Free verse № 128347
Almost Persuaded
While weâre sleeping
somethingâs keeping
the world spinning
uniformity winning
While weâre dueling
for knowledge drooling
somethingâs ambling
comfortably ruling
Something sensible?
Responsible?
Reprehensible!
21 comments
someone persuading another into having sex.
it's ok.... but a little mechanical.
it needs more emotion.
just my opinion.
I knew as soon as I clicked. that sentence was wrong.
I know youâre deeper then that.
and Iâm not consumed with sex..
I like it. but not consumed.
it feels political.
itâs vague. I like vague shit Iâm the
king of vagueness. the last word reprehensible.
it feel like. what we donât know wont hurt us
but itâs bad. like the means justify the ends.
Q: Does it take more work to keep an already-spinning world spinning or to stop it? Please include any relevant charts and diagrams in your answer.
PS-Ace rhyme. Really.
Your question: âDoes it take more work to keep an already-spinning world spinning or to stop it?â It takes no work (as defined in physics) to keep the world spinning, but it takes a lot of work to stop it. (Sorry, no diagrams or charts.) The interesting thing in regard to being almost persuaded to believe in God is that the laws of physics are uniform, unchanging, as if planned. Itâs enough to make a person wonder.
Thanks for the comment.
Besides, there is no "principle of uniformity".
I think I could count on any interested reader on the site to call "uniformity" negative. Also, I think your poem makes the world's "spinner" ultimately "reprehensible", so maybe you're just being tetchy. As far as earth's spinning being positive, well, we would all DIE if the planet stopped spinning. And spinning (like the earth's) is usually identified with constructive movement, continuity, and so on.
I was exaggerating to rbooey.
Regarding your answer to my question, is it really fair to say "something's keeping / the world spinning"? Isn't it more accurate to say, oh, something's not stopping the world from spinning?
DISCUSSION TOPIC FOR THE DAY: There's some question as to what a universe would look like if there weren't uniform, unchanging, "as if planned" laws of physics holding it together. My first guess is that it's moot, because we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. But of course that's nonsense; a universe without consistent physics could look like whatever it wanted. The one sure bet is that people living in a universe without physics would probably see their universe's lack of physics as evidence of God.
Thanks for the comment.
Look up "uniformitarianism" or "principle of uniformity" before you say it doesn't exist. Stuff happens as it has happened - that's the gist of it.
Your third paragraph is hogwash! Uniformity is not negative, as you yourself have implied in DISCUSSION TOPIC FOR THE DAY.
Para 4: Uniformitarians will agree with you. Theists might wonder if God has a hand in it.
DISCUSSION TOPIC FOR THE DAY: Who or what made the laws of physics? I'd answer yours, but it's one of those what-if questions that's, as you say, is moot.
1) The forces two masses exert upon each other may be calculated by the formula F = 6.67 Ã 10^-11 x m1 x m2 / r^2
2) Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
3) An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by a force, at which point it will act predictably according to the force. Ditto for an object in motion.
We know now that none of these hold entirely true - especially on the subatomic level, but probably on other levels as well. What happened when we discovered these laws didn't hold? We made up more laws to accomodate the contingincies. It's even possible that science could someday be an infinite set of infinitely contingient laws, specific to the point of uselessness. This, incidentally, is what I imagine a universe "without" laws of physics being like. All of this, too, is kind of moot since our universe being as it is is what allows us to be having this conversation, and in a semi-rational or scientific manner, I might add. It's kind of like saying "I wonder what I'd think about the meaning of life if I'd been born on Pluto instead of on Earth."
I do hope a topic's being moot doesn't prevent us from talking about it in the future.
Yes, yes, of course. How could they? So basically by LAWS you mean a set of characteristics or tendencies that are observable in the universe?
The most important of these other levels are the emotional level, and the secret Wolfenstein level.
I was trying to say that if things like dark matter exist (or do the dark matter equivalent of existing) then the whole physical universe is pretty much the secret Wolfenstein level. But scientists would probably figure out ways to explain and predict it anyway. As you know perfectly well.
Log in to add a comment.