jackson33

h4tt3n; i have an idea what your thinking but suggest your interest in progressing an opinion or idea could be by other forms of writing. your reader is not concerned with meticulous detail. frankly the less the better as you will lose some with each detail that is not understood. Star Trek was designed to take characters from another setting (sci-fi) but with current day issues. a lot of war and piece, political, religion and bigotry can be found in much of the series. it was a way to entertain with issues normally too controversial for success. very few know what fuel drove the craft or even that 90% of the details if given were not possible. they do remember most all the characters, what they did, even details of THEIR character. in a fantasy the character can create what you can't in explanation or at least make it believable. in my best product; Mr. Gato was from a planet billions of miles from earth, lived thousands of years and knew all things. he also felt people from earth were primitive, arrogant and self absorbed. this is all believable from that character, but could never have been accepted coming from me or any one from earth... the ending of your story has to leave the reader in the mood you intend as well. sad, happy, patriotic or even hating something. the intricacies of some phenomenon will not accomplish this...

Louis Lamoure was the only real writer i have known, at least beyond short stories. his passion was in the history of the old west and somehow wrote his stories based on real people. some of his characters were not even from the old west but people he knew or visited with in his trips west in the days he was writing. he passed in 88, but his books still sell and John Wayne still brings across some of these characters in movies on TV. to make a long story short these characters could have been placed in any period of time. since he was interested in the old west, he placed them there and created the story. if he had been interested in science they would have been on star ships or if he preferred business they could have been in any number of settings. Roddenberry was gifted and could take characters and place them in situations people of that day thought were conceivable. the fact they were not to a few, made no difference. think of some one you know and dream up a story line to fit that person. make it short and have a few people read it. you will know in short order if its worth your time. if its liked, books can be written around a very short story.

passion or interest in a subject is vital. if you have the thirst to understand things to a self satisfaction rather than another's opinion your half way home. i would like to know what field your thinking of. so many have little or no financial rewards your best bet would be to study a science field as a hobby. since your 22 with no science background your likely already on another path. if that path is one where science could advance a career, go for it part time. keep in mind, today you can take some courses on line, that have college credit. the time you spend on them determine the completion and after a couple you will either forget it or be on your way...

its the visual concept. you have something to compare it with so to speak. check out a rising full moon sometime. as it rises it appears very large and movement can be seen but when straight up, it appears small with no detectable movement but actually the same size and moving the same speed or we are on earth.

first off all stars don't create black holes. only very large stars and then just what they absorb is wide open for debate. any thought of a BH to form a universe must include the thought of a worm hole or some escape from this universe. (science fiction). then in universal time the process for the death of the star to evaporation is not long enough to absorb matter for a good size dwarf galaxy much less a spiral or then a universe. this evaporation explained in the process would not in itself mean any major force or event. i don't disagree the evaporation process could generate the process to form other units such as stars or even a galaxy but more likely it rambles through space and finds or is attracted to larger amounts and then the process begins. on the size of a star that is thought to form a BH. they are 20-25 times ours and condense to about the size of our star, with the gravity of the original. actually very few stars are the size required to form BH and from what little i know its closer to 2 in a billion then to any other guess. if your getting to some thought of a BH and the formation of our universe, i would only say the big bang theory also has conflicting opinion and that theory is one in progress. I'll only admit its apparently accepted and that i question...why? the idea of multi or even substantial numbers of universe is fine. so long as there is no reason not to be the idea sounds fine.

that would be my thought. its cold outside and a good heat pump would be more useful then a/c. thought those furry creatures were found in a store room.

we currently know there is a rather large asteroid headed our way and will pass first in 2029 headed for the sun, obit the sun and head back for an close encounter in 2034. think its 34 km or about 22 miles wide. a hundred years ago we would have no idea this was coming or any idea what to do. today we know about it can estimate its going to be close and have 22 years to plan and do something about it. by then and probably well before, we will have a means to deal with any possible contact. if Yellowstone decides to blow its top, we have a good idea what will follow. we also believe there will be a year or to prepare and this event though disruptive will cause little or no loss of life and there are plans to help remove its atmospheric effects in very short order. the only thing i know of that could take mankind by surprise would be a massive solar flare. even this will be seen and take a few weeks to arrive allowing for some action. the very worst scenarios would be the loss of the moon which is inching away from earth or the loss of the sun. these things are going to happen, but should be billions of years off. our real problems are here on earth with such small things as a virus or some disruption in the food chain. these things have caused problems for world populations of one or two billion, its thought many times in the past. influenza out breaks kill off a few million each year and major outbreaks up wards of 30 million every so often. if the 1919 outbreak occurred today it would take out an estimated 50-60 million. the food chain is as critical in many places on earth today where entire national or regional crops are wiped out with a single drought. talking now in terms of 6.5 billion and in 50 years 13 billion people such disruptions in crop or animal foods (mad cow-uneatable fish etc) could feed off each other and have a backward chain reaction. the problems i have with moon based or other planet settlements are these things can be done on earth, since the worst of the worst would simply make earth like the moon or mars, in the first place. although i favor exploration and even bases for this elsewhere, long term or emergency places to maintain existence can be established right here on earth. dome cities is one i like and feasible today.

try being a little more optimistic. keep studying science & astronomy. things are not that bad and even if the earth retreats to an ice age, mankind will figure ways to survive. you may be the one to come up with an idea to solve some future unknown problem.

do you think if man wanted to; some form of a dome or enclosure around cities with climate controls systems would be a little easier than flying to some planet and having to do this anyway? synthetic food is not very appetizing but if required people could adapt. we already eat mass produced everything from lettuce to fish and most meats. dome in the San Joaquin Valley in California and they can feed a billion of so alone all year. by the way the cost to dome a 50k person town is about the same as a single shuttle flight and if it become necessary labor should be no problem. travel to other planets will answer some questions. not only to our little solar system but to whats in the universe. this knowledge could entice mankind to travel into deep space, develope means and really find some interesting things. also the technology will grow and as usual man will benefit directly.

i am not an expert, but; the age of the Dino's began 240 millions years ago and ended 65 MYA. during this period the earth is thought to have been quite warm certainly by todays standards. global warming and cooling is primarily the effect of the sun, through the atmosphere. this can effect temperatures and climates. also the planet has some built in heat through its core. technically the planet is in a ten thousand year warming trend, from a mini ice age. say normal is -0-, in the temps at there coldest 10k years ago were about -7 or -8 and lets give the dino age a +10. from 8,000 BC to now the temperatures have see sawed a degree or two many many times increasing a fraction each see saw and is about +1/2 now. global warming is a good thing and cooling has caused many more problems over the years. if your concern is with environmentalist and their version of mans actions as to atmosphere, come back at me. but the weight or mass of earth could not have slowed the planet to any measurable degree. we do inch closer over all every century or so but our somewhat elliptical orbit already takes us closer and further w/o any apparent problem, so long as atmospheric condition hold. this is now 77 and 21% nitrogen and oxygen.

you have lots of company; many would go if given the chance. your age is in line, if the program is not set back. 2040 is what i hear. your more qualified for other research areas and a career with any governmental agency is not a lucrative endeavor.

from what i have seen your chart is off in both directions. however taking what you offer the solar effect is responsible for global heating. you do understand all the figures are in less than one percent? the suggested GH gas would seem to relate to sulfate some how, but i have no idea how or why this could be. your chart has no listing for the major natural production of greenhouse gases which represents near 95% of all in the atmosphere. since atmosphere is 21% oxygen and 77% nitrogen, whatever is in GH gas must be in that 2% missing figure and natures 95% takes care of most of that 2%.

yes we have all you suggest and desire. what we don't have is the money. NASA has Mars in there plans, per Bush's recent speech. the launch will be from the Moon and so on... what is "Mote Aerospace" if you do not already know this...???

certainly climate change, in the reference of global warming, has been out of control. much money that has been spent as well. the easier problems are being addressed and have been long before "Greenpeace" or any other extreme group addressed them. some major ones as well. as to cleaning the ground of waste material or contaminated properties or closing off old mine sites and such, i might suggest this is a good thing. as much as possible the makers of such things pay the price. the most costly per square foot project i know of is the grounds the Twin Towers set on. some old chemical and metal mine sites as well have been cleaned and new projects built on the property. in short its not in the end that costly. the origin of many projects was for the health and/or safety of near by residents and this needs to be considered. even picking up after your dog, has some medical ramifications.

short is the only success Ive had; visiting my ailing mother and Trying to impress her i showed off my prism invention, detecting motions unseen by our eyes. photosynthesis could be seen in action etc. i was called on a mission for the air force wanting information on cloud formations and while flying near by my mothers nursing home, my equipment picked up a strange light. it came from or near the home and moved north, into a cloud, but didn't go through. we followed the light into the cloud and for what was a brief moment she appeared and relayed lots of things from mind to mind, then disappeared. my life went on with rewards for inventions, government recognitions and much success but near my death that few seconds was all i justified as i knew what was to come... another was written in the third person. a student from a planet well out in space was on earth to study for his post graduate thesis, primitive life forms. in our years his life span was in the thousands of years and was to be picked up in 20 years. this was a longer story, but you can imagine the storyline from this...

about 2 billion years ago, micro organisms are known to have lived. true evolution would suggest that life evolved to the current level from that point. plant life or inorganic could have come from some chemical or electric action and probably preceded organic. i like to think major forms of life or complex, formed many times from this beginning and not some direct line. each from there went on to be the various types of organic life. that is the evovlement of life happened many times but all with the same elements. reptiles do have the longest history, but mammals were present most of their dominance and did survive through periods reptiles were nearly wiped out. man is mammal and if there is a direct link to mammals w/o reptiles would make sense. if not then ocean life to land and so on, would mean a link to reptiles back to sea life and so on... yes, everything organic and inorganic is somehow related to the others by genetics. if mans genetics is 100% (not to confuse with DNA) many forms of the Ape family are 98 to 99+ equals to mans structure, other mammals in the 90's and so on down to the lowest forms of organic life in the 50 to 70%. trees, plants and the rest are below this but have a good deal of the same genetic structure- 30-40 % or so. so in a way we are related to some degree by genetic to all life on earth. keep in mind however, there are just so many things that can result in life forms and these would be found in all life if ever found from any other planet. so even if something were found on another planet, it could show a genetic structure, similar to a like form on earth. this thing would not necessarily look like anything on earth now or ever in the past. that gets complicated with atmospheric, gravity and other conditions.

the black hole is the near final process in the death of giant star. evaporation the final. there is no wormhole into some thing out side our universe. the matter from the BH original star, the system it hosted or the near by matter that somehow became involved would not be enough to generate itself again, much less to form another universe. there may be other universe. if there are its probable there are as many others as there are galaxy in ours. unlike galaxy its not likely little ones would combine with bigger ones or that any one would collide with another. since we can see all the events in the deaths and creations of what we know of, primarily stars and galaxy and seem to have some consistency (no one star is over 25 times another or large well formed spiral galaxy are not astronomically different in size), the total universal size should not be growing. i am aware of red/blue shifts, how used and by whom for explanations but will hold that argument for another day.

black holes are a little complicated and not much is known. in the last few weeks, two interesting points have come up....1) in the process of implosion the the star rotation speed up dramatically. NASA observations shows three ranging from 300 to 1000 times per second. 2) gravity is thought to be about the same as any star of equal size.. giant stars that have lost there fuels or innards, burn out, collapse and form this unit and evaporate. the process may take millions of years but the process should be overlapping events. that is one process is ending another starting up. there is nothing i know to suggest the final collapse and evaporations could not both be in process. this is opinion; i have long felt gravity is not the cause of what we see in BHT. the process of matter imploding should create a vacuum that other matter should try to fill (suction) and this matter in movement would easily continue that direction and be involved in the BH theory. not necessarily that gravity is so strong for any unusual event.

yes, the post is personal opinion. however it is not original, just the one i agree with. there are a good many such professionals (people with letters after their names) dating from the 30's that have offered evidence to repute the findings. they are ongoing and i suspect are having more influence than you would like to admit. if you want mathematical formula, google Fred Walker and a 1999 essay. think he is now with U of Berkley, Cal....and working on earth quakes. distortions was a prime effect in his findings. as to the air port, this was a personal observation and the observance is compounded on film, where first noticed. i have also seen a few science discussions (on BBT and expansions) when the final thought was- a theory in progress and others should be considered.

spyman; you might check "radius" your version is close for "big bang" and this is accepted theory by many people in or out of science. this expanding part, likewise is connected to BBT and also generally accepted. however there are other viewpoints that should be considered. even those that have a different view from your, have some understanding what BBT is, needed to give argument opposed. my feeling on expansion, as stated are not necessarily in opposing to BBT. it may even be a possibility but in my opinion highly unlikely, without cause or need.

the known universe is what we can see and by various means determine distance. this is based on light speed and the light we see. as telescopes have progressed in technology we see further and they expect the Hubble update next year or the newer telescope scheduled for 2013, will provide additional lights. we see many things in space and by using a form of graduation of light (brightness to dimness) can get pretty close. when your talking billions, thats not as hard as you might think. no, few think thats the end of the universe. many opinions range to any limit you want to place on the idea. Even big bang theory (which camp i am not in) says space and time no doubt go further out and the theory will evolve to the final figure, if thats ever known. my personal opinion is we see so much of the same thing in all directions now that the same should be true at the limits seen. that is if you could look out from the most distant light and look back to us, then look on out into space and see basically the same, the limits would then be, the current 30 plus 30 in each direction or 90 billion total known universe. at some point some sign of a difference in a directions would indicate a limit. remember one light year is the time light can travel in one year at 186,000 miles per second. our sun light takes 8 light minutes to reach us.

my opinion is the universe is about the same size as it was 15 or 50 billion years ago. my opinion is based on need and there should be no need to expand. there is no little factory out there making matter and matter that is out there is in a constant mode of destruction and construction. the "known" universe is now near 30 billion light years across and i see no reason why it couldn't be many times the suggested 156. as to Mr. Edwin Hubble's, the Hubble's Space Telescope and the COBE's telescope observations and interpretations, i suggest they may be flawed. to start with everything in space is already moving at a very fast pace. our planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our little galaxy cluster are moving with a cum total. then you have distortion (visit an air port, watch a jet take off at dusk- the exhaust from a jet in the pink of the sunset will turn it back to blue sky) and with all the various forms of energy, debris dust and gases between these telescopes and that 15 billion year old light could easily be distorted. regardless of what the real universe is in size, its unlikely another (if some or many exist) is colliding or for reasons could collide. i have explained it like this...if you walked to the end of this universe and looked out into the next, then turn around and look at yours, they would appear near the same.

then what burns up in space and becomes mass, either falls as acid rain or exits earths atmosphere and is lost mass. the those altitudes I'll pick the latter.

there were many arguments from several people. i will admit i learned a few things from those post but have not eliminated gravity from the equation. as i have told many with your attitude, i offer opinion and have never suggested otherwise. also i seek opinion and if just wanted opinions from people with letters after their name id do more googling and less of this... i am sure your a very smart person and are able to smack down many opinions. the problem here is, your limiting those with opinions to express them with out fearing such face slappings. you are also aware that known data changes on a daily basis. accepted universal size, changed last week. a dog and cat cannot have an off spring changed a few days ago and the spin of black holes confirmed at 1000 times per second also last week.