Overly Complicated Conjecture About Common Issues

[Spacelord]

Imagine you're looking at a clock. As we smart people all know, by looking I mean receiving and interpreting light waves/particles bouncing off that clock. Now, if you're moving away from the clock at the speed of light, it would appear that the clock is not actually running. Does this mean that you are effectively frozen in time?

Also: loving this thread

 

[The Sorrow]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

i always thought about the fact that for the egg to bear a live chicken there would have to be a chicken to fertilize it. that chicken wouldn't be there with out an egg, but that egg would have had to of been fertilized as well, logic really points to the fertilizer of the egg(the one that allowed it to become a chicken). thus the chicken came first.

Technically, whatever fertilized the egg wouldn't quite be a chicken. Damn close, though.
The baby, due to minor genetic differences between it and its parents, would be the first true chicken.

 

[veloper]

Imagine you're looking at a clock. As we smart people all know, by looking I mean receiving and interpreting light waves/particles bouncing off that clock. Now, if you're moving away from the clock at the speed of light, it would appear that the clock is not actually running. Does this mean that you are effectively frozen in time?

You couldn't see what was behind you at all, because the light couldn't catch up with you and reach your eyes.
Regardless, suppose you could survive light speed, then yes, the universe would've aged faster than you.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

If a man talks in the woods while there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

[Loiosh91]

many people's argument to my question is that it is only one theory for the big bang...yes i know... i said that in my post... just thought i should repeat myself