now. If anyone has a new direction to take this in, that would be good.

Now what I’m curious about is: how in the world (or universe) are you going to get monkeys to sit in front of typewriters in the first place? It seams like that would be the hard part, and then getting them to type too?? You’re asking for a lot there. And then how are you going to convince them to type for hours on end, and then to finally produce Shakespeare? It seems like it might be possible to get one monkey to type on a typewriter, maybe one letter by accident or something, but how do you plan, or more like, how is it possible to make a room full of an infinite number of monkeys, trained to type on typewriters.

I think that is the real question.

Not everything is possible.

-Sam

I’m back.

ts, thank you, you’ve shed some very fresh new light on the subject. I haven’t seen this proclaimed “What the bleep do we know?” and really haven’t heard much about it until now. I will be sure to see it as it sounds like it provides some useful insights on the topic.
I really didn’t want to get into the whole possibility thing, because I realize that saying “nothing’s impossible” has quite a few loopholes (i.e. if nothing’s impossible, then it’s impossible for something to be impossible.) So I have to keep my belief that “nothing’s impossible” loose.
You definitly changed the way I was looking at it. The whole “If you can think of it, it must exist,” is exactly what I’m saying, only I didn’t mean for it to sound like that at all. When you say it like that, it totally sounds like total bullshit. You’re definitly right about it sounding self-centered, and lemme tell ya, this is not the first time I’ve sounded self-centered…(just wait for my next topic=))
The continuum idea is one that I really can never get a hold of. How could such a thing be true? How could going continuosly in one straight direction bring you right back to where you started? The only way I could think of this happening, is if the universe, or even space as the case may be, isn’t quite the shape we think it is. It’s not the origially pictured three dimesional vertical horizontal grid, but what if it is some distorted shape? Whenever you see black holes and such displayed on a grid, you see the grid is contorted, spiraling inward toward the discontinuity, as though it is twisting the very fabric of space time itself. What if the whole universe is like that? What if the univers is a giant torus or dounut shape, or a hyperporabola or something crazy like that?
I guess the best way to think of it is this: Think about how messed up early explorers must have been when they thought the world was flat. With the flat world idea, it would have been impossible to do the suggested “walk from point A back to point A.” But then once the revolution of a spherical earth came around, it all of the suddenly became possible, and they had to come up with an entirly new geometry to accomodate this living on a ball business, eliptical geometry. So what I’m proposing, and I’m really not educated at all in the matter, so feel free to chew this idea up and spit it out, is that the universe is some sort of weird distorted shape that we haven’t even begun to imagine yet. That’s the only thing that could really account for a continuum in my mind. And I don’t see how time could be a continuum either, unless, of course, it was some crazy funkifed shape too…

Okay, this is gettin’ pretty crAZY!! so i think it’s time for me to go to bed. I need some more insight to the continuum thingy, so if anyone’s got any, it’s totally welcome.

hey tsguitar! Everyone, he’s a high school english teacher from san jose. It’s kinda fun to get a teacher in on this. Well anyhoo, I agree with idea of a planet made of pot being self-centered. I have brought it up in conversations with Ian that his theory is rather simple-minded. You have never experienced the boundary of the universe. Therefore, you have no idea it doesn’t exist. You ask: “Why not? You can’t prove it.” Well you can’t either. None of us can. EDIT: Upon rereading ts’s post and noticing that he said we were under the influence of cannabis when we thought it up is completely false. It is just a symbol of something funny to get us engaged in the topic. None of us do that here, and I know that for a fact.

Yep, I liked that picture too…I saw a poster for What the !@#$@% do we know, and it looked intriguing. I think we should check it out Ian. Might be even better than Waking Life .

Sam, I have already touched on the not everything is possible point, with the fact that physically a planet made solely of a pot cannot exist. We are just using it as a symbol for to represent Ian’s idea that everything is infinite (within the realm of scientific law).

Ian, you spelled genius wrong (among other words) . I think tsguitar is right with the Point A idea and the infinite loop. It could be that our minds aren’t even capable of comprehending what really exists. I think that point was brought up in The Matrix. For the record, Ms. Sorg was our 8th grade physics teacher who got us excited about science. I just wish we didn’t such a poopy science department this year. It would be sweet if we could e-mail her this link and see what she has to say. Peace.

I think that what you all are suggesting about the continuum is exactly right. Imagine the earth. You go south and keep going south and eventually you will end up right back where you started. And yes, time is warped by the same things space is warped by, in *exactly* the same way as a blackhole, at least that’s my understanding.

Is it all infinite? I don’t know. I mean, sure, what’s outside of our continuum? Surely there’s something. Or maybe not…

P.S. I was merely suggesting that this sounds like a cannabis influenced idea. It wasn’t to be a condemnation or accusation of anyone smoking the plant, merely a suggestion that these are quite the thoughts one has while under that influence.

Hmmm… no more URLs with the comments, eh? It would be nice if we could preview what the post looks like as we type. I know there’s a way to get that going on with MT.

Oh, and “Waking Life” sucked, by the way (it would have been a fair 15-minute short film, but was terrible as a feature length project). But that’s a different topic that I’d be happy to take folk up on at a later time.

Hey again..ya this wordpress stuff is all kinda new. I’m gonna be looking out for cool plugins that’ll enhance it.

I didn’t think waking life was bad. There were a few parts that were very dry and boring, but the good parts woke me up again. I think a couple of the people watching it with us fell asleep. The animation made it interesting even when the subject matter wasn’t.

I fell asleep, I felt it was fairly interesting, but not more interesting then the inside of my eyelids…

tsguitar…you have much to learn about us…this is just our natural state of thought…we’re just strange…

Natural state of thought… I was unaware that this was out natural state of thought. This doesn’t seem to be my natural state of thought.

I think…

This is exactly my train of thought. And Waking Life was awesome, you just don’t have a mature enough taste, ts

its funny because he’s at least 20 years your elder ( i think )

Without confirming or denying my age (suffice to say that I wouldn’t be shocked to find I’m the oldest one here), I’ll simply repeat that “Waking Life” sucked. For those of you that need it, here’s an explanation:

Typically, a movie actually has a, umm…what’s it called… oh yeah! A POINT!! “Waking Life” was nothing more than Linklater stringing together a bunch of Oh-that’s-interesting-type ideas. It wandered far too much and, while I wouldn’t mind a cup of coffee and conversation with the folk in the film, I had no reason to watch it. If anything, it was an argument for exactly why we *shouldn’t* watch movies but, rather, be out there actually thinking about things with some good company.

The animation was actually a bit annoying and distracted from what little content was compelling. It’s exactly the psuedo-intellectual blathering he made fun of in sections of “Slacker.” Rather ironic that he made both films.

As for my film tastes, again that is a topic that I’d be happy to take folk up on at a later time. This (temporarily) ends my rant. Can we get back to the Pot Planet, now? If there’s a possibility of finding such a planet, I want to know before I donate money to NASA for research…

Yea, I occasionally got the feeling that they were kind of showing off with the animation and it was taking away from the interesting stuff.

Now…If we did find a planet of pot, what would we do with it? Would we harvest it? Discovering such a thing I think would be quite hard, especially when NASA shuts off the Hubble To me, thats really the only worthwhile thing they’ve done in a long time.

Oo I just had an interesting thought. Say we got a super powerful telescope. If what you’re saying about space being an infinite loop is true, could we look at Earth through our telescope? Like if our light travelled all the way back to us (nevermind the time lag for light to travel). The light would just go into one big circle, ending right where it started. You following? Is that ludicrous?

First off, ts, I gotta give you my take on the brilliant film “Waking Life.” You’re right of course about it not having a plot or even any direction, but you see, we are at a ripe budding age where our minds need the sort of creative stimulation that movie had to offer if we want to end up being the effective world changers that we do. (I’m speaking for everyone who was there to see the movie, I hope they don’t mind.) And it presented it in a way that we were put us in a state of awe over the radically weird images talking about what seems to us to be intellectual topics, the exact kind of things that we are disscussing RIGHT NOW. And of course it would be far more beneficial to actually meet some of those characters, but when you’re in high school, lemme tell ya, finding anyone with that sort of philosophical cranial capacity is not likely, so just listening to them is the next best thing. So maybe you know plenty of people like that so the movie was just a dull extension of some of the interesting ideas you had already gone over, but to us, or me at least, it provided many enlightening thoughts about the world we live in, much like the sort of feedback I usually find on this site.

The planet of pot was purely a demonstration of possibility in an infinite realm. If anyone is actually interested in finding it, that’s fine by me, but in the mean time, you’ll find me colonizing Mars.

I’ll give you your need for deep conversation and having that need sated with that movie. High school wasn’t so long for me that I’ve forgotten what that’s like.

But that doesn’t mean it was a good movie, that’s what you have to keep clear. It just means that you resonated with some of the topics in the movie (as did I). That’s all. The fact that it was good for you and your cohort at that time is nice, but the movie still sucked. The fact that it got you thinking about things you might not otherwise is nice, but that still doesn’t make it a good movie just because of how it impacted you.

It wasn’t a matter of having had those thoughts before. I was just sickened by the mental masturbation the movie represented. Linklater says to his pals, “Hey! Guess what? I’m making a movie that has only a loose script as its basis…AGAIN. Want to ramble on and on so I can film you?” His pals say sure and 6 months later you’ve got “Waking Life.” An idea alone does not make a good film. That’s all “Waking Life” had for it: an idea. Poor execution, annoying animation, weak cohesion, all these things make it a poor movie.

Sorry, I just really hated that movie. I rarely stop movies without finishing them and I almost did with that one. Watch “Slacker.” It’s vastly superior. Now I’m going to have to write a movie review about it (using most of what I’ve already said here).

P.S. And are you kidding me!? What would we do with it!? I know about 1000 people in Humboldt County, CA that would pay good money for…let’s see, what do we call it…Astral Green!!

I don’t know what you’re definition is, but you’re second paragraph summed up nicely exactly what I think a good movie is.

whos nella?
long, hard *snicker

My second paragraph explains that you were thirsting for water and so even gritty, dirty, hot water tasted fabulous. That didn’t make it good water, just good by comparison to your other options. Taking the analogy back to the movie, if there were other movies (or books or conversations) out at the same time that appealed to your philosophical side, you’d see how “Waking Life” pales in comparison. There weren’t, so you see the flick as a stellar example of that genre.

Hell, “The Matrix” does a better job of pondering the nature of existense. Another film called “eXistenZ” does a good job of this too in a similar way to “The Matrix.”

Just because a movie is the best thing out at the time doesn’t mean it’s a good movie. It just means that all the movies suck. “Waking Life” just made you think a bit more than other movies. That doesn’t make “Waking Life” good; it just means that all the other movies you saw fell down on the job of making you think.

A good movie goes beyond satisfying your needs at that time. Otherwise, comedies are only good movies when you want to laugh and dramas are only good movies when you want to feel dramatic. That’s not the case. They are good movies because they are well written, thought out, lucid, well acted, well directed, relate to our lives, etc. Frankly, “Waking Life” was none of those things, as far as I’m concerned.

So there you have it; further defining good cinema as a result of a blog entry on a pot planet. Excellent.

This disscussion has many viable points, but keep in mind that all of you with closed minds are not looking at this right … You see there is a paradox that has been discussed for centuries, that everything is possible. If you say this however, you’re also stating that it is possible for everything to be impossible. Now although you have said it is entirely impossible for this to occur you should keep in mind that modern day Physics states that it is impossible for humans to walk. Same with flight of insects and yet, both of these phenomenon continue to do occur. We all should credit Ian for his idea, if at least for opening our minds to the possiblity of the “Hash planet theory”.
–Sorry for the gammar errors–

Sorry for being off-topic here , but Ian where did you get that cool image in the post up there at the top, the one that has the lifecycle of cannabis other latin word?

ah…actually that was me…I edited Ian’s post to add the image. I got it off Wikipedia. And just for the record, I checked, and it isn’t copyrighted anymore.

Edit: post comment
xOne Bajillion

but keep in mind that all of you with closed minds are not looking at this right

That sounds pretty closed minded to me. Ever heard of an oxymoron?

Hehe…Kinda like Jumbo Shrimp. Or Sharp Curves. Or civil war. Or alone together. Or living dead. Or same difference. Or one option. Or virtual reality. Or tight slacks. Or boneless ribs. Or plastic glasses. Or seriously fun. Or constant change. Or definite possibility. Or found missing. Or incredibly dull. Or near miss. Or Microsoft Works.

or…an intelligent Ian

what if space-time-energy-matter(i.e. our universe)is a hyperporabola,and anti-matter is an invertedhyperporabola finding equilibrium with one another focusing and dispersing space-time-energy-matter and our whole dimension is the cyber-world of the gods’kinda like the matrix,or maybe I’m just stoned.

I say its round…a sort of 4-dimensional sphere…like the earth. We think the universe extends in 3 dimensions, like we thought the earth extended in two.

ahhh…Jackie…that’s so boring. The fact is the earth is in 4 dimensions. Length, width, height, and time. The passage of time is most definitely a dimension. That’s what calculus is all about, and physics. If every object just stayed in the same place infinitely, there would be no speed, everything’s speed would be 0, just like a plane’s height is 0.

As for actual topography of the universe, the way you would bump it up a notch from the earth is if space-time warps around in a torus, a giant donut. I believe we already discussed this above. If the earth is flat, you can’t travel back to the point that you started if you just go in a straight line. But since the earth is a sphere, you can do it. If the universe is a sphere, you can’t travel in your straight line back to where you started, but if it’s a torus and a line is, in fact, curved along with the topography of space-time, than you could, conceivably, get back to where you started.

A donut? How boring. Why not something interesting like a winged pig, or a beer dispensing hat? In my opinion the universe is actually TWO dimensional. As well, the space-time continuum has negative curvature, and is shaped like a saddle. Now I’m NOT asking all you weirdos out in science-land to disprove me, I’m just voicing my opinion. I have a right to do that without you guys eating me alive. So don’t.

One planet? you wish. I know this suomalainen who was abducted once and told me there’s like a whole solar system.

P.S: I didnt read the whole thing, too long, too many comments and I’m really baked right now

Wow, this conversation is amazing. I just wish I could have hopped in here earlier. In regaurds to a comment by microman:

“You see there is a paradox that has been discussed for centuries, that everything is possible. If you say this however, you’re also stating that it is possible for everything to be impossible.”

This is just a limitation of the english language; being able to disprove a theory because you can construct a sentence that does so. The fact is that it is not “possible for everything to be impossible”, because we are expieriencing the possible right now. Working off the theory at the top stating that space is infinite then in any situation one could say that they are surrounded by space; therefore destroying the idea that everything is impossible, since it’s obviously possible to be surrounded by space. Hopefully I make sense.

As for the idea that our universe is a continuum. That is very possible; however there still must be space outside our continuum. For anyone that has heard of the string theory, it is built on the basis of multiple dimensions (11 I believe) existing. Hunmans are only able to detect four, but in the string theory they think that their might be parallel universes that exist right around us, nanometers in front of our faces, but we can’t see them.

finding a planet made of pot is rediculouse, but a delightful idea. but if we cant find 1, why not make 1? “were theres a will, theres a way” after all there are man made islands why not man made planets?
id like to continue this thought, but my bowl is calling me.

Where ever that planet is, is where I want to live. JUst color me green with envy. LOL.

That’s so silly that you could think that you where high when you wrote that.

Interesting… I’m going to have to come back for more reading later. Off to work!

I agree when i comes to space i think anything is possible and there is a good chance of a pot planet being out there.
But i guess nobody will know.

anything is possible just like a pot planet just like there might be a monkey planet or anything.