JaKiri

I was -4, -4, but I can't remember if that was answering what the questions actually mean or what they were supposed to mean. The test isn't well written by any stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't follow, as you're assuming the concept of 'distance' exists between the two universes.

Only in String Theory, which as of yet is unproven, untested and unfinished, and should not be used as an answer to any question not about string theory.

There could be a concept of 'distance' between the universes, if they exist. However, there also might not. Anyway, the computer example was more to demonstrate the way that the existance of one universe doesn't preclude the existance of another. Every analogy breaks down if you extend it past the basic similarity.

The main problem is the assumption that two universes have to be seperated by 'some concept of distance'. To this I say... why? [edit] I wrote this post before the reply above, but it works as a reply to it as well!

Because they're not seperated by space, just as the computers aren't seperated by hard drive contents.

You obviously haven't read anything Sayonara has said.

Because they do. Why do they have different masses? Because they do. Hopefully, at some point some coherent theory will come along to explain all this*, but at the moment it's the anthropic principle for us. *Neutrons and protons are made of quarks. Neutrons are made of 2x - 1/3 and 1x +2/3 (summing to 0), Protons are made of 2x 2/3, 1x -1/3 (summing to 1).

It's pretty evident rest mass is invarient given the name. However, as far as I know, there is no physical operation which affects the charge of a particle.

You could explain it by saying that the brain can only do one 'rotation' type motion in each half of your body at once. Although without any proof or mechanism, it's a fairly truistic explanation.

0.99..i is equal to i as well!

Hasn't it crossed your mind that another universe could be the full extent of 4 similar extrended dimensions? For instance, assume I have a computer (disconnected from the internet). The entire contents of the hard drive, the computer's universe as it were, is the contents of its hard drive. The existance of this computer doesn't preclude the existance of another computer, ad infinitum. See?

It's not bad. It's abysmal.

I don't really see the point in most of these subjects, in terms of their use. For instance, if I wanted someone to do pyrotechnics, I'd use a chemist, not a pyrotechnician from one of the worst universities in the world. Although they have to do something at university (according to Blair anyway).

To be honest, I've never even heard of 'Astronautical engineering' as a valid degree structure anyway. Even if he wasn't 16, I'd suspect he had graduated from a 'university' such as the University of South Bank in London, which, among other things, offers a degree in pyrotechnics. Needless to say, it's ranked as one of the worst 10 in the country.

Wir mussen die juden ausrotten

Hooray for me, hooray for Zoidberg

In what sense? Charge is an innate property, like mass, but it's invarient, unlike mass. You don't add energy to something to make it more charged, for instance.

Why isn't there an emoticon for 'putting your head into your hands and crying at the failings of your fellow man'? Sayo, get on this with thinking

We don't have minors. What this translates into is a degree structure which doesn't require a multiyear masters course afterwards to be worthwhile.

You and your counting ways. WELL HAVE AT YOU!

Silence! My fellow hideous inferior human pig smellies are INSULTED by this CONSTANT SLANDER

Degrees should be designed for the academic subjects that use them. This is fairly self evident. A major/minor system provides much less course content, both overall and in the individual 'major' topic, compared to a one subject course.

A neutron has energy and isn't charged. Ditto light, and everything apart from electrons and some quarks (and their varients)

Squeely fools!