Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 11:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:So when the game engine is only using relative velocity as opposed to actual velocities we're not using real life physics n math except at 0 transversal? We're using the same physics and maths as always GÇö it's just that we're looking at point objects without any kind of frame of reference of their own. There is nothing GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ about it. There is when the OP uses real life examples (two cars on a road) in the thread as well as the obvious unrealness of it. |
Scrutt5
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 11:35:00 -
[32] - Quote
Wall of text but actually spot on!
+1 |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
I've been using angular ever since I read up on turret tracking calculations. I have never understood why people use transversal. Good job OP.
Arduemont wrote:You should feel bad about this thread.
Why? Good thread. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Plastic Psycho
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
116
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
Who really gives a damn? This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:09:00 -
[35] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:Who really gives a damn? This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math.
Snip.
Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:18:00 -
[36] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'm just trying to raise awareness that transversal velocity is not what people treat it as. I'd say I succeeded there. Must admit, this used to annoy me when people kept banging on about transversal velocity in TS all the time and telling everyone how they should use it. And when I tried to explain to them to use angular they didn't seem to understand or were blinkered into believing transversal is the only way. Very strange, and made me wonder if they actually read the transversal reading they have on their overview or just like to bang on about to it everyone else to sound clever.
The only important ones to have are angular and radial. Transversal is nice if you have the screen real estate to fit it on although all the relevant information comes from angular which is basically a product of the transversal and distance from the target. Radial is very useful for telling you how fast a target is approaching or retreating. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You want to know the transversal since, as Mara Rinn pointed out, it tells you how well you can match their manoeuvres. Hmm never thought about using transversal like that. I guess that is for throwing of people orbits etc then. |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 13:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'm just trying to raise awareness that transversal velocity is not what people treat it as. I'd say I succeeded there. Must admit, this used to annoy me when people kept banging on about transversal velocity in TS all the time and telling everyone how they should use it. And when I tried to explain to them to use angular they didn't seem to understand or were blinkered into believing transversal is the only way. Very strange, and made me wonder if they actually read the transversal reading they have on their overview or just like to bang on about to it everyone else to sound clever. The only important ones to have are angular and radial. Transversal is nice if you have the screen real estate to fit it on although all the relevant information comes from angular which is basically a product of the transversal and distance from the target. Radial is very useful for telling you how fast a target is approaching or retreating.
+1
My only concern is why angular velocity of turrets - which is a fundamental information - isn't shown along with the distances and damages information when you put your mouse over your modules.
Hope CCP will add this information soon.
I have always thougt that transversal velocity is useless if you know the velocity of the ennemy ship and its radial velocity.
However, reading Mara, I wonder if at the end of the day I shouldn't replace the velocity by the transversal velocity in my overview (not enough room for both).
After all, who cares of the "absolute" speed of a ship ? What matters is its relative speed, which is known thanks to the transversal velocity.
Am I right ? |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 13:42:00 -
[39] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:Tiber Ibis wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'm just trying to raise awareness that transversal velocity is not what people treat it as. I'd say I succeeded there. Must admit, this used to annoy me when people kept banging on about transversal velocity in TS all the time and telling everyone how they should use it. And when I tried to explain to them to use angular they didn't seem to understand or were blinkered into believing transversal is the only way. Very strange, and made me wonder if they actually read the transversal reading they have on their overview or just like to bang on about to it everyone else to sound clever. The only important ones to have are angular and radial. Transversal is nice if you have the screen real estate to fit it on although all the relevant information comes from angular which is basically a product of the transversal and distance from the target. Radial is very useful for telling you how fast a target is approaching or retreating. +1 My only concern is why tracking speed of turrets - which is a fundamental information - isn't shown along with the distances and damages information when you put your mouse over your modules. Hope CCP will add this information soon. I have always thougt that transversal velocity is useless if you know the velocity of the ennemy ship and its radial velocity. However, reading Mara, I wonder if at the end of the day I shouldn't replace the velocity by the transversal velocity in my overview (not enough room for both). After all, who cares of the "absolute" speed of a ship ? What matters is its relative speed, which is known thanks to the transversal velocity. Am I right ? The absolute speed of the ship should be left on for sure. This can give you a lot of useful information as to whether the opponent is MWD or AB fitted, or using boosts or other speed enhancing modules. Transversal wouldn't directly give you that information. I'm in the same position too, not enough screen real estate to fit on everything so transversal had to be sacrificed. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 14:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary. Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.
wrong
1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track
2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track
The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.
The reason i say game balance thing because the fastest ship in a fight will always be the one orbiting. The slower ship will never generate an orbit motion, the slower ship will only manage to elongate the faster ships orbit into an oval.
Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. Which would make speed even more "king stat" in a frig vs frig fight. The way they have it setup now even the slower frig still has a fighting chance |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15572
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:00:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:[wrong
1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track
2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track Nope. You orbiting a target generates the exact same angular change. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be pointing towards the target. You're just forgetting that your subjective reference frame has to rotate, which creates the same angular change as if the guns alone had to do all the rotating.
Quote:The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing. It's really neither. Your mistake comes from the assumption that the guns' rotation is inherited from the ship, and then labelling the fact that they don't (which is not really outside the realm of possibility) as a GÇ£failure of physicsGÇ¥. The fact that it creates good balance is just a happy coincidence.
Quote:Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. No. The faster ship would still experience the tracking issues from the movement of the slower ship even if the guns cancelled out the own ship's movements. All you've done at that point is turn it into a one-ship-moves problem rather than one of two ships moving in relation to each other (and to a neutral frame of reference). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:10:00 -
[42] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:
I have always thougt that transversal velocity is useless if you know the velocity of the ennemy ship and its radial velocity.
However, reading Mara, I wonder if at the end of the day I shouldn't replace the velocity by the transversal velocity in my overview (not enough room for both).
After all, who cares of the "absolute" speed of a ship ? What matters is its relative speed, which is known thanks to the transversal velocity.
Am I right ?
ive heard absolute velocity is useful before starting a fight to determine whether you should even engage. If its a ship that youll be able to close with, wether it has OGB
|
Effect One
Vengeful Swan
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary. Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.
I thinks she was trying to say (admittedly, without actually saying it) that Eve doesn't take into account the direction your guns are pointing.
If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything?
Taking out of the 'realism' equation large ships orbitting objects at obscene speeds, you should technically be able to orbit something stationary with 1400mm Howitzers on a Tornado at 2kms with the worst gun tracking speeds imaginable and still have no tracking issues yourself while causing a world of tracking problems for the stationary target, because your guns are constantly pointing directly at the target while in a circular orbit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15572
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
Effect One wrote:If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything? If you're orbiting a stationary object at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, the part that you want pointed at the object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, otherwise, it'll start pointing off into space.
This is no different if you are the stationary object and something orbits you at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, at which point the part you want pointed at this orbiting object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, or it will start pointing off into space.
The confusion seems to come from some assumption along the lines of turreted guns working like fixed-mount guns on an age-of-sail gunboat: that you're trying to give the enemy a broadside and that the guns are sticking out from that side at right angles, and then forgetting that all this means is that the broadside has to rotate to track the target at that very same angular velocity.
SoGǪQuote:I thinks she was trying to say (admittedly, without actually saying it) that Eve doesn't take into account the direction your guns are pointing. No, I'm saying that the direction the guns are pointing is decoupled from the direction the ship is pointing (especially since ships in EVE are actually points and therefore have no direction), since we're talking about a freely rotating turret. This turret needs to rotate as in the universal reference frame at the same speed regardless of whether you are the orbiting or the orbited party.
Quote:Taking out of the 'realism' equation large ships orbitting objects at obscene speeds, you should technically be able to orbit something stationary with 1400mm Howitzers on a Tornado at 2kms with the worst gun tracking speeds imaginable and still have no tracking issues yourself while causing a world of tracking problems for the stationary target, because your guns are constantly pointing directly at the target while in a circular orbit. Only if the turrets were locked in place and inherited the rotation of the ship, which they don't. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:27:00 -
[45] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciyrine wrote:[wrong
1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track
2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track Nope. You orbiting a target generates the exact same angular change. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be pointing towards the target. You're just forgetting that your subjective reference frame has to rotate, which creates the same angular change as if the guns alone had to do all the rotating. Quote:The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing. It's really neither. Your mistake comes from the assumption that the guns' rotation is inherited from the ship, and then labelling the fact that they don't (which is not really outside the realm of possibility) as a GÇ£failure of physicsGÇ¥. The fact that it creates good balance is just a happy coincidence. Quote:Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. No. The faster ship would still experience the tracking issues from the movement of the slower ship even if the guns cancelled out the own ship's movements. All you've done at that point is turn it into a one-ship-moves problem rather than one of two ships moving in relation to each other (and to a neutral frame of reference).
if you walk around your friend with your arm pointing at him does your arm have to rotate in the shoulder socket? No, relative to YOUR body your hand stays in the same position and to your bodies perspective your friend is NOT moving, the rooms seems to rotate but that doesnt matter
but thats mostly a derail because in this game you orbiting an object does generate radians for your turrets and thats all that matters. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
434
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Tippia wrote:You want to know the transversal since, as Mara Rinn pointed out, it tells you how well you can match their manoeuvres. Hmm never thought about using transversal like that. I guess that is for throwing of people orbits etc then.
In a game of ranges, that is equally important. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15572
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:35:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:if you walk around your friend with your arm pointing at him does your arm have to rotate in the shoulder socket? Yes. Unless I constantly keep turning (i.e. creating a rotation with an angular velocity) to keep the right parts pointing in the right direction.
Quote:relative to YOUR body your hand stays in the same position GǪbut the point of having turrets is that they don't care about where your ship is pointing.
Quote: the rooms seems to rotate but that doesnt matter It matters massively, because it shows that you are, indeed, having to adjust at the same angular velocity as your friend does if he wants to track you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 16:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Effect One wrote:If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything? If you're orbiting a stationary object at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, the part that you want pointed at the object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, otherwise, it'll start pointing off into space. This is no different if you are the stationary object and something orbits you at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, at which point the part you want pointed at this orbiting object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, or it will start pointing off into space. The confusion seems to come from some assumption along the lines of turreted guns working like fixed-mount guns on an age-of-sail gunboat: that you're trying to give the enemy a broadside and that the guns are sticking out from that side at right angles, and then forgetting that all this means is that the broadside has to rotate to track the target at that very same angular velocity.
ah, i understand where your coming from and still disagree.
The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it. For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites. If the ship is going to rotate to maintain orbit then your guns dont have to and then for all it matters the guns could have zero tracking capability and still hit.
refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either. The fact that your body is rotating doesnt matter to the guns as long as the engines are up to the challenge.
Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15573
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 16:23:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it. GǪif the guns are locked to the ship, which they aren't.
Quote:For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites. Yes. BecauseGǪ you knowGǪ they are. The turrets move independently from the ship (call them gyro-stabilised if you like GÇö they don't inherit any angular momentum from the ship) and have to be slewed into position to compensate for any kind of relative motion between your ship and the target.
Quote:refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either. GǪbut your shoulder is rotating, or you will no longer point at the target. The problem with your scenario is that you're misidentifying what represent what. Your arms are not the turret; your body is not the ship. Your entire body is the turret, and the ship is simply the spot of ground you're standing on. As that spot moves around your buddy, you have to rotate your body (i.e. the turret) to keep pointing at the guy standing still in the middle.
Quote:Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do. No. I'm merely describing how turrets work. This includes not making the assumption that they are fixed or that they are affected by ship movement. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
2863
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 17:10:00 -
[50] - Quote
Oh look!
Tippia has found a target to orbit.
While the angular velocity is the same for both. (Relativity: ain't it grand), one of them seems to have better tracking. Still, it might be a long battle.
Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |
|
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 19:24:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciyrine wrote:The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it. GǪif the guns are locked to the ship, which they aren't. Quote:For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites. Yes. BecauseGǪ you knowGǪ they are. The turrets move independently from the ship (call them gyro-stabilised if you like GÇö they don't inherit any angular momentum from the ship) and have to be slewed into position to compensate for any kind of relative motion between your ship and the target. Quote:refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either. GǪbut your shoulder is rotating, or you will no longer point at the target. The problem with your scenario is that you're misidentifying what represent what. Your arms are not the turret; your body is not the ship. Your entire body is the turret, and the ship is simply the spot of ground you're standing on. As that spot moves around your buddy, you have to rotate your body (i.e. the turret) to keep pointing at the guy standing still in the middle. Quote:Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do. No. I'm merely describing how turrets work. This includes not making the assumption that they are fixed or that they are affected by ship movement.
The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.
I was aware how the game treats tracking i just didnt know why that was different from real world pretend space combat would be. Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship. So when the ship rotates the turrets have to generate their own thrust/rotation to keep up with the ship which causes tracking problems.
In real world pretend space combat when the ship orbits its engines would rptate the ship through the orbit which leave the turrets free to do no tracking.
So basically turrets in eve are drones forced to keep speed with the hull but not attached. |
Plastic Psycho
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 19:29:00 -
[52] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Plastic Psycho wrote:Who really gives a damn? This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math. Snip. Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy. I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
434
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 20:10:00 -
[53] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:
The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.
I was aware how the game treats tracking i just didnt know why that was different from real world pretend space combat would be. Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship. So when the ship rotates the turrets have to generate their own thrust/rotation to keep up with the ship which causes tracking problems.
In real world pretend space combat when the ship orbits its engines would rptate the ship through the orbit which leave the turrets free to do no tracking.
So basically turrets in eve are drones forced to keep speed with the hull but not attached.
After reading this thread I've come to visualize the turrets as being affected by drag, and tracking speed being a matter of "force".
Conceptually it works.. but I don't know if that could be explained visually.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Adunh Slavy
1162
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 20:19:00 -
[54] - Quote
Always helpful
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0910/eve-tracking101.swf Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
854
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 20:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary. Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this. wrong 1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track 2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing. The reason i say game balance thing because the fastest ship in a fight will always be the one orbiting. The slower ship will never generate an orbit motion, the slower ship will only manage to elongate the faster ships orbit into an oval. Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. Which would make speed even more "king stat" in a frig vs frig fight. The way they have it setup now even the slower frig still has a fighting chance
It is a game balance thing. If it did it right then the fastest ships could use the biggest lowest tracking guns with impunity (so long as they didn't meet something even faster) and slow ships would need to use the fastest tracking guns by necessity. My mind is trying to get round 1400mm tornados in such a reality. |
JAG Fox
GunStars
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 20:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.
thread derailment time..
I've noticed more than a few times on this and other forums the spelling of "whining" as "whinging". i've particularly noticed this from mainly british posters. is that an acceptable spelling in your country, and do you actually pronounce like it's spelled? or is this spelling just the cool way to spell now? just curious babe..
as for the OP. just use missiles and then you don't have to worry about transversal vs. angular velocities! -áFox Pin-up
Kisses!Foxie. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 21:29:00 -
[57] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:Zappity wrote:Plastic Psycho wrote:Who really gives a damn? This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math. Snip. Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy. I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.
Oh good. So when you are trying to manipulate tracking, do you show transversal or angular velocity on your overview? Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 22:33:00 -
[58] - Quote
While you are right if you are using guns...it does not matter much as far as missile systems go. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Rhys Thoth
Endland
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 22:34:00 -
[59] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Wall of Text
Angular is what you want for tracking, however for the first few years of EVE transversal was the only option, as they didn't add angular until 2005 or so IIRC. Before that you just looked at transversal, looked at distance and eyeballed it.
Angular has essentially made transversal more or less obsolete, but we all know how the community reacts to change.
Thus this discussion is played out in Help Channel a couple times a month.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8546
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 06:18:00 -
[60] - Quote
tl;dr
yeah, so? You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |