#1

think about this

there are an infinite number of numbers

which also means there are an infinite number of decimal places

so there is an infinite number of numbers inbetween the numbers 0 and 1

which also means there's an infinite number of numbers that have never been used, typed or thought about

but now comes the real mind ****

if you really really think about this

time is a measurement used and invented by man

but if we split down 1 second of our lives

we can measure that there are an infinite number of intervals, of 0.1*10^n

n = an infinity

so there are intervals of 0.1 * 10^-500 in seconds

and if we measure the speed at which these intervals change

i.e. rate of change of a second * 10^-500

or possibly a bigger number than 500

wouldn't we eventually reach a speed that is greater than the speed of light?

meaning that the only thing stopping us from that speed is processing it?

deep shit man

there are an infinite number of numbers

which also means there are an infinite number of decimal places

so there is an infinite number of numbers inbetween the numbers 0 and 1

which also means there's an infinite number of numbers that have never been used, typed or thought about

but now comes the real mind ****

if you really really think about this

time is a measurement used and invented by man

but if we split down 1 second of our lives

we can measure that there are an infinite number of intervals, of 0.1*10^n

n = an infinity

so there are intervals of 0.1 * 10^-500 in seconds

and if we measure the speed at which these intervals change

i.e. rate of change of a second * 10^-500

or possibly a bigger number than 500

wouldn't we eventually reach a speed that is greater than the speed of light?

meaning that the only thing stopping us from that speed is processing it?

deep shit man

#2

#3

Don't bogart that joint my friend.

#4

TS:

#5

No. Please take Calculus.

#6

Preach

#7

#8

#9

Rate of change of time (ignoring the fact that you haven't said WRT what. I'm assuming you meant time, in which case it would be 1, not "speed of light") and rate of change of distance with respect to time are two very different things.

#10

#11

Don't bogart that joint my friend.

God you're old.

#12

#13

And the rate of change of a speed is an acceleration, not a velocity.

#14

think about this:

There are an infinite number of Jeff Goldblums. We can solve aids and bring dinosaurs back. Whoa.

There are an infinite number of Jeff Goldblums. We can solve aids and bring dinosaurs back. Whoa.

#15

Woah, then if 1 = 0 like

x = y.

Then x2 = xy.

Subtract the same thing from both sides:

x2 - y2 = xy - y2.

Dividing by (x-y), obtain

x + y = y.

Since x = y, we see that

2 y = y.

Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.

Subtracting 1 from both sides,

1 = 0.

Then really 0=the speed pf light, then we are always going the speed of light like woah dude.

x = y.

Then x2 = xy.

Subtract the same thing from both sides:

x2 - y2 = xy - y2.

Dividing by (x-y), obtain

x + y = y.

Since x = y, we see that

2 y = y.

Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.

Subtracting 1 from both sides,

1 = 0.

Then really 0=the speed pf light, then we are always going the speed of light like woah dude.

#16

you obviously havent done advanced calculus. once you do you'll learn how to manipulate time like a superhero

#17

God you're old.

I am the alpha and the omega. I also use T/S theory to calculate my age. I'm 27 in ass years.

#18

think about this

...

deep shit man

Speed of light is the distance something travels in a time. Rate of change of time is not the same thing. Time changing is not an object travelling a distance.

#19

Speed of light is the distance something travels in a time. Rate of change of time is not the same thing. Time changing is not an object travelling a distance.

yea

hadn't thought of that

what if computers were ever advanced enough to process and present the time intervals?

#20

#21

but if we split down 1 second of our lives

we can measure that there are an infinite number of intervals, of 0.1*10^n

n = an infinity

Unless time is quantized.

#22

Woah, then if 1 = 0 likex = y.

Then x2 = xy.

Subtract the same thing from both sides:

x2 - y2 = xy - y2.Dividing by (x-y), obtain

x + y = y.

Since x = y, we see that

2 y = y.

Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.

Subtracting 1 from both sides,

1 = 0.

Then really 0=the speed pf light, then we are always going the speed of light like woah dude.

Ah, but you see, you can't do that either, because you are then dividing by zero, which you can't do (or at least, that's what we think). You first say that x = y, so you could basically say that 1 = 1, but then you divide 1 - 1, which is zero.

I'm sorry, I felt like I had to point that out. Don't mean to look like a smartass. I use this thing to baffle people all the time.

#23

Time isn't a disjointed object, and it's not as if there is some big cosmic clock with the numbers ticking over.

#24

yea

hadn't thought of that

what if computers were ever advanced enough to process and present the time intervals?

You really don't know how computers work, do you?

This thread is so lulzworthy already

#25

Ah, but you see, you can't do that either, because you are then dividing by zero, which you can't do (or at least, that's what we think)

No, if you have a pizza and divide it into 0 pieces, you still have 1 pizza, so 1=0. If you have another pizza and divide 2, then you have 2 pizzas, so 2=2. It's basic logic.

#26

You really don't know how computers work, do you?

This thread is so lulzworthy already

okay fair point

kenny westside will be back in 24 hrs with a comprehensive rejuice

#27

Real deep.

#28

yea

hadn't thought of that

what if computers were ever advanced enough to process and present the time intervals?

Then we'd be able to see very small fractions of a second? That's not really a problem.

Being able to infinitely break up a measure or object just stop it being able to exist in its complete form. A second will still be a second even if you had a computer fast enough to divide into billionbillionths of a second.

#29

#30

No, if you have a pizza and divide it into 0 pieces, you still have 1 pizza, so 1=0. If you have another pizza and divide 2, then you have 2 pizzas, so 2=2. It's basic logic.

Well, you would have one pizza if you divided by 1. You divide to make 1 piece, and that's what you get. Divide by 2, you get 2 pieces. Dividing by 3 gets 3 pieces and so on. So what about zero?

#31

a = 0

1a = 0 = a

2a = 0 = a

so 1a = 2a

so 1 = 2

1a = 0 = a

2a = 0 = a

so 1a = 2a

so 1 = 2

#32

No, if you have a pizza and divide it into 0 pieces, you still have 1 pizza, so 1=0. If you have another pizza and divide 2, then you have 2 pizzas, so 2=2. It's basic logic.

I'd say one pizza is one piece. Cutting it into zero pieces is like the pizza being cut into an amount that now makes it a submarine, or something, in my 15 year old book of maths. No longer a pizza. Dividing by zero ****s that pizza over.

#33

a = 0

1a = 0 = a

2a = 0 = a

so 1a = 2a

so 1 = 2

#34

x = y.

Then x2 = xy.

lol no

wat

#35

a = 0

1a = 0 = a

2a = 0 = a

so 1a = 2a

so 1 = 2

You didn't multiply both sides in that second stage. You added another a to one side but not the other.

#36

lol no

wat

Did he mean x squared?

#37

I like where this thread's going.

#38

Time is not alone. There is timespace. If there is an infinite amount of space, you also have an infinite amount of to cross that space and vice versa.

#39

Did he mean x squared?

possibly

that would make more sense

cba go back and read the original post though

#40

Dividing the pizza by zero is the same as not dividing it, so 0=1 and, as always, 1=1. I;m not debating whether or not 1=1 @ you people.