what's wrong with the major/minor system?

 

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.

u don't have majors in england?

u don't have majors in england?

 

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 lying piece of futruama dark matter you are 16 years old and in high school

 

 

 

well' date=' u could talk to them anyway. and by that thinking, I have a bachelor's degree in Astronautical Engineering and I teach Physics and Algebra.

 

try Fabric of The Cosmos, it came out this year[/quote']

you lying piece of futruama dark matter you are 16 years old and in high school

 

well' date=' u could talk to them anyway. and by that thinking, I have a bachelor's degree in Astronautical Engineering and I teach Physics and Algebra.

 

try Fabric of The Cosmos, it came out this year[/quote']

 

 

Lol, I take it this is coming from your personal experience of the guy?

i go to school with the kid, i i mean he is smart and all but he is 16

 

 

 

Lol, I take it this is coming from your personal experience of the guy?

Looove it when people claim to have something that they don't.

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.

Pyrotechnics? Rofl. What are these guys teaching the students? Better way, err, more efficient ways to set things on fire?

 

 

ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

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).

Back to the topic, sice the universe is in nothingness, where would another universe be?would they collide (assuming the universe is expanding)?

again, how could universes collide? how could there be more than one? (assuming there r more than 1, what would be betweem. there wouldn't be any space, how would that work? forget it, this is complete lunacy.)

 

someone explain universe in a fashion to where there can be more than one. every definition i have heard is that it is the full extent of the four extended dimensions.

someone explain universe in a fashion to where there can be more than one. every definition i have heard is that it is the full extent of the four extended dimensions.

 

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?

but how would they be separated if there were no space between them?

but how would they be separated if there were no space between them?

 

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

They're seperated by dimensions, or whatever.

thats wat I am saying. how can they be separated by nothing. there would be no distance between them, therefore they would be touching. (unless u r talking about brane theory in which there is a 2 or 3 dimensional sort of buffer zone)

 

the more i think about the computer analogy, the dumber it seems

They're seperated by dimensions, or whatever.

 

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!

how else r they gonna be separated?

 

Since I'm already editing this post to get rid of the bubble tag which you're not allowed to use outside GD' date=' I'll reply here.

 

Why do they have to be seperated?[/quote']

ok, u just said that the universes r the same.

ok, u just said that the universes r the same.

 

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.

u said that a universe is the extent that is physically possible to reach. if two universes have 0 distance between them due to 0 amount of space between them, then they are touching. therefore, they r the same universe

u said that a universe is the extent that is physically possible to reach. if two universes have 0 distance between them due to 0 amount of space between them, then they are touching. therefore, they r the same universe

 

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

I think his assumptions are even more fundamental than that.

ok, how r they gonna be separated without the use of distance, huh?