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!