Wso

"If I can imagine it, it is possible" seems to greatly depend on how you define imagine. I can imagine a little box that gives off energy but requires none to power it (infinite energy, which is not possible) but I can not begin to imagine the inner workings of this box. If you can imagine every aspect of something, then it can exist, you don't have to imagine every aspect, just be able too. I can imagine a car, but u don't know every part of it, but I can imagine how the parts would all work.

What is (if any) the difference between the fast reply and reply?

I know this really does not belong in this forum, but where do you ask questions? I looked around for a questions about scienceforums but didn't find anything. Did I miss it somehow? Where should I ask questions about the site?

Seems like a great idea to me. There are just a few tiny potential problems though. 1. Preserving the brain is not exactly perfected, even if we get very good at it, some mistakes, potentially fatal ones, may occur 2. You would have to know you are dying ahead of time to be able to do this 3. Would the brain be connected to some sort of network? If so what if that network is hacked into? As I said, there are very tiny flaws, and the idea itself is great. But we are talking about connecting a brain with a computer basically, so any mistakes could be fatal.

It seems to me that there are many possible explanations for dark matter, yet only one, if any, are correct. I realize that my idea (if it's even mine, someone else may have thought of it before me) may not be correct. It does, however, deserve my best efforts to attempt to prove it right. What other explanations are there for dark matter?

Not necessarily, what this means is that, as humans we can not change the outcome of a given input. We can however, change how we describe the process that makes the outcome. We can make whatever laws we want, the universe does whatever it does regardless of our laws. So in a way yes but also no. I hope that this reply made sense, it was a bit difficult to word, so don't hesitate to tell me what I said made no sense.

The laws of physics are simply patterns that we have noticed about the way the universe works. It is impossible to prove that they are correct, but very simple to disprove, assuming that you have a counter example of the law you wish to disprove. Nature didn't "make" the laws of physics, mankind sought to understand what the outcome would be given a certain event.

Perhapse in the other universe matter formed in a similar way. The effects of gravity would still be just as strong in the other universe, so matter would group into galaxies just like in ours. Also, keep in mind that our universe would be pulling on that universe just as they are pulling on theirs. The matter from the other universe would forum galaxies but would also gravitate towards where galaxies forumed in our universe. A simpler anoligy to picture is a glass wall, with tons of magnetic particles on both sides, (assuming the particles are stuck to their side of the glass) they would form clusters on their side but also would coincide with clusters on the other side, though some clusters may not line up perfectly.

Hey guys I'm new here. I like how our introductions have included dreams of us sleeping in our sisters bed, how we don't like calculus, how we are addicted to lasagna, and other really odd but pretty amusing conversations. I like physics though I may post a bit on philosophy.

Before I begin I just want to say that I'm not sure this is in the right section, and I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. What follows is just my own speculation, others may have thought of this before me, so I am not going to claim this is purely my idea. Imagin two sheets of paper, parallel to one another. Each one representing a different universe, and each one floating in a perfect 0g environment. Suppose that we put some mass on the paper (assume the papers don't gravitationally attract to each other but that the mass on the papers can never fall off the paper). The mass on the paper would gravititationaly attract to itself, but the mass on the other paper would also move the mass on the paper closer to where it is. From an observer on one paper, mass would just be affected by gravity of masses that are not there. Now suppose those papers are three dimentional, and are floating in a (at least) four dimentional space. This sounds a lot like what's happening from effects we call "dark matter" doesn't it? We know that dark matter can not be interacted with in any known way besides gravity. This fits the model described above. The mass from the other dimention could not interact in any way, but the gravitational effects could still affect one another so long as they both occupy some space with more then three dimensions. Again, this is just speculation, but the model sure seems to fit. I posted it hoping for other ideas on it, all criticism is welcomed, as is all ideas. Thank you in advance for posting your thoughts on the matter (no pun intended).

Your idea seems to be based upon the belief that every moment in time where humans exist, there lies an indignant number of potential outcomes, all of which are defendant upon the humans free will. This, in itself, is where the argument is flawed. Every time you choose to do something, that choice could have been predicted given a large enough computer or enough information. Of you let go of the idea of free will, then it becomes clear that every moment in time there is exactly one next possible moment, not an infinite amount. The idea of predictions coming true is nothing more the coincidence, and by no means indicates a simulation universe. Forgive me if I completely misunderstood you point, I reread it a few times but I still felt I didn't understand completely. I saw that this forum had very few posts so I thought I would contribute what I can. Very interesting idea though.