Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?
Moderator: Community Team
Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Norse wrote:Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?
Stopper wrote:Norse wrote:Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?
No, I don't need any humble pie. Do you think I do?
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Norse wrote:No, you have obviously been feeding your greedy face from this platter for too long.
Maybe a liberal dose of sour kraut will set you chemical balance into a socially acceptable frame.
unriggable wrote:Neutrino wrote:unriggable wrote:
Assuming you could, with energy being properly placed and half-lives and masses and temperatures being perfectly identical, I think you'd get the same result.
Well yes, if you did manage to violate the Uncertainty principle (fairly massively) you should be able to create the exact same circumstances.
And the same result. Of course this is impossible to replicate, but were it possible then from my guess you'd get the same result. One situation - one result. My reason for a linear, not-necessarily-planned but guided universe.
Jehan wrote:i tuned out after it used the motor cyclist example, was the article any good?
Iliad wrote:My view of the parallel universe is indifferent. It is something I can easily imagine and believe in but since there is and never can be any proof of it I don't.It's an interesting idea but it doesn't affect us at all
Timotheos wrote:If Schrödinger's cat is correct. would that kind of disprove the idea of time, the past and future. We are in and will allways be in one single moment.
Argh weird. I've never liked the idea of time anyway. Im mean, when you think of it, the idea of a 'future' is just as crazy an idea as any. how can there be a future aead of you if your allways in the now.
why did I read this thread.
Jehan wrote:what do you mean disprove time? like you say its an idea, its like trying to disprove communism.
Coleman wrote:Why are people here arguing against the existence of parallel universes when things that are possible through quantum mechanics requires them to exist? There are no other explanations:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.
Snorri1234 wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.
Well mathematically it does.
unriggable wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.
Well mathematically it does.
He's got a point. Mathematically, we proved that all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) were at one point conjoined into a single force - however a billionth of a second after the big bang gravity splits off. Mathematically it is crystal clear, however for us mortals it is hard to swallow.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users