Forums → Forum Games → Count to 100: Games Chat
78626 | 55442824 |
The original "This Thread is Currently About" is back! Yes, it's Count to 100!
HOW TO PLAY
1. Count by ones from 1 to 100 in 100 consecutive posts according to the Core Rules.
2. Restart the count from 1 after:
a. a Moderator (or an Administrator) makes a stopping post (post without counting) if users and Knights are counting..
b. a user or Knight or Warden makes a stopping post (post without counting) if Moderators and Administrators are counting.
c. breaking a core rule, spamming, or cheating.
d. reaching 100.
3. Announce why you restart the count so other counters don't get confused.
NOTE: For the time being, Moderators are allowed to help Users count, so as long as the other rules are observed you do not need to restart the count if you see a mod count. However, if a Moderator makes a stopping post, i.e. a post without counting (not the same as a non-count post since they're technically different teams), it is considered an interruption and the count will restart.
CORE RULES
No mistakes. A count must start from 1 and increase by ones up to 100, save for exceptions noted.
No double-counting. No counter may count two consecutive numbers.
No back-to-back counting. No two counters may alternate for more than three consecutive numbers.
Okay: P1 P2 P1 P3
Not Okay: P1 P2 P1 P2
Okay: P1 P2 reset P1 P2
No editing. No counter may edit their post. If an edit tag shows on a count, the attempt is forfeit.
ADDiTiONAL RULES
No "spamming". Please don't post only the number and please don't post gibberish, either.
Multiple one- or two-word counts may also disqualify a count.
No "cheating". This shouldn't need to be said. Counting to 100 doesn't count if you cheat.
This is an exercise in teamwork, not rule bending.
No "spoiling". Don't mess with the count. Posts should start with the correct number.
Posts with no numbers should be ignored. See also: No non-counts.
Posts with intentional mistakes should be ignored.
No "spilping". If this is your first post in this thread, please post "I'm new and here to count to 100!"
No non-counts. No counter may post without a counting number or make a post without bolding that number if that counting number is not at the start of the post.
COMPLETE SET OF RULES
Please refer to the complete set of rules for additional information and examples of what is valid or invalid.
DiSCUSSiON THREAD
Please also check out the discussion thread for new gameplay or rule proposals or general discussion on the gameplay and rules of "Count to 100".
END GAME
Once you reach 100, you start this Sisyphean task all over again back at 1. Users should notify the Commissioner of the Count (HahiHa) that the count reached 100 and the Commissioner will review it to make sure there were no mistakes or cheating. If there were no mistakes or cheating, then the users who took part in the successful count to 100 will get a shiny new Quest!
SCOREBOARD
bold = counted 100, italics = previous winning participant, [#] = # of total wins, (#) = # of times counted 100
FULL SCOREBOARD
MODS - 2 WINS
Highest Count: 15!
1. 9! - 3865 (2533) pages / 286 days, Feb 13, '15 at 5:49pm, 3 users, 6 minutes.
Gantic, Ferret, weirdlike
Note: Earned by handicap.
2. 14! - 2135 pages / 937 days, Sep 08, '17 at 1:25pm, 3 users, 6 mins.
Moegreche, nichodemus, UnleashedUponMankind
Note: Earned by handicap.
USERS - 51 WINS
1. 100! - 537 (355) pages / 94 days, Aug 6, '14 at 9:28pm, 16 users, 14 hrs 33 mins.
apldeap123, Azywng, Crickster, Chryosten (as Darkfire45), Darktroop07, evilsweetblock, JACKinbigletters, kalkanadam, Loop_Stratos, MPH_Complexity, Omegap12, Patrick2011, R2D21999, Snag618, Tactical_Fish, Voyage2
LAST TWO WINS
50. 100! - February 12, '24, 11 users, 52 days.
sciller45 (5)[17], HalRazor [5], saint_of_gaming [5], JimSlaps (1)[2], TheMostManlyMan (1)[14], Solas128 [3], nichodemus (2)[9], Widestsinger [5], SirLegendary (2)[22], skater_kid_who_pwns, disastermaster30 (3)[5]
51. 100! - March 17, '24, 11 users, 35 days.
JimSlaps (1)[3], sciller45 (5)[18], saint_of_gaming [6], TheMostManlyMan (1)[15], Strop, skater_kid_who_pwns [2], GhostOfMatrix [4], WidestSinger (1)[6], HalRazor [6], SirLegendary (2)[23], Solas128 [4]
- 78,626 Replies
29. Don't forget, you can never break the laws of physics, so expanding knowledge would eventually come to a standstill. There is always a limit in everything.
30. Laws of physics? PFFT! I bypass 'em all the time. Like, no matter what I do, my family never sees me! To demonstrate on this post... INVISIBLE! *Poof*
31. Looks like i was a bit late... and everyONE is offline right now... ):
1. Restart due to @Yellowcat posting from the outer space (Bravo… 'n I obviously meant teleporting a spaceship).
So space exploration is undoubtedly a process that takes forever to achieve
@AmyClyne So true, especially that…
Light speed is the maximum speed achievable in this current state of "limitation"
… the Universe cheats. Compare how old is it (13.8 billion y.) to the distance to the farthest known galaxy, GN-z11 (32 billion ly). It expands faster than l-s, and thanks to that stretching in opposite direction, photons travel at superluminal velocity (relatively speaking).
There is always a limit in everything.
Not necessarily. For all we know, the universe can be infinite.
1.
and thanks to that stretching in opposite direction, photons travel at superluminal velocity (relatively speaking).
The photons themselves would still travel at exactly the speed of light, that is a constant "regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer."
Not necessarily. For all we know, the universe can be infinite.
Not that I can exclude anything, of course but how could a universe that began as a singularity and is expanding, be infinite?
2.
how could a universe that began as a singularity and is expanding, be infinite?
We have to distinguish between the observable universe and the universe simpliciter (sometimes referred to as the cosmos). Our local 'bubble' has definite 'edges' to it. But the entire universe may well be infinite.
3. The singularity as the origin of the universe we live in implies that all of space-time originated there, and is finite. I know there's that thing called multiverse some like to imagine, and I'll concede that - we don't know if what you refer to as universe simpliciter is infinite or not. I just personally think it's silly (see Occam's razor)
1. I’ll help ye by breaking this possible B2B! *evil laughter*
The photons themselves would still travel at exactly the speed of light, that is a constant
Why would? Photons always travel at c through free space. But two regions of outer space can have superluminal relative speeds. I chose this example...
Because, !relatively speaking!, any boost for photons gets them over the limit. Of course, whole regions of space far enough from an observation point travel at superluminal speeds, the farther from a given point, the faster galaxies are escaping. I didn’t argue that light itself is faster than light ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The singularity as the origin of the universe we live in implies that all of space-time originated there, and is finite.
How so? It only implies that the universe occupied infinitesimal space before the BANG (or however it started). The only thing that should be finite (but really incomprehensibly large = infinite) is the matter. What you say is a misconception, that the universe originated as a finite expanse.
but how could a universe that began as a singularity and is expanding, be infinite?
You assume that the universe can’t be both infinite and expanding, that it must have been previously finite. This is incorrect. By definition, infinity is the quality of illimitableness. Something infinitely huge can always get even larger, there is no limit to it.
How about more recent POV? Let’s leave what was in no time and no space. The universe could expand into infinity as it does now – the vacuum may as well be infinite. Its finity depends on its curvature and topology.
Its curvature is approximately flat, according to a large amount of data, and the topology might be impossible to measure, when having an access solely to the observable universe (now 46,6B ly). Current data cannot unequivocally determine if the universe is finite or not.
1.
The only thing that should be finite (...) is the matter
I should write "everything that was densely cumulated in the initial singularity".
Just to finish my thoughts – we can’t determine if it’s finite or not, but if the universe really is infinite, it has always been so, just infinitely dense at start.
2. Just to point out something, if there is a ball of energy/matter in the vacuum before it expands, where did the energy/matter came from? It can't appear out of nowhere right?
3. Ah, yes. One of the thousands of questions science can't answer. Possible answers include:
-Constant cycle of banging and crunching which, who'd'a'thunk, doesn't answer any questions (Ah, reminds me of some particular college-dwellers)
-A big 'ole black hole
-A big 'ole neutron star
-Any other astronomical body I don't understand
-God Himself
-Those firecrackers you find at the store, but no one buys
4. The popular version, what Stephen Hawking always believed, is what you said. Nothing, and then appeared the ball which was everything. Kinda taking the easy way out… There are traces about the expansion after Big Bang, we accept that time started then, and there's no data what was before it.
5. Which means that we cannot be 100% sure if there was something that we call the Big Bang, we just believe that those trace elements are what created our universe all came from only one source and all spread out at one time.
6. Good catch, the BB is just one of the theories. There’s evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state, from the singularity in a very outdated model, but there’s no way to find out how did that exactly happen.
You must be logged in to post a reply!