CanadaAotS

Yeah. I've taken calculus actually haha.

Yeah. The fact that you can move through an infinite amount of points in a finite time seems strange. lol. -my mind... hurts...- =_= haha.

Yeah. That's what's interesting about it... According to this proof we shouldn't be able to move at all. Continuous movement is impossible... however we manage it everyday That's why it's a paradox. lol.

Well I'm stumped. uhhh... let's see if I can at least get some kind of equation out of this. n = distance into the progression. let 49 be n=0. so uh, I guess the equation would be something like [math]4*10^{n+1} + 4*10^{n} + 4*10^{n-1} + ... + 4*10^{\frac{n+2}{2}} + 8*10^{\frac{n}{2}} + 8*10^{\frac{n}{2}-1} + ... 8*10^{1} + 9[/math] Requires n > 0 I think. Btw, I'm almost 100% sure that this is incorrect but It's probably a starting place...? Lol. I'm a bit rusty me thinks. Edit: nevermind, my equation is rubbish Maybe someone else should take a shot.

I assumed the guy that told me about didn't make it up. Haha. I just never heard of it before. Pretty interesting, and yourdad, the proof hinges on the fact that movement is a function, aka continuous. So to get from point a to point b, if a and b aren't equal you HAVE to go through some point c. Doesn't matter if c is halfway between a and b, in fact it can be anywhere between the two points.

I was chatting away on a gaming server, minding my own business, when a guy in the channel mentions, "So, I can disprove movement." I was skeptical to say the least. But when he finished I was amazed... He actually disproved movement xD Anyway it goes like this. To go from point A to point B, assuming A =/= B, you'll have to go through a point C. Let's say C is halfway between A and B. What's halfway between those 2 new points? And half way between that? And that? Essentially, it's impossible to move in any direction. How about that? I understand where this is coming from. Movement is essentially time moving through 3 dimensional space. And imo it's just a construct of our minds. We percieve time... But yeah, if this little proof isn't correct, could someone tell me where it goes wrong? And if it doesn't, does that mean that it disproves time as well?

I'm running out of time here, so I've only read the first post, but infinite density just happens to be an ugly little side effect of our current understanding of black holes. It's just that we know of no physical construct that could resist the pressure that gravity is creating inside the event horizon of a black hole... because we can't take a look around the inside of the horizon and report back, as far as we know all the mass that enters a black hole is crushed into a single point, a la singularity. That's my 2 cents, time to run for my next class.

Just a note, you'd get better readership if you just hosted it as the actual pdf rather then a rar. Can't be that big, can it? lol. But yeah, if your theory applies to Mr Skeptic's last post, then you can call it science, at which point you can test it out with actual experiments to prove it's validity

Like the last guy said. The object would have to free fall for an infinite amount of time to reach light speed or more. Since that's impossible the situation is impossible

No one said Time Travel was impossible. In fact were all travelling through time as we speak... Think of time as a series of one way streets going in the same direction... Some of these streets might be moving faster or slower but essentially they're all going the same way.

Hm. When the planets were created from the gobbledy-gook that was the solar system, they ALL had an angular momentum of some kind. Anything that didn't was sucked into the sun. The thing to realize too is that the 1st focii isn't centered on the sun, it's centered on the gravitational centre between the sun and the orbitting body... it just so happens that the sun is so gravitationally dominant so this point is very close to the sun's centre. The 2nd focii's placement is placed by what the obitting body's initial velocity was when it was caught by the sun's gravity. Btw, gobbledy-gook is a scientific term, I swear.

EDIT: Um Mistake >_<

By the time an organism developed sight, it would've been multi-cellular... perhaps some bundle of nerve endings (that served some other purpose originally) mutated in such a way that made the sensitive to sight... This adaption became naturally selected as helpful to the survival and reproduction of the gene, and with further mutations you end up with an eye that can not only sense light, but also have a brain that can interpret what the messages mean to a more meaningful extent. All "big" evolvutionary leaps started out as something far less helpful (but enough to be selected for). And to your plant question... its obvious that at no point in plants evolutionary timeline that site held any advantages... think about it, plants are rooted to the ground, they do not move... sight would be a hinderance, something extra that would need more energy to grow in such an organism. That's why you don't get ogled by trees when you walk through a forest EDIT: wow aren't I helpful? I posted a long-winded version of the guy before me without realizing it -.-' took too long to post I guess haha

Well this is an incredibly old thread of mine, but I'll bump it anyway. What I meant is, do I actually have to code each box as, (for ex) C5=B4+D4 E5=C4+F4 ... And so on... I mean, it'd be nice if I could just format all the cells to follow a pattern... or at least make something that's copy-pasteable lol.

Sometimes I believe that any question can be answered with: http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/{subject} lol. EDIT: Btw, the analogy I was thinking of: "A common analogy is the sonic boom of a supersonic aircraft or bullet. The sound waves generated by the supersonic body do not move fast enough to get out of the way of the body itself. Hence, the waves "stack up" and form a shock front. Similarly, a speed boat generates a large bow shock because it travels faster than waves can move on the surface of the water."