Zeo

That was what Johnny was getting on about: Conservation of Mass. But that's assuming those laws are uniform throughout the universe.

Ok, supposedly, there are supposed to be . . . what, 9 dimensions? Well, regardless, let's just say that the number of dimensions is [x] for easy reading. I propose this: What if we're just living in a world with [x] dimensions that we are simply not aware of? What if there are no dimensions, that that the word 'dimension' is just a concept we apply to geometrical measurements of objects in space? Are there really more dimensions? If there are, what are they? In my opinion, dimensions are variables in the world defining an object. So, with that in mind, couldn't you say that color and smell are dimensions too? No, of course not, at least, not for smell, because smell is really your olfactory receptors responding in a certain way. Color maybe, in terms of wavelength and how things are perceived through our eyes . . . To answer the most precedent question: A 2-d world doesn't seem possible to me, at least, atoms as we perceive them or any other form of matter, no matter how small, could possibly exist within them, because everything has matter. So, by that reasoning, a 2-d world is nearly impossible. Maybe a 3-3 world, with really big w and l values, but an atom wide H value . . . Maybe not.

Don't forget that time is relative to the observer.

You know, it's really a question that can't be truly answered. Infinity isn't really a real number, it's more like a concept that there is no end number. 1 over infinity on the other hand, isn't a number at all, since Infinity isn't a number at all. So really, the answer is none, because there is no such number as infinty.

I remember Star Gate SG-1, where one of the Tolan said this: "Ah, Quantum Physics, the tragic fallcy of science . . . " Paraphrased.

Well, could you perhaps clarify it? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find which one you explained it in.

But then, what does Sayonara mean by saying that they can be worked around?

Apparently, assuming that we are able to send something back through time (say, a rock for example), that would be putting new matter into the past in which the same matter had already existed (in some form or other). Hence, NEW matter, just suddenly appearing out of nowhere . . . Johnny's argument might not be complete, but he still has the right idea, if he was going with it . . . but Sayo's right, it just doesn't hold out.

Well, it took me a few seconds to truly graps just what Johnny was saying, and then it hit me. What he's talking about is that since you don't know where the matter that existed in the past was (or really, if it exists at all) how could you travel to it? You can't. But that's assuming that you can't regard the material in the present to be later forms of material in the past. I'm not entirely sure what concept I'm trying to extrapolate from this thing I call my brain, but it makes a fragile sort of sense to my mind. Give me a little more time to thing about it, and I'll elaborate. When did I say this? I'm sure I did, but I've forgotten a lot of what I've written down here, so I'm a little in the dark as to when I said it. Anyway, something me and a friend were talking about: Getting away from the conservation of mass, let's go back into deeper details. Such as the actions you could make in the past that would affect the future. My conclusion is that you cannot travel to the past intending to do anything if the intent arose before you actually traveled back. In fact, you can't intend to do ANYTHING until you actually get to the past. That would eliminate the possibility of a paradox created by traveling back to change something, time continuing from the point of change, and then reaching the point where you traveled back, but you don't go back because you don't need to change it anymore, hence, it's never changed, hence, paradox. Hard to follow, I know. This is assuming that you could go back in the first place. Who's to say that the conservation of matter/energy is uniform throughout the entire universe?

Well, sadly, I just took that one at the International High IQ Society . . . and scored 108. I guess that pretty much makes me stupid in front of all of you people right? I suppose so, but still, that's pretty damaging to my psyce, knowing I'm talking to super-intelligent geniuses and whatnot.

I really have to disagree with this one. Dying of old age (so rare in these trying times) generally means that the deceased had a chance of reproducing, hence passing on those genes. No, evolution doesn't have a way of getting rid of bad genes. That's because there ARE no bad genes, there is only the genetic make-up that makes an animal unsuitable for the environment it currently lives in. Henceforth, it becomes disadvantageous to the environment, and an animal with a better genetic make-up better equipped to deal with the environment passes off it's genes, while the disadvantageous animal normally dies off before that. But, since this is a question concerning human beings, I could argue this: Humanity has stopped evolving (at least in the normal sense). Evolution is really nature's way of adapting a population as a whole to better fit to the environment. This is because while animals migrate, they generally migrate to areas once or twice based on seasons. Generally, they stay in the same type of climate and environment. Humans, on the other hand, move to any environment and then change the ENVIRONMENT to suite THEM! So, natural selection, the device used by evolution, no longer qualifies for human evolution. Artificial selection would, because we're intelligent, and have a freedom (or sense) of choice. Anyway, getting back on topic: I had no idea about telomerase. But the thing about cellular damage is right, and I didn't even think about that.

My argument on this saying that an explosion can create a dimension and whether or not the big bang can be used as a suitable reference to support that argument is this: No. What you're saying is indeed conceivable, but that's to say that the universe didn't exist at all, and that there was absolutely nothing before hand. Which leads me into my next argument: The big crunch. Supposedly, when the universe reaches it's ultimate mass (size, volume, whatever), the sheer gravity of all of it's bodies will begin to draw in the universe and everything it is . . . including (I think), the edges. I might be wrong, but it's been hypothesized that our universe originated from a ball of energy that arose from a big crunch. Maybe I'm wrong. But Maybe I'm right. In reference to the topic, my teacher was telling me about a space anomaly that was traveling through space that was recorded by Hubble. Hubble saw that the anomaly approaced the proposed "edge" of space, left space (the universe that is), and then came back, somewhere else. Which leads me to think: What if beyond the edge of this universe is another? But then, if our universe is spherical, what universe lays outside? What shape would that have? Does the universe have a shape? My head hurts.

Hi, my name is Zeo. I've been here for about two years (I took a long hiatus though), and I really enjoy what people have to say here. In any case, I just chill and listen, and lately, I've offered a lot of crap that comes out of my head. I'm 16 by the way, a little over my head, and a tad on the conceited side. Have fun knowing me!

Ah, so you're saying that aging is triggered by the disalignment of cells in the womb? Well, I've thought about it, and I suppose what you say makes sense. However, I was always under the impression that our bodies are programmed to tucker out. Our body doesn't have to degrade you know, it doesn't have to all stop, since the cells can keep replacing themselves with the right genetic programming. However, why does a cell die in the first place anyway? I know skin cells and other cells die through our own actions, but I'm still unsure as to why other cells like liver cells or other organ cells die at all . . . and then replace themselves. I mean, there are proteins in cells specifically programmed to maintain the cell . . . but the cells die anyway. Maybe it's to destroy viruses, or to make food for other cells, or something like that. Interestingly enough, why is there a cut off to how many times a cell divides? Why is it that cells stop dividing after enough time has gone past? My theory is: What if after all of the dividing, the cell's DNA is degraded to the point that it is no longer told to keep reproducing? If that's the case, is the cel's dna programmed to corrupt itself like that? Try reading Ender's Shadow . . . it goes into this a little bit.

It's one thing Johnny to tell me something like that. But it's something completely different to simply assume what you say is true without efficiently or at least trying to explain your reasoning. Why is time travel logically impossible? Seriously, give me a good reason.

Since people started going away from the question as to why human's talk, let me offer my answer (though it's a bump). I believe that humans have gained the ability to speak though a constant refinement of language. The same principle of refinement is still in place today, though we barely notice. Think back to the dawn of Man's intelligence. And really, it wasn't a dawn or anything. It's not as if Man just got up and started grunting and gesturing like crazy or something. It was a very long transgression, and involved a large network of gesturing. It also involved new types of memory, certain parts of the brain being implemented, certain parts of the brain developing out of mutation that were better equipped to deal with language recognition and facial and gesturial (not a word) recognition. So we can't truly say that Man suddenly started talking, or started coming up with words, but we can say that man did start grunting. Let's say that 3 primal humans are hunting at night. it's really dark out, and their hunting a deer. (or whatever). They can't exactly gesture with their hands what direction they think the deer is in, so they can do a looow grunt. ERGHHM! Or something like that. Maybe not that loud. But that's not truly the point. My point is that Man did not suddenly just start talking, and he didn't just start grunting either. I'm sure that it took some innovative soul to start adding his/her grunts to their gestures about some piece of meat and where it was, or something like that. About knowledge though: You have to remember that Intelligence (knowledge of enemy movements or other war related info) is rather vital to war. Knowing and understanding what your enemy is going to do can mean victory or defeat for a general who knows what their doing. Another thing is scientific knowledge. Lately, it's become something of a status symbol for countries, based on research projects and what-not. Remember the Arms race between U.S. and the U.S.S.R.? So yes, knowledge is important.

Why would you need to know where all the particles are?

Sooo . . . when you turn on a flashlight . . . what is it? Is it that the battery acid in the battery undergoes certain reactions and the energy (or photons) are transfered through the filament? Or maybe that's where the levels are switching? In the filament it self???

I was going to say try using logarithms. We just learned about it last week in Pre-Cal . . . so maybe I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about but . . . what's your problem anyway?

Hence, a paradox arises. You're right though, I should have followed up on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Now when you say "I don't see why not" Are you saying you don't see why it can't be ruled out? Or is it that you don't see "why you can't rule it out?"

Isn't the second a measure of the oscillations of a photon of light moving at a certain speed or something or other? I was always under the impression that a photon was both energy & matter. This was because of a documentary I was watching on 'solar sails' which were composed of an extremely thin material so thin and so composed that photons were actually capable of moving it. But this new business of the photon generating an EM field is pretty new to me. How was this proven?

Wow, that one was pretty damned simple. But what if you went back merely to observe? Not interfering with the timeline at all whatsoever? It would be possible you know, doing absolutely nothing that would affect the outcome, or at least, doing exactly what you would supposed to do so that the outcome happens exactly the way it. All I'm saying is that to travel from one point in our perception of time to another can't be ruled out as an impossiblity due to paradoxes.