Ha ha.

Well, right now..
Even as a somewhat reluctant McCain supporter,
if I were a gambling man I would put money on Obama.
Just a gut instinct. haha.

Personally I feel that Obama had it in the bag
since the press first heard his name.
But other issues came up, polls leaned one way
or farther to that way. And it came down to
being almost the exact same at the the end
as it was at the beginning.
All the competitors stood no chance.
Thank you Associated Press.

How about you, Matt?

You know, Taylor, there have actually been comic books written about things like this. I've read one of them--you know, Superman and Thor go head-to-head, etc, Iron Man vs. Wonder Woman. It's all very interesting, but of course they stopped the fighting because they realized they'd been set up to fight in the first place.

I don't know. I just don't know. In my heart, I'd hope that the DC Universe would win if only for Batman, but you never know--each universe seems to have an infinite number of "super" individuals.

So, if we may head onto a somewhat serious topic, what are your thoughts on the upcoming election?

Ya, Matt, I found it a challenge. But a superhuman will clearly win
most battles.

That makes sense. hahaha.

An all-out war.....
Hmm. I don't know. That is like asking if you were to clone everyone on the planet, allow them to fully grow, and have us fight all out against our clones. I don't think it would be possible to determine.
And then take into account their power. I don't think any human would be left to see who won.
It just wouldn't be worth it.
I'm curious as to your opinion though.

What are your thoughts?

I must say, Taylor, I was surprised at your answer. I admire your ability to look at the situation impartially.

Now, to answer your question...
There are two possibilities when considering the suicide hotline.
a) More of the people who were already planning to commit suicide are calling

or

b) More people are planning to commit suicide in the first place.

So which is a good thing and which is bad? I'll let you answer that question.

Keeping with my superhero-oriented questions, I'll ask you: in an all-out brawl between the DC universe and the Marvel universe, which side would prevail?

Cross-Universe Battle?

Well, Matt.
You have two differing characters from two entirely different universes.
Resulting in many issues.
But ignoring that issue, let's look into it.

Assuming, this is an equal fight, with no preset advantages.
1. Spiderman has the spider sense. Giving him precognitive knowledge of impending attack. This disables one of Batman's most important advantages, surprise.
2. Batman is suicidal it seems. He will give his life to defeat his nemisis, and has a near homicidal rage when attacking.
3. Spiderman is calm and collected when fighting. He always throws off-handed remarks and puns to enrage his enemies. Frustrating Bruce Wayne's temper even more.
4. Spiderman has super human strength. Batman is still human. Resulting in nasty wounds for my beloved Bruce Wayne
5. Both characters are adament about not taking life, so any fight would have to just to be to knock the other unconscious.

So while it kills me to say this, Spiderman just has super powers and a super advantage over Batman.
I feel compelled to credit him with a win.

Is it a good thing if more people call the suicide hotline?
(Rude, I know. But funny to think about.)

Of course

I completely agree with you concerning your opinion on the VP issue.

And the answer is (I'm sorry I don't have a wise-crack answer for this one): The stores want you to buy more stuff. They know that you'll want to buy an equal number of each; therefore you have to buy more of each to make that happen. There is a point, however, where the normal human being gives up and forgets it.

Anyway, Batman vs. Spider-man. Who would win?

Puh-lease.

It's obvious.

Robert Childs. Come on Matt.

Packages of hot dogs come in tens, packages of buns come in eight.
Why?




Just to let it be known. Major newspapers are saying that the vp choice makes little difference.
I now plan on voting this election because of Palin. I was planning on voting if it was to be Romney, but that didn't happen.

I am voting. And it IS because of vp choice. Suck on that, Associated Press.

Sorry to post politics on this blog. But it's more of a frustration with news media, than anything else.

Relatively simple answer for that one too, Taylor. Bread tastes better square and meat tastes better round. Gotta come up with something better than that.

Who would win: Jack Bauer vs. James Bond vs. Jason Bourne ?

Hmm.

Well the Russians lacked imagination and thought that all that there was in space was nothing.
NASA saw the possibility that there could be whole other worlds with water. And that there was no gravity in space and so they would have to write upside down. And they wanted to have professional looking notes. Not cheap high schooler notes written with a pencil. And a terrorist could come in and easily erase all Russian space records.
Lots of reasons..


If sandwich bread is square, why is most lunch meat round?

Simple Answer

The answer to this question is rather simple, Taylor.

Neither proceeded the other. God created, at the same time, a male chicken (a rooster) and a female chick in an egg (a hen fetus). He did this so there would be no question that the male was to rule without question over the female, using his elder status as reason.

Unfortunately, something went wrong somewhere and now all the male does is crow at random and useless times during the day.

Why is it that NASA spent billions of dollars to develop a pen that could write underwater, upside down, and in space, while the Russians simply used a pencil? Not only that, but why did NASA care about writing underwater and upside down?

Thank You. And Answering the Impossible.

Thanks Matt.
Yes, it's true. Today I now go to big boy prison for any illegal activities.

That is simple. There is no law stating blind people are not allowed to drive.
If they can pass the written and practical portions of the Driving Exam, they get a license.

And in return..
The chicken or the Egg. Who preceded whom?

Oh, and....

Happy Birthday to Taylor! Today, Taylor turns 18 years old. So wish him a happy birthday!

Unanswerables 1

Yes, I thought you might be afraid of that response. But on to something new. I will ask Taylor a question, a question most of us believe unanswerable. He will then answer and ask me one in return.

Why do drive-through ATMs have Braille?

Time Travel Part Four

Ah. Yes. I feared that response.
Hmm. The best way that I can argue what I'm really trying to say is with an example.

Tim is standing on the corner of 1st street and A street at 12:00 pm. Noon.
He has a time machine on the corner of 2nd and B street. He leaves at 1:00 pm. He hops in the time machine so that his space is always occupied on his return travel to Noon. But when he finally arrives back at Noon- time. He disappeared in the 1:00 time, creating a destruction of his matter, and a vacuum. and appears where air occupied on his corner of 2nd and B street. So even with the act of traveling through time, he still appears.


And with Matt's second idea, I found that fun to ponder and I encourage all to think on it for just a few minutes.

I also pose another question,
What would you do if your future self appeared to you and told you not to devise a way to travel through time?

Just think and then realize you had to have made a way to do it, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to warn yourself. :).

That's all for now.

Love, Taylor

Time Travel Part Three

Taylor obviously has a good point with his assumption that the law of conversation of matter would prevent any instantaneous transportation, including any which may be related to time travel. However, I'd like to point a few things out:

Time travel implies that such movement through time is not done instantaneously. Just as when we travel on a road trip, we have to move through space to get there, thereby avoiding the creation of any vacuums (space where there is no matter, not even air). If we make the same assumption about time travel, it would be easier to think that time travel is more like rewinding oneself backwards through time, with no physical changes made to oneself.

So in that sense, it might be possible to time travel without violating the conservation of matter.

But on the Superman point, I agree completely with Taylor.

I just want to add something onto my original assertion as to why time travel wouldn't be possible (the you from the past wouldn't have anything to go back and change if the current you changed it). I think the only way it would be possible to time travel without getting tangled into that paradox is to travel back through time with no intention of changing anything in particular. You go back, and you change something random. Or at least have that be your intention until you arrive at your destination time. Of course, this causes problems because in every repetition of this scenario, you random change is something else. So it becomes a loop. Have fun thinking about that.

Time Travel: Part Two

So in the earlier post, Matt disproved time travel based on the fabric of time rip reason.
You know, can't go back and change, because then its already changed and you're not doing anything to change it anymore.

So in this one, I will disprove it based on a simple law of nature. The Law of Conservation of Matter.
Your matter would be destroyed and there would be a vacuum in the space where you left. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. And then your matter would be created when you arrived at your destination time.

Can't travel that way..

Another one, less believable I know, but I still feel inclined to talk about it.
The Superman Method. Which is reversing the Earth's rotation. While I'm not sure if the Earth spinning backwards would do that, the act of reversing the spin would destroy us. Earth's rotation is so fast that if it were to stop within seconds, it would be too strong for gravity to hold us down. Everything would fly away. It would be chaos.

So thanks Superman, but no thanks.

That's all for now.

Love, Taylor

Time Travel Part 1

This is a previous post Matt had somewhere else and decided it would fit in here nicely.

So I think I've figured out why time travel wouldn't work.

Let's assume you actually found a way to go back in time. First off, why are you going back in time? Doesn't matter because once you've gone back and changed the past, you've made it so your past self (the one that was planning to come and change whatever) doesn't have to change whatever it was you changed meaning your past self never goes back in time, reverting whatever you changed so your past self once again decides to go back to the past to change it. It's actually very simple if you think about it. Is paradox the right word here? Or is that what you call what would happen if you tried to go into the past and stop yourself from being born? You can't stop yourself from being born, because then there'd be no you to stop yourself from being born.

Yeah. But either way. I used to have friendly arguments with my buddy Adam about time travel. I don't quite remember a lot of what we talked about, but we did dwell on the Grandfather Paradox quite a bit. Look it up, it's quite interesting.

the blog.

by: taylor.

So Matt and I have realized we have so many random ideas and sides to arguments, that they need to be shared with the world. Hence, this blog.

It is my hope that this will be a place for humor and knowledge, and that we will keep the purpose of this blog.

From time travel, to religion. From calclus, to good ol' in-n-out. This is our vast wisdom emporium.

Enjoy all.

Love, Taylor

First Blog

Well, what's the purpose of this blog? Taylor and I decided that we needed someplace to post our random thoughts...and whatnot. So that's why this blog came into being. Enjoy!

matt