Last one to post wins!

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 6:02 PM

Why would using a "light" attack cause an "evil" person's downfall? That's still gripping the stereotype.

Or, you know, both sides could have swords, chemical exposives, guns, cars, and tanks. Maybe the power to time-travel, or command animals, or fly, or teleport.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 6:07 PM

No. Dumb people must not be allowed to time-travel. It only brings problems. BANZAIEH!

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 6:11 PM

Why shouldn't they? Doesn't make much of a difference.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 6:56 PM

Would you change today by time-travelling?

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 8:14 PM

No, that'd be a waste of time.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 8:23 PM

That's no waste of time since you can control if you wasted any time.

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 8:38 PM

Nope, because you're still aging. Working back on wasted time will just use up more of your personal time.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 8:42 PM

Who says aging continues?

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 9:02 PM

Laws of relativity. I mean, as you experience time, so does your body.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 9:08 PM

Unless the laws of time apply, which we did not discover yet.

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 9:11 PM

Except they don't exist. If you experience things throught your body, your body has the experience first, logically.

MrXLink · Jan 13, 2010 9:12 PM

Another argument to prove the existence of time laws. Build a time machine and see for yourself. That's the only prove, ro you have to go faster than light.

Aceedwin · Jan 13, 2010 9:23 PM

Wait wait. I'm against these "time laws" of yours.

Logic and maths. Only connected in that they are permenantly true.

MrXLink · Jan 14, 2010 8:40 PM

Pro or contra, I don't care. But you don't say it's not possible. And THAT's the point.

Aceedwin · Jan 14, 2010 8:52 PM

What's not possible? Honestly, you phrase these things so badly it makes my eyes bleed.

MrXLink · Jan 14, 2010 9:21 PM

Oh please! I'm not from the UK, you know?! I'm no native speaker here!

Anyways, You did not mention that the new laws of time do not exist, so there is a chance they do, and that's what I'm looking for.

Aceedwin · Jan 14, 2010 9:34 PM

Wait wait. So my abscence of statement has led you to believe that there is a possibility that these laws of yours exist? Am I some kind of time-travel scientist? Deary me.

Now, the point is, making up some voodoo laws that mean you can experience time, and yet not age, isn't what I'd call science. Think, every atom has its own personal timeline, and by and large, they all fall into the main stream of time, which we are currently synchronised with. Now, if I were to go back in time, that should not mean that I revert to a toddler, a baby or an embryo. It should mean that my personal timeline has continued, but suddenly moves further back into mainstream time. If I spend two years in the Dark ages, when I return, my body will have aged by two years.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Jan 14, 2010 10:50 PM

what Aceedwin said, in simpler English:

you age at a normal speed, even if you time travel. your body ages at a certain speed, and it would continue to do that. it would just age in a different place.

^ and i agree with that.

but what i still wonder is; this is SPAM! why are we having real discussions here? that's why we have General! be idiots here!

------OOO---------OOOOOO----------OO---------OO-------OO
----OO--OO-------OO-----OO-------OOOO-------OOOO-OOO
---OO---OO-------OO-----OO------OO--OO------OO--OO--OO
-----OO------------OOOOOO-----OOOOOO------OO---O---OO
-OO--OO----------OO-------------OO-----OO-----OO--------OO
--OO--OO---------OO------------OO------OO-----OO--------OO
---OOOO----------OO-----------OO--------OO----OO--------OO

MrXLink · Jan 15, 2010 6:42 AM

I disagree.

SPAM

Aceedwin · Jan 15, 2010 4:42 PM

Spam is a place for unbridled genius!

MrXLink · Jan 15, 2010 5:19 PM

Olé!

[Nope, I'm not spanish]

Aceedwin · Jan 15, 2010 8:47 PM

It is not correct. One is not a prame number.

Clock-la · Jan 15, 2010 8:58 PM

EVIL!!! EVIL!!!

Aceedwin · Jan 15, 2010 9:06 PM

By what right dost thou condemn actions as immoral, pray? Surely thou ist not prithee to the secrets o' all.

MrXLink · Jan 15, 2010 11:33 PM

1 should be a prime number. It can only be divided by itsself and 1 to get a full number, without any numbers behind the dot.

However, you'll get problems with it because 1 has only 1 number to be divided by, so the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic wouldn't apply. That's why it isn't. So what you are told is wrong: A number that can only be divided by itsself and 1 is not always a prime number, 1 isn't.

But why?

#2501 Jan 13, 2010 6:02 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2502 Jan 13, 2010 6:07 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2503 Jan 13, 2010 6:11 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2504 Jan 13, 2010 6:56 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2505 Jan 13, 2010 8:14 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2506 Jan 13, 2010 8:23 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2507 Jan 13, 2010 8:38 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2508 Jan 13, 2010 8:42 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2509 Jan 13, 2010 9:02 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2510 Jan 13, 2010 9:08 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2511 Jan 13, 2010 9:11 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2512 Jan 13, 2010 9:12 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2513 Jan 13, 2010 9:23 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2514 Jan 14, 2010 8:40 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2515 Jan 14, 2010 8:52 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2516 Jan 14, 2010 9:21 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2517 Jan 14, 2010 9:34 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2518 Jan 14, 2010 10:50 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2519 Jan 15, 2010 6:42 AM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2520 Jan 15, 2010 4:42 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2521 Jan 15, 2010 5:19 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2522 Jan 15, 2010 8:47 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2523 Jan 15, 2010 8:58 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2524 Jan 15, 2010 9:06 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

#2525 Jan 15, 2010 11:33 PM

Re: Last one to post wins!

Board footer