Zeo

What exactly is a photon anyway? What makes it move so fast? Where does it get it's energy? How is it formed? Do we even know the answers to these questions?

About the 1937 not-being born thing. Here we come to a variation of the Grandfather paradox. Supposedly, if you go back and time and kill your grandfather (why would you anyway?) before he conceived your father, then you would simply cease to exist. Interesting thing is that reality continues from that particular point, and then, you never existed to travel back and kill your grandfather in the first place, leaving his death unacountable. Supposedly, if this happens, a lot of people believe that the universe or time as we know it is supposed to collapse. About your little theory about not being able to go back without changing realities, you then have to think: What if the reality you were in had already included a future self of you wandering about in the past? In that case, it wouldn't be that you were changing reality, but that you were fulfulling it. Unfortunately, this kind of eliminates the concept of free-will, and brings fate and destiny into the equation and everything . . .

As Einstein said: Time is relative. Or did he say: Everything is relative? I don't remember.

I realize that I've bumped quite a few topics in the last few days, but I was reading over some of the things I've written and I found a few new questions to ask: For instance, how exactly would new matter be created? I was always under the impression that all that exists in the universe was the same that existed 15 billions of years ago, only in different forms. How then would matter be created? I can understand the formation of new atoms, which is supposedly the smalled divisible form of an element that still retains the property of the element, but even atoms are formed from things too (protons, neutrons, and electrons, all three of which are formed by quarks I believe), and can't we say those are matter as well? Another question that comes to mind concerns the photon. The photon is one of those funny things in life, in which is exhibits both matter and energy like properties, in the sense that it does take up space, no matter how infinitely small it may be, and that it exhibits energy like properties based on it's force of speed. But I think it's been agreed upon that light is not composed of atoms of any sort, being since a photon is roughly the size of an electron (correct me if I'm wrong). So what exactly IS light? And if light really is matter and energy together, does that mean that energy can be remade and reformed into matter by undergoing the correct processes? Does that mean the concept of a teleporter beam or a 'replicator' of Star Trek is feasibly possible, only out of reach due to technological inferiority? Or are these ideas simply childish fantasy? Once again, I apologize for bumping this topic, but as one of those things that people call 'thinkers', I feel the need to ask questions, even if they've already been answered. Redundancy, thy name is Zeo.

Ah, but how exactly would you know? You're merely a simply flesh and blood human being interpreting everything at the same exact rate as everyone else. About my contradiction part, that was the whole point, because time is much of a corrupt topic to really reason out. That was sarcasm by the way. And in terms of dimensions, 3d covers every measurable distance or defining things in the universe that we're aware of. Why exactly does the 4th or 5th or any other dimension have to be some measurement defining something in space? My ultimate point in this little piece, although it's very unclear even to me, is that regardless of how many dimensions there are, or what we think they are or what, we can never truly know, or, if we can, I doubt we will. That's my opinion. You are of course, completely entitled to have yours, even if it denounces my opinions. Just keep in mind that saying something is false without completely knowing so is merely an opinion, not a fact.

This is more or less the argument that I agree with most, in terms of how we as human beings define time. Like I said though, I don't really think time travel is possible, I merely think that time is how we as human beings interpret the progress (or lackthereof) of the universe. Now about his theory on accelerating the speed of time, once again, you have to think about what the current speed of the universe and time actually is. Like I've said (somewhere), time is infinite, which means that it doesn't really have a speed, it simply IS. Now once again, this theory on accelerating things leads me to this: What if we could reasonable slow down the energy of a particular being? Bear with me, because I'm going to get all 'sci-fi' on all of you, but, what if, through some magical device called a time machine, we were able to generate a type of field, something that would seperate the timetraveler and whatever machine that enabled the field to be generated in the first place (scifi bull), and separate them completely from the universe and everything implied as such? In fact, what if that little field created a universe in itself? A little mini-pocket universe that could move in and out of this one at will, with a completely different rate of time on the inside? Now all of this seems a little far-fetched, but reading over it again, I think it could work. All we were have to do is merely define the parameters of the universe (however we'll do that, I don't really know), and put the traveler (or whatever) inside it. I mean, granted, I don't think it could ever happen, and I'm probably not the first to think of it (I'm sure one of you has said something similar somewhere in this topic), but thinking about my little theory just gives me hope. Whatever, just philosophical bull.

A slight wisdom I've just only gained: It's not that we can't understand the dimensions, it's just that we don't really notice them. A single dimension is really just a line, with not identifiable length, width, height, merely a line indicating a dimension of . . . well, whatever. The second dimension is another line, another variable defining something (actually, it would probably be more than 1 more line), but what it's defining is a lateral surfact, a particular plane in space. The third dimension adds volume, actually adding space between and outside of several planes connected or unconnected or whatever. Cursiously, I've noticed that some believe the 4th dimension to be perspective, or the distance between different objects in space, but I was always under the impression that the 4th dimension was time, a variable indicating the passage of time an object goes through throughout the universe. Of course, that brings a lot of philosophical debate into the equation, merely because no one is entirely sure what the definition of time really is. To me, time is merely our perspective of individual moments passing by. As I've said in other threads, I believe that all moments and instances are infinite, happening, happened, and yet to be happen all at the same time, and our puny minds, small as they are, are merely interpreting all of it at a certain rate. Now what that rate exactly is, no one truly knows, but it's in my opinion to be infinite. But, I'm getting off-topic. I'd like to add though that the ultimate measure of a second is officially the amount of distance that light travels in that time, so actually, a second is really the amount of time it takes for light to move a certain distance. Strange, eh? It kind of brings up a paradox somewhat, since you have to think about lightspeed, and how fast light travels in a second, but then, what's a second if a second is really how quickly it takes for light to travel the distance it would in a second??? Lol, but now I seriously AM getting off topic. My last point here is this: I believe that the different dimensions that we are and are not aware of or notice are merely variables in the grand scheme of things, defining how matter operates or doesn't operate in this universe and beyond. I know that this simply sounds like philosophical bullsh*t, but then again, so does everything else concocted by scientists, philosophers (especially), theologians and who knows what else. Just . . . friendly . . . whatever.

I was pondering to myself the other day, and it started to make me wonder. What the heck is the 5th dimension? I'm assuming it goes from: Length Width Height Time ??? In that order. Is it possible to have more than 4 dimensions? Am I out of my league? What about airline food? What's up with THAT!!!

Ah, but if my little conclusion is correct, then it's not that we're traveling in time one second at a time, but rather, our minds are reliving memories of what's happened, or that we're interpreting things to roll on in the rate that we perceive them to be going in.

I've recently concluded: There is no time travel. Everything merely IS.

I understand that the things going on here are way out of my league, but I would like to point out that Photons actually do have mass, although it's so small it's comparable to an electron, which is proportionally 1/2000 to a proton or neutron.

Evolution is, by definition, the heritable changes that have produced Earth’s diversity of organisms. However, evolution has other definitions depending on who is viewing it. Some believe evolution to be an object of heresy, defying everything that they hold dear to themselves. Others feel that evolution is a better means to explain diversity of organisms rather than creationistic views. Further still, some people view evolution as merely a concept that isn’t worth their time. While this last group has no relevance to evolution in general, the previous two do. In the case of the first group, evolution is so offensive to them because the theory of evolution presents a meaning to life in which does not involve a divine. The second group is in conflict mainly because of the first group, because the general population of the world consists of the first group, thereby ostracizing the second group. Although evolution is still merely a theory, anti-evolutionists continue to attack evolution. However, as evidence against evolution appears so rarely, more and more evidence in support of evolution continues to rise to the surface, causing much controversy. To begin, one must first understand the endeavors of one of the most famous men of all time. That man’s name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was one of the first people to openly speak of the concept of evolution. In his book, The Origin of the Species, he made two very important points ascertaining to evolution. The first being that diverse species had common ancestors. The second point was that natural selection was the mechanism through which evolution occurred. With these two points in mind, Darwin was able to conceive of evolution as a process of change in a species over a great deal of time in order to become better adapted to the environment. This was because each organism left behind many more offspring that the environment was capable of sustaining. Thus, Natural Selection has a hand in the process of the killing off of the organisms least suited to coping with the environment, hence leaving offspring with genes better suited to living in the environment. Using this concept as a model, it is possible to comprehend that all organisms, diverse as they are now, may have developed from much more simple and primitive microbes. However, although Darwin’s theories provided in-depth explanations and an alternative to the given choices of the era, Darwin’s endeavors are still attacked even today, as his theories contradict the very meaning of life so instilled in the minds of the oppressors. Several views against evolution have similar concepts. Most of which involve the absence of a creator. Some of the more prominent views include the fact that the theory of evolution leaves no room for a grand and divine ‘purpose’ as humans are so accustomed to. In the Bible, which is the doctrine of many creationists, it was said that God created man to take care of the animals and the planet Earth. Some of the most prominent supporters of evolution, who take to the supposed facts that plants and animals had a common ancestor, absolutely refuse to accept the evolution of Man. Another interesting counter-view to evolution is that God perhaps created “numerous beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose”, hence allowing the concept of evolution to meld seamlessly with creationism. This was called polyphyletic evolution. One final theory against evolution is the concept of the ‘soul’, of which evolution has no explanation, other than the extensive and rapid firings of the brain. Although no theory is without its discrepancies, it is notable that in the movement against evolution, very few seem to grasp the concept that humans and apes are different organisms. Many people still act under the false pretenses that humans evolved from apes and chimps and monkeys and the rest of the primates not mentioned. This however, is a horrible lie, contradicting every theory in evolution in itself. The correct solution is that humans, apes, chimps, and every other sort of primate living today shared a common, less diverse ancestor. A more simple explanation is that humans did not evolve from their primal cousins. Another discrepancy in the countless verbal assaults against evolution is the monkey to man model, depicting a linear transgression from old-world monkey progressing to the normal working-day man, with every stage in between. This is of course, another fallacy, as 1. Man did not evolve from the old-world monkey, and 2. The different hominids depicted on that model did not appear in time in that order. In fact, they did not appear in any order at all. To be more accurate, some existed in the same time frame. Another discrepancy still is the stereotypical view that organisms evolve and adapt to their environments as they progress through their lives. This is a horrible error of logical thinking, based simply on the fact that an organism’s D.N.A. does not change at all during its life. In fact, any adaptations at all are only revealed through great changes in the environment, in which natural selection takes its toll on those without the adaptation already embedded within their gene structure. Furthermore, it may also be asked why the human race has not ‘evolved’ recently. This is remedied through, again, another simple explanation. That explanation being that due to the amazing capability for Man to create his own environment, complete with controls and set parameters, Man is no longer hampered by the mechanism known as Natural Selection. Hence, no adaptations will be presented because there will be no need for them as such. One final discrepancy that should be pointed out is that evolution is merely a theory. Although it is extremely believable and supported by vast amounts of evidence, it is still, in every way, shape and form, a theory. One cannot say they believe in evolution, because it is not a fact. It is merely an in-depth explanation ascertaining to the origins of the various diverse species existing on this planet. So many of the anti-evolutionists fail to grasp this, leading some to believe that they may not be as informed as they think they are. This is however, a minor discrepancy that has not greatly affected the debate concerning evolution’s credibility. Many of these stereotypes exist mainly because society has not been educated otherwise. Furthermore, the anti-evolutionists continue to demand evidence as to evolution and its truth. As previously outlined, humans have not evolved recently due to their amazing ability to create their own environment. Furthermore, that ability has been rising steadily over the past ten thousand years. However, ten thousand years ago was a very different time from today, one with which had various situations in which adaptations were a necessity in order to ensure survival. One such situation is the Sickle Cell Anemia mutation, which is present in a great majority of the African population. The condition, Sickle Cell, concerns an individual’s resistance to a deadly disease known as malaria. The strange shape assigned to the blood cells by the condition prevents the malaria bodies from affecting the blood cells. This is a fine example of natural selection. Back then, when the sickle cell gene was not widely dispersed throughout the population, Malaria swept throughout the population, leaving only a handful of those with the Sickle Cell gene. Those few people had a large deal of resistance to malaria, hence making them more adaptable to the environment. Their offspring also carried the gene, and this new mutation carried out through a great deal of the population, hence creating an evolutionary advantage compared to their past counter-parts without the gene. This is a prime example of how evolution has occurred within the past several millennia. Throughout the past eons, several different variations of hominid have existed. The first known hominid being the Australopithecus Afarensis, progressing to Africanus, with the Aethiopicus branching off to the side. After Africanus, there came a large divergence in which several variations branched off into whole new species, with the Habilis as our preceding ancestor. Next came the Ergaster, followed by another branching off, which at the ends of each branch included: Homo Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Sapiens. All of these different species have been confirmed through the fossil record. Perhaps the most memorable of all of these various hominids however, would be the Afarensis, of which an actual fossil was discovered. Discovered by Donald Johanson in The Afar region of Hadar, Ethiopia during1973, the fossil known as ‘Lucy’ has provided what is quite possibly the most solid evidence of the evolution of Man. Lucy was only among the first of many hominid skeletons to be unearthed in the Afar. Lucy was about one meter tall, had a small brain, and walked upright, leading some scientists to believe that perhaps hominids didn’t develop large brains before walking upright. This has raised some controversy, and remains as a discrepancy in the evolution of man, mainly because scientists are still unsure as to the particular aspects that caused man to walk upright. Originally, it was thought that hominids began using tools and walked upright to free up the hands. However, Lucy walked upright herself, and had modern day ‘hands’, yet there was no evidence of tool-use at the site of her discovery. Another strong example of evidence supporting evolution is the similar homologous structures within several variations of mammals roaming the planet. If the forelimb of a bat, a cat, a human, and a whale were compared, it would be noted that a similar bone structure is present in all four, again supporting Darwin’s theory of all living things having a common ancestor. If, all things were created individually from a ‘divine’ power, then the logical choice of action would be to create a suitable bone structure specified for the species itself. It would not seem logical to give four very different creatures the same skeletal structure. In fact, assuming evolution is correct, the current bipedal structure of man is disadvantageous to human beings. The consistent upright position creates large amounts of stress on the hipbones and spinal structures. However, if Man were created individually from organisms throughout the planet, it would make sense to give Man his own skeletal structure, rather than a modified one from a previous ancestor. (Campbell, Reece, 2001). As previously indicated, no theory is without its discrepancies. Evolution does indeed have gaps. If examined closely, one will find that the fossil record is incomplete. Several species of hominid that have traits present in current hominids but lacking in previous hominids are missing. Furthermore, there are also various examples of evidence against evolution as well. There are several gaps missing in evolution’s defense. For instance, how does one explain the various different cultures within society today? As underlined in the paragraphs above, environment plays a serious role in the development of adaptations and how a species evolves. However, environment also has an effect on customs. Hence, different environment equals different cultures, customs, and languages even. Furthermore, it seems hard to believe that humans are capable of conscious thought. Scientists are still baffled as to how we are able to have identity. The concept of a soul comes into play. It is said that God created the souls in each and every person, but there is no physical evidence suggesting this. It may be possible that humans do not have consciousness at all. What humans perceive as identity may be nothing more than incredibly complex firings of neurons creating a large network of thought. One may also imagine how an adaptation can carry throughout a population in order for the species to be ‘better equipped’ for the environment. While it is highly unlikely that a mutation or some other genetic flaw would have a beneficent effect on an organism, in the event that it does, logic dictates that those without the adaptation would probably be eliminated through natural selection. This most likely would create a bottleneck effect, seriously increasing genetic drift and the rate of occurrence of an adaptation through the phenotype. Creationism however, is not with its own defense. Although there are several anti-evolutionistic movements in existence, creationism poses the greatest threat to the theory of evolution. For instance, referring to the parting the Red Sea, it has been scientifically proven that the Red Sea is possible to cross barefoot at a particular time. During the time of such crossing, timing would be critical, and predicting tidal movements was not a powerful skill for ancient Egyptian slaves. This leads some to believe in the existence of a ‘divine’ power. However, creationism too has gaps. In the story of Noah, when God flooded the world and rid it of the infidels, the entire world was flooded and two of each animal were taken aboard The Ark in order to reproduce when reaching land after the flood. First of all, it is impossible to completely flood the world in the manner God depicted. Second of all, the estimated number of species existing on this planet is near 6 million. There is simply not enough resources or manpower to sufficiently gather up two of each animal, along with sufficient food for all of them. However, these are merely some of the discrepancies of both views. In truth, there is evidence stacked against and for evolution. There is no true way to decide what is right, and what is wrong, because sufficient technology to do so is yet to be discovered. There may come a time when Man truly understands his origins, along with the origins of the rest of the planet. Ultimately, Man may never know the true answer to the questions of life. Man may never truly understand what it is that put him here, or whether or not he simply ‘evolved’ from lesser organisms to get here. The only truth Man may ever know is that he is here right now, in the present, acting out his life. This may be the only truth anyone knows. In conclusion, evolution has many aspects, positive and negative. There are several views against evolution, and several views in support of it. It should be known that people in society devote their entire lives to understanding that which has put them in the position that they are now currently in. The ultimate answer lays within their own minds and opinions, because only what they believe is true will be true for them.

http://yamirei.proboards16.com register there and i shall bestow uponto you godlike abilities... also...what site do you want me to visit?

and you're sure you're the president? ....the fact that you'd say something like this is that you're abusing the fact that a few of the people here have actually accepted the fact that you're a 'social worker' (was it?) Working for the prez....before you start making worthless comments, you might want to look at what you're going to say at someone else's point of view.

I agree with you on how building skynet is inevitable...did you even read what I said? the chip is going to developed no matter what...connor & T-800 just delayed it...or maybe they were playing their part in the timeline ....

true, but if that's not the case, who's to say that the chip and arm actually were destroyed, and that Skynet already ensured it's creation through other means like fafalone said? In such case, s.n. wouldn't have been created through what the resistance knows, but through top secret information that cannot be changed or altered... henceforth, it's like I said, we are walking a path with no turns...it is all laid out for us, the future, is inevitable. There is no turning from it.

In a sense, all cloning is is making a copy of someone's genetic makeup...you're not necesarily copying their being...but if there were a way to imprint your synaptic responses, and algorhythms, and what not, then I would do it...after all, If I'm going to rule the world, I'm going to need a way to live forever....

at least someone truly understands my point of view....

it was a scenario hypothetical....jeez

oh i see, you don't want this released to the public.... just speaking my mind.. don't give me ideas though...

Humans have no true purpose. As I watch humans progress through the years, I have realized how utterly pathetic and virutally useless the human race actually is...Some people like to think that the human race will amount to something big one day. It very well might happen, but as of this point in time, it is nothing but a mischiveous race of overgrown monkeys scurrying about blissfully unaware of how pointless it truly is. Eventually, I believe that humans will end up killing each other out. People think that they've done things that will change the universe...heh. Humans have done nothing to make any type of mark on the universe. As for me, I blissfully dream of becoming immortal, only to find that my dreams are ignorant. Life lessons are virually pointless, they have no true purpose, except to enforce a way of live upon us. Amazing though, how far humans have progressed in the last ten years, why, only ten years ago, aol was only offering one free hour of internet access.... good times....good times...

How many saw that show on animal planet about the Animals of the future?? I didn't see much, but I was able to tell that who ever created it had some serious problems.... Few are able to grasp the true scope of Natural Selection. I just want to get this straight...and maybe criticize <--(can't spell) the show a bit... The ending was how squid would move on ground...and how squid would be real smart and another version would be real dumb but real smart...well... Natural selection is not when a species needs an ability they just develop it....NO! natural selection....n.s. (I don't feel lke typing) is where certain individuals have a genetic mutation which gives them an advantage....and if they're lucky, they pass it on to the species through their offspring...often there's a chance that there isn't any mutation at all...or they don't have offspring...not that the mutation is limited to just one individual... so say a ...I dunno....an ostrich....needs to fly....because a new land limited predator who's really fast shows up....the ostrich will not develop the ability to fly...all in all...it'll probably die out...unless the predator fits into the ecosystem and maintains balance by not eating all the ostrich in one go...but still you get the point... I just wanted to point this out... look forward to input :zzz:

.....w....w-wh-wha-what???? That's NOT POSSIBLE!!!! AHHHHH!!! WHO AM I??? WHO IS MY FATHER?????? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh yes, on a further not, hi, and how are you?