toastywombel

Good question, I found this article, http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2003/12/012/pdf/1126-6708_2003_12_012.pdf It is a pdf so you will have to download it. Essentially though, the important part that answers your question, is that multiple p-branes may exist in a given M5-brane (a intertwined sea of multiple p-branes). A brane's energy is proportional to the inverse of its volume. So, whether the branes are compact or expanded, the result of an expanding universe in such a scenario is the same. An expanding universe will eventually end as a compacting universe. Of course there may be conflicting articles out there, M-theory like all string theories are relatively young, with varying interpretations.

Farsight what I get from what you are saying, is that Luminiferous Aether can be proven to exist because energy can be detected in what could be called "Empty Space" The vacuum energy from space is not from Luminiferous Aether, here is what Luminiferous Aether is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether The energy from space is in fact due to virtual pairs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle This is far different from the Aether described above. Virtual Pairs are particles that exist temporarily in empty space, they are not a medium through which light moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations Virtual pairs can be looked at as a tangible result of the time-energy uncertainty principle. If I have mistaken your views I apologize, no personal offense intended by the post above either (no pun intended). However, if you are saying that energy present in empty space is evidence of Aether (a medium through what light travels in space) you are mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Well, yes what we would call negative energy. With standard matter that has mass, as the energy increases, so does the velocity, and for matter to travel at the speed of light or faster it would need an infinite amount of energy. However, with Tachyons, according to the equations, as the energy decreases, the velocity of the tachyon increases. Interestingly enough, to force a Tachyon to slow down to light speed or less than light speed it would also take an infinite amount of energy. Here is also something interesting that has not been mentioned about tachyons in String Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon#Tachyons_in_string_theory

Elaborating on the same study, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre6455bw-us-neanderthals-genes/

First off, if one were able to use the energy from a star to create a wormhole, I think they would be able to harness some of the energy and use it to produce a force field around the ship and/or themselves. But let me ask you: In 200 AD at the height of the Roman Empire, did anyone think it possible to send a crew to the moon? have them land? and then come back? In 400 BC when Lu Long Fuzi began travelling China to spread his philosophies, do you think that anyone thought it possible that one day a bomb only three meters long could destroy an entire city? Maybe wormhole travel is not possible, but technology can advance so quickly in so many ways. It is good to be open minded. I guess what I am saying is don't underestimate the abilities of mankind.

Maybe, a pipe burst, but the leak started after an oil rig exploded on April 20th. The leaking oil was not discovered until a couple days later. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jkw96R1Vg_Yf4D-3YIWCo7M__6vgD9FHEBUG8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler Now my comments rebutting your statement did not do anything of the sort. You said what you had to say, and I responded. I did not personally insult you or interrupt you. I simply attempted to illustrate to you that your facts were wrong. Telling someone they are incorrect and then showing them how they were incorrect is not heckling. In fact I even added a smiley to the post attempting to convey a friendly attitude. Furthermore, the reserves of oil offshore the Untied States coast only having one year left of oil in them is debatable as well, but I will refrain from getting into that. But please tell me where you made it clear we were talking about the Oil reserves off the coast of the United States from the original post? You mentioned two specific places in the above two paragraphs. "One being La Brea Tar Pit", and the other being "Florda Beach". From that point on you used pronouns such as, and, This oil volcano? Are you talking about La Brea Tar Pit or the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill? It is important on forums to make your thoughts clear, which is something you failed to do, through the heavy use of pronouns. The reason is, if a reader is curious about the La Brea Tar Pits, they might google search it, come to here, and see your post. Because of the confusion they might think you are saying that the La Brea Tar Pit is leaking 200,000 gallons a day, which it is most certainly not. Again, it may have been a joke, but you failed to convey to the reader that it was a joke. Especially having the "joke" follow such a serious statement as, "I heard there is only 1 years supply of oil to run the United States out there." Yet there was no inclination of the joking manor (through a smiley or "ha ha"), and the analogy really misrepresented reality, and over played our ability to just go to the Gulf Stream and harness an "endless supply of energy". It is better to use facts than analogies to convey your message. If you do use analogies, they can be useful tools, but to summarize facts that have already been stated. Instead you stated no facts about the Gulf Stream, made an analogy, and left it up to the reader to determine the facts from an analogy, which is hard obviously impossible to do. I do agree that we should start moving away from offshore drilling and towards other renewable resources, and that the risks of expanding offshore drilling a greater than the benefits. We are totally in agreement here. However, where did you hear your facts, mind providing a link? I have heard there is only one year of reserve off of the East Coast. It was a talking point stated by a GreenPeace representative last night on PBS. Also it is good to note that no energy supply is truly endless. And as Moon pointed out, Harvesting energy from the Gulf Stream would be a very delicate and complicated process. And I pointed out that harvesting energy from the Gulf Stream most likely would not ever yield the amount of energy that you inferred through the "joke". You may find my corrections to your misleading claims disturbing, but heckle you I did not. I did not even personally attack you. So I don't understand the need for name-calling (rain man). It is good to note, that I am too passionate about this topic, that is why I attempt to get the facts, and attempt to convey the facts to the readers of this forum in an honest, open way, allowing them to make their own, thoughtful conclusions, and also open the door for them to question their current conclusions. Truly, how strong are your beliefs, or thoughts if they have never been questioned? Quite arguably finding a replacement for fossil fuels is one of the most important goals in science today. It is an industry ever gaining steam, and attention.

pH stands for potential for hydrogen ion concentration. The scale is used to measure acidity vs alkaline substances. It ranges from 0-14, with acidic compounds/ substances such as HCl having a pH close to zero, while alkaline compounds/substances such as bleach having a pH close to 14. The mathematical formula to derive pH of a given substance is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field 1 barrel of oil = 42 US gallons So the largest natural oil seep, releases 100-150 barrels which is equal to about 6,300 gallons a day of oil released. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well you heard wrong . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country Also an LED takes about 30–60 milliwatts to be powered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#Efficiency_and_operational_parameters Hoover Dam has an output of around 2080 megawatts per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Power_plant That means that the Hoover Dam, could power about 34.6 billion LED lights per year. So for something to make the Hoover Dam's output look like an LED consumption, one can use the following ratio, X representing the amount of power you claim could be outputted from the Gulf Stream (in watts). I derived your claim from the analogy you used. 2,080,000,000 watts/ 0.060 watts = x watts/ 2,080,000,000 So simplify, (2,080,000,000)(2,080,000,000)/ 0.060= X watts X=72,106,666,666,666,666,666 watts Or 72 quintillion watts. So could you clarify how we would go about extracting around 72 quintillion watts per year from the Gulf Stream? Furthermore, the total world power consumption is around 15 terawatts per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption I think my point is, it isn't good to make misleading, or over-reaching claims with simple analogies.

If you don't have the specifics, or proof of such a claim, than that claim cannot be taken seriously by any readers of the forum as Moon said.

I agree, the benefits of nuclear power over coal far outweigh the possible negatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#cite_note-10K-23 According to the State of Alaska, http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.cfm So Exxon spent 2.1 billion on the cleanup, 500 million on litigation. However, they took out a 4.8 billion dollar credit line from JP Morgan, and they had insurance claims on top of that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The United States is currently forcing BP to pay under the Authority of the Oil Pollution Act. This isn't just rhetoric, making BP pay, it is the law. http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050303823.html

I think the number was around 200,000 gallons of oil a day. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050303823.html

The only way I could imagine a group with that kind of name being secular, is if they were an organization founded by a guy named Christian Cross.

Check out this video. Try listening to the narrator and not notice some obvious scientific flaws, especially the last fifteen seconds of the video. However, it would seem nice if you were able to fill up your car with compressed air at home from a generator, and in the end it would be cheaper than my Jeep Cherokee. It is unfortunate though, that the car design visually is not what some in the ritz would call, "sweet" or "stunning". Anyways lets break this down, I'm curious as to what you guys notice.

I posted a thread on the same topic in Science News, maybe the two should be merged? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51564

It is good to point out that there was somewhat of a compromise on this, and the moderators of SFN should be credited with being open to ideas/feedback and implementing promptly and in a correct fashion. If you notice, threads in religion do not appear on the front page of the site anymore. The specific forum (Religion), helps separate the hard science from the religion. There are many users who want to talk about Religion, and I think it is better they can do it in an appropriate environment, as opposed to discussing Religion in the Physics Section or Science News Section. Also after reading many threads in the Religion Section, and posting some of my own thoughts, I have concluded that the conversation has been much more productive and civil than I expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_intoxication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol

Running up and down hills can offer benefits such as conditioning and endurance building. Though, it would be more likely that individuals would inherit behaviors from their respective tribe(s). As opposed to individuals following a 'maverick'. Also the first humans were hunter/gatherer nomads, who needed to stay on the move to survive. If someone can't keep up in this type of environment, and the tribe had to stay behind to care for this person, the safety of the whole tribe would be threatened as opposed to the safety of just the one person (compared to just being left behind). Since the person cannot keep up, he cannot stay with the tribe, interact with the tribes members, or procreate. The end result of this, that person's traits will not be past on to future generations.

Photo voltaic Cells (solar panels) have been used for decades to convert sunlight into use-able energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_module Yes, scientists can recreate photosynthesis in some fashion, though the methods are not yet perfected. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19801128&id=BsgsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7199,7518441

Earth will become a lump of molten rock due to the massive expansion of the sun that will occur well before the sun burns out. http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-sun/when-will-the-sun-burn-out/

I am sure you all have heard about it now, and if their is already a thread on this I am sorry I must have missed it. Well it seems in the last couple days the news has only gotten worse. Here is what the three big cable outlets have to say. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/30/biggie-finally-happened-oil-spill-ingredients-ecological-disaster/ I actually thought Fox had a good, informative front page "featured" article on the spill. CNN's front page article didn't focus on the spill instead the politics. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/obama.oil.fallout/index.html?hpt=C1 MSNBC had an interesting featured article on the spill and video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36870222/ns/us_news-environment/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36880188#36880188 Here is some more interesting links. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-the-halliburton-connection.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011750068_noaaresponse01m.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2010/04/gulf_oil_spill.html?wprss=achenblog http://www.wtva.com/news/local/story/Barbour-not-optimistic-about-oil-spill/0ob5x-fUq0CpyxFaq-3z_Q.cspx What do you guys think? This is looking like it may be a big, long-term, environmental/ political/ business/ health problem for the Gulf-Coast Region.

I think anybody should be able to post any article they would like to. While I don't agree with News Corp or anything they do as a media company, users should have the right to post any link they want for any reason they want as long as it falls under the guidelines. It is then up to the other users to comment on that thread, giving different perspectives to the reader. There is no need to require or ask that News Corp articles only be posted under certain the certain conditions you cited.

The basic rule one can get from this, Incumbents don't like bad press, and the press is always hardest on the incumbent. Good post btw, I was not aware of some of these numbers. Although I would like to note that it seems, at least to me, that Obama is a much more visible president that Bush was. Maybe that is reflected in the fact that Obama has given more interviews. Good post though.

I think the body would wear down very quickly (days if not hours). Furthermore without any organs where is the energy going to come from that allows the body to function?

Jryan you said, Do you ever read anything I post? Seriously, or just re-iterate your point which is rather misleading. You are over emphasising the Christianity part of Jefferson's religion. He believed in the philosophy of Jesus. And he did say he was a religion unto himself, as he said he was a Unitarian unto himself. *Reference link in previous post Jefferson never exclusively says, or commits to the idea that he is part of a sect by himself which is a subdivision of Christianity. That just simply is not true Jryan. To expand upon what iNow was saying, Is that enough old testament approval of slavery for you Jryan? How about New Testament, Okay Luke was talking about servants, not slaves. Servent- one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer. A servant be a slave or an employee. Hence the use of the phrase, "master or personal employer". http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/servant But I'll give you that one, but tell me who was Timothy talking about? So after all that listed above (from the Old and New Testament), is it still this one lonely quote, which doesn't even refer to slavery directly that servers as the defence to your argument that the bible does not openly support slavery? Rather weak compared to the above quotes. So then someone who wants to live a good, complete, and right life is a Buddhist by default, because they want to reach the same point as the Buddhists do? That is very faulty logic Jryan, simply because one accepts a few tenants of a Religion, it does not mean they are a follower, subdivision, or sect of that Religion. According to that logic, everyone who believes in basic morals is a Christian. On a side note, It is pretty obvious that the Bible openly promotes slavery as it is pretty obvious that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Please Jryan, why do you choose to be wrong to support your ideologies, why can't you concede such obvious, obvious points?