Created 11 years ago2011-07-08 07:39:29 UTC by zeeba-G
...What?You said you would ask the question "What would you do in the future knowing it could yada yada?"
If there's anything you should know, you CAN'T change the past.theres a theory somewhere that says that if theres multiple choice in a situation, and you pick one of the choices, other "universes" will be created (or branch out) where you picked one of the OTHER choices. if that makes sense
What is outside the universe? And do the dimensions we deal with expand past its edges?A popular theory right now is that neighboring universes are "right next" to each other like bubbles, but that there is no way of exiting one universe without moving to higher dimensions.
In that case it will be impossible to go back in time unless we can invent a true full-spectrum electromagnetic cloak. We would have to go back in time to an area of space so the time machine wouldn't bump into any rogue particles just floating around (because even space has some reallly small amount of hydrogen). We would have to produce an effect of zero gravity around the time machine (because even small amounts of gravity affects something somewhere). Also we'd probably have to figure out how to redirect neutrinos as well. There's probably a ton of other phenomenon we don't even know about that would have to be compensated for.But as vs49688 stated, we would also have to figure some way of not disturbing the quantum state of the particles at that time. Therefore, we would have to not be able to observe.
or a way to reflect light around you yet be projected as though it just went straight, I guess. Any thoughts?This. Imagine a boulder sitting in a stream of water. The flow of the water is affected by the boulder, yet a few meters away, the flow looks the same.
Come to think of it, how is glass see-through? What's so special about its composition?It's just that glass permits visible electromagnetic radiation to pass through it.
What if, instead of turning invisible, there was some weird fucked up thing, and you just, didn't exist, but you did, Kinda like a ghost, no one sees/interacts with you, but you can see/interact with people and things. I think it would take forever to come up with technology to do this, but it would be pretty cool.You mean kinda like noclipping?
WE need tech that puts us IN video games, then we can go into like fallout 3, take the Chinese stealth suits, bring them OUT with us, and reverse Engineer stuff.For the love of god don't take anything from Postal.
For the love of god don't take anything from Postal.I read online that shit of a game is going on the Source engine, that true?!
I read online that shit of a game is going on the Source engine, that true?!Unless it's a third-party mod, no, then no. I don't even recall them even developing a third.
And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.I always thought that was not a serious mind experiment. Somebody shows you a box and asks you: is the cat dead or alive? And then you get this scientific explanation that it can both exist and not exist. But if you look at it, it's only one of the options.
But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same timeI guess I can't argue against this because I could never prove the opposite, however all the experimental data and mathematics and theory seems to apply so perfectly to reality! Too perfect to be coincidental. And if the mathematics is right, then so is the theory.
And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.Wasent that created just so same asshole could kill cats, like an asshole?
But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same timeThat's not the point. The point is to consider the possibility, not to actually prove anything.
Quantum scientists claim that the cat is in a sort of super state where it isn't dead nor alive until someone actually opens the box and by doing that collapsing the wave function. One couldn't possibly understand what that actually means, like they say; "if you think you've understood quantum mechanics, then you've not".These claims are based on the ever popular notion that "reality" is a relative state of being purely unique to the observer. That's the entire basis for quantum anything.
The thing is she came at it with the perspective that she already believes in mormon and all the inbetween junk "the mormon scripture" she bends and twists it to make sense.This happens more than you must think. Really, a hell of a lot of people do this, in their own way and to their own extremity. It's the reason anyone still has religious debates.
The "harder" path would be to try to discover weather it is right and true or not which is "good".You might say atheistic approaches are harder; You need more patience to wait for sufficient evidence, while religious people jump to the ultimate conclusion that theists texts are correct. I do consider myself 'agnostic', in that god may exist in some form, but its almost certainly not the Christian definition. God is a concept, or a phenomenon, but its not an omnipotent intelligent being. I tend to lean towards more atheistic views because there is no evidence in favor of religion that couldn't be a mass-placebo effect.
Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't always the good thing, and I know I did the right thing.