Quick question...

[SHATOUSHKA]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by ?Gary?:
(Atoms will do different stuff the second time around.)

</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

going back in time does not necessitate a 'second time around'.

this is what i'm saying.

[zelazny]

okay, look at it this time:
there is a big line of dominoes.
the line starts falling, and you tape it all.
Then you rewind the tape back, that's what shatzy means with going back in time, you go back to a period, with _everything_ the same. Which means the dominoes are just gonna fall, just like every other domino.

Now what you mean is that there is randomness in each and every atom for some reason. If i have two atoms, one in rest, and the other hitting the first one on a certain vector, why can't i compute the new trajectories of the two atoms, given enough calculation containing the magnetic forces, the weak force, gravity , newtonian physics et al?
Where does the randomness come from?

[Hannibal]

Gary, you've entirely missed the concept, and atoms DO do the same things... well, they can, given the right circumstance.. but atoms compose muscles, and neurons, which are what we use to make movement, so the contraction of the muscles when you break your leg, is caused by neural patters, etc. Our body thus controls the individual atoms.
causing the break to be identical blah blah
but my main pitch here is you missed the main point.
and you drag it out yet.
Boo.

[TastinGood]

Click

[SHATOUSHKA]

is that your contribution to this thread???

[TastinGood]

i figured someone would see how it relates.

guess its not you.

anyone else?

[SHATOUSHKA]

why don't you just contribute to this thread
in a more constructive manner... as opposed
to direct relation/association?

like.... oh, i dunno....... YOUR OPINION [img]mad.gif[/img]

[SHATOUSHKA]

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[Tard]

Nobody has ever simplified the whole question and gone back to watch their old VHS collection of Back To The Future I, II & III?

[SHATOUSHKA]

i thought about those movies when i was first
responding to this thread... which made me
realize the dire need to make the whole scenario
in 3rd person... rather than 1st person.

there are tons of flaws in that/those movies...
which we all know, i'm sure.