Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Zeo

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/29/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Carolina
  • Interests
    Looking at other people and figuring them out . . .
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    The Theoretical stuff.
  • Biography
    I'm just some kid trying to sound smart . . .
  • Occupation
  1. That was what Johnny was getting on about: Conservation of Mass. But that's assuming those laws are uniform throughout the universe.
  2. 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
  3. Zeo

    0 Velocity?

    Don't forget that time is relative to the observer.
  4. 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.
  5. I remember Star Gate SG-1, where one of the Tolan said this: "Ah, Quantum Physics, the tragic fallcy of science . . . " Paraphrased.
  6. Well, could you perhaps clarify it? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find which one you explained it in.
  7. But then, what does Sayonara mean by saying that they can be worked around?
  8. 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.
  9. 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. W
  10. 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.
  11. Zeo

    Why do we age?

    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 ani
  12. 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 edge
  13. 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!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.