Silvestru

I heard much praise about The Martian, but the unbelievable part there is that NASA would spend money and risk the lives of crew to potentially save Matt Daemon.

Hello forum, Can you give me examples of pretty scientifically accurate scy-fy movies? I know Kubrick was a physics enthusiast so he was trying to make his movie science as accurate as possible. Any other examples?

When science teachers/doctors bring up religion in a professional conversation/class room. My science teacher used to say "God works in mysterious ways" on a serious tone whenever he didn't know the answer to some science question.

We are currently exploring subjects like artificial intelligence, human enhancements etc etc but what about other earth species. In the Uplift universe (Scy-fi by David Brin), the dolphin and chimpanzee characters in the series have been genetically engineered to sapiency. Is it somehow possible/ethical to improve the intelligence of a species? Something aside from selective breeding.

Unfortunately I work in a corporation so I live by the laws of Robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1]

You cannot associate extremism with religion. We live in a great time where we can have free thinking but I can see Handy Andy chose not to use this freedom.

Well the most realistic way to harness energy right now is solar power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power But there are also potential resources found in asteroids/planets for future ideas. There is also vacuum energy in space but we cannot tap into that. Also:

The universe is expanding symmetrically. Why would light change it's path? http://www.space.com/25673-universe-expansion-real-time-cosmology.html

You are right Swansont but I really hoped to get your opinions on the latter part of my post: "how do you see the future of physics and what needs to happen in order to get more reliable data and confirm or disprove future theories?"

I am really not surprised. You know you can buy a 2 part flight around the world so you can disprove this "mainstream theory" right? And why don't you go to the edge of the earth and send me a picture? really...Big foot is harder to disprove than this "theory".

Randolphin you are splitting hairs The taxi cab is yellow Yellow is a color Therefore the taxi is a color Didn't you study logical arguments in school? That's how far logic will take you Also the difference that you ask between Science and Philosophy and which is more accurate is like if Grandma sends us candy and you try to determine how many you have by taking into consideration that your grandma is generous and she love you and me actually counting them with disregard towards my or her feelings.

AbnormallyHonest, you express yourself very eloquently and clear and I enjoy reading your science fiction but the ideas within are often like a script for an episode of ancient aliens.

I agree with you Swansont. I just wanted to get an opinion not preach about strings. but as the quote below mentions: "there is no other game in town" And I know theoretical physics is to Physics like homeopathy is to medicine but ....

Of course they are not "widely accepted" like the Big Bang model but they are not pseudoscience. What Quantum Gravity theory do you think is more accepted to explain the quantum behavior of gravitational fields?

I want to open o conversation based on this article if admins allow it. http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535 With great recent advancement in the physics field more and more theories are coming to light and are harder/impossible to test and prove/disprove. The article talks about many such widely accepted theories such as string/multiverse and other, my question is how do you see the future of physics and what needs to happen in order to get more reliable data and confirm or disprove future theories? (advancements in technology/human perception?)

And Oxymoron is anagram for Onyx Room but I still really dont understand OP's initial question Can you please rephrase?

Gravitons, if proved to exist have no mass. So we go back to what SwansonT said

1: Solar panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel A big problem with this free energy is storage. 2: I understand the energy source you provide is light but why would the battery be made out of light and how do you propose to create something from a particle that has no mass? Sounds like you are basing your opinions on little/no research.

This has been answered in this previous post.(last part) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105627-uniform-temperature-of-the-universe/ If it is expanding it does not mean that it isn't infinite. The same like you can have one infinity larger than another in mathematics.

This makes no sense. How do you propose the creation of this "potential well"?

Thank you Strange. This also helps me understand your comment in my other post about Heavy elements.

So you are saying that all the stable heavy elements that exist have been discovered and are here on Earth and it's unlikely to find new ones outside Earth?

I am wondering if other planets in our solar system have such a big variety of elements as our Earth does. And if not why is Earth different?

As far as we know, in the earliest days after the Big Bang, light elements like helium appeared leaving the heavier elements to form later inside stars due to strong nuclear reactions. I wonder if there are even heavier elements out there formed in supernova explosions that did not end up on earth. How likely/unlikely is that?