JohnF

I don't see the expansion in space, distance between galaxies, as the cause of this effect. The expansion in space is how we observe the acceleration through space time. All particles are accelerating through space time but some are moving faster. The more massive an object is the more distortion all it's particles cause and so the faster it travels. There's a resistance in space time to the expansion. I suppose you could even think of gravity as a force pushing us towards a massive object; the pressure of space time's resistance to the expansion.

I have assumed that if all the matter in the Universe was compressed in to a very small volume at, or just after, the big bang then the space between particles must have increased. Also, a very simple analogy, if the plank of wood and the ruler you use to measure it are expanding at the same rate then the plank will never be longer than expected; all particles are expanding. I suppose that if Earth was outside of the gravitation effect of the sun then gravity would be different on Earth since at the moment Earth is accelerating through space time distorted by the sun.

I wouldn't expect it to make any difference. Light is a part of this expanding Universe. The gravity we feel is as a result of our acceleration through space time or something yet to be determined (whatever is outside of the Universe). Is it important what happens to gravity at that point?

I'm not suggesting the Universe is expanding at a constant rate or that it is the expansion that causes gravity. What I'm suggesting is that the acceleration of the expansion is the cause for gravity. And if the acceleration continues at the present rate, then gravity will remain the same.

What I'm suggesting is that gravity is the same as the force felt when in a vehicle accelerating at 1G not that we are being pushed apart. We have gravity because the Universe is accelerating and so we feel the effect. On this basis, if the Universe stopped expanding we would have no gravity; or perhaps if the Universe continued to expand at a constant rate, rather than an increasing rate, we would have no gravity. So when the Universe was at it's smallest, before expansion began, there was no gravity.

Could gravity just be an effect from the expanding universe? Since the universe occupied such a small space at the start then it would seem that the space between each particle has increased. If this is true then wouldn't the space between particles still be increasing? So in effect every particle is accelerating away from every other particle and in doing so distorts space/time and causes the effect we call gravity. The more massive the object is the more accelerating particles it has and so the greater the distortion on space/time.

We didn't try this as some sort of formal experiment; it was just a curiosity to us. We have always assumed that there was a simple and natural explanation for what we could do. We did our best to eliminate things like seeing a reflection or hearing a sound but it was certainly not a controlled experiment. With regard to accuracy. Whenever we decided to try it we would get some false results at first. After a few attempts we then started to find we could receive every time. After a dozen or so hits we would go and do something else instead. So the 100% would be from when we were getting it right until we got fed up with doing it. One interesting point though was that none of us could send a 'pulse' to the other two at the same time; only ever to the one we were focused on.

That's an interesting idea but one of them, my brother, lives 40 miles away so we don't get to see each other much now. The other, a friend, we havn't seen for about 15 years. I might try this experiment with my wife if she's willing to put down her laptop for a while. As for your practical application, we didn't have mobile phones in the late 70's so the idea would never have occured to us. Now though, it may save me £1 or so per year. You could always try it yourself. If I remember correctly we started to get good results after about 8 or so hours of practice.

It did at first. It was difficult not to end up laughing at each others anticipation of what was going to happen. Line of sight was a requirement according to the programme. We were all in the same room, about 15 feet apart. All I can say is that is what happened. I suppose everyone, including me, thinks that to discover a new ability would be life changing but in the end it all became too easy. Since we couldn't think of a use for it we just left it alone. Although it may be useful to be able to do it to a stranger we did feel that our ability was tied to us practicing together. There were always three of us in the room. Usually, one received, another sent whilst the third sat in site of both of us. The receiver could not see either of the other two. Although at first we tried it in a quiet room we soon found that TV sound or music had no effect. Eventually we tried it with two receivers where the sender just picked who to send to. Only the correct receiver responded. The receiver was picked by the sender rolling a dice; even for one, odd for the other. The dice was left in the middle of the room so that the receivers good see it when they turned. From our point of view it just became something we could do but with nothing we could do with it.

Many years ago, probably about 30, my brother and I watched a programme on TV about sending "thought pulses" to people. The idea was that you looked, or stared, at the other person without them being aware of it whilst imagining a ball of light appear in you head. You then projected this ball of light, by thought, towards the other person which would make them look around to your direction. We were quite amused by this idea and the both of us, plus a friend, decided to try this; we were clearly very bored. Anyway, after practising for a while we found it actually worked. In fact after about a week of practice we found that we could get each other to acknowledge "the pulse" with 100% accuracy. Receiving a pulse kind of felt like something touching the back of your head but was not very tangible. Since we couldn't think of a practical application for this new "ability" we eventually got bored with it and stopped testing each other. Does anyone have any sort of explanation as to how this could have worked? Perhaps this thread should be in "Pseudoscience and Speculations".

Found this on another forum...

I see you misunderstood the original question then. Considering this is Pseudoscience and Speculations my original question was based on the idea that the land became submerged; speculative. I then went on to consider whether the salt would remain in solution indefinitely. I would further suggest that even without life the oceans/seas would still contain salt within the current geology. Nice try though; keep it up.

Which of my questions were you attempting to answer?

Thanks for those answers insane_alien. How long do you think it will take then before all of the oceans/seas become saturated in salt/minerals? I suppose it's possible to calculate how much land erosion will be required based on the water volume and it's current mineral content. And when that time comes what will the marine life be like? What will boats be like for that matter?

Can you be a little more specific please. What natural conditions could cause the salt to become separated from the water? Also, is it possible that the surface water could be salt free (very little salt) whilst the water at greater depth was more saturated?

Does salt remain in dilution indefinitely then or does it eventually separate out?

If the land mass were ever to become covered in water how long would it take for the ocean to loose it's salt content; if it ever would?

It's the gas pipes in a paper trench that would worry me; or perhaps the water pipes. One leak and you get soggy paper that bends and breaks the gas pipe followed by a break in the electrical cable causing a spark to ignite the gas and the whole paper town goes up in smoke.

Lockheed: People didn't just leave Africa and move to Europe or Asia, they will have drifted outward. They will have also moved in quite small stages, ensuring a supply of food and essential resources before going further. There will be plenty of reasons for doing what they did, for building boats etc. over and above "because it's there". You should ask yourself first, what reasons could they have for doing it? You will find plenty. You even take the trouble to end your paragraph with a list of reasons for doing things other than "because it's there". I really don't think the USA sent men to the moon "because it's there"; they did it because it was politically usefull. Since the last man visited the moon, the moon is still "there" but that just isn't enough of a reason to go "there".

Not really. Some will have expected to find wealth on their explorations, others fame perhaps. They will all have expected to return home within a reasonable, to them, period of time. Where the possibility of death existed then you have denial or "it will never happen to me" thought to counteract it. People will do things because of what they can get out of it and because they are in a position to do those things. Going to another galaxy is going to require a massive investment both from individuals and groups, nations, even the whole planet. There is going to have to be a very good reason for all those people to put so much time in to such an undertaking. I would doubt that even survival of the species would be enough of an incentive to get such a journey underway; humans, like all other animals, are just too selfish. However, if future discoveries enable people to travel such distances in a relatively short time and at a reasonable cost then I am sure many will undertake the journey. But if one person could make the journey one way and not communicate back or return then would any one person want to go?

YT2095: I knew exactly what you were getting at with Everest. What I am saying is "because it's there" is not enough of a reason to do something. You do something "because you can" and being able to do it requires lots of other things to be true. If going to another galaxy would take more than a lifetime then anyone that sets off isn't going to get there. Next time you want to buy something consider travelling to the other side of the country to buy it from a branch of a store there that you would have used locally. This is not something you would do just because the other store is there; you would buy locally. There are lots of reasons why people do things but "because it's there" is only one of them. The greater cost of any of the lives that were lost in attempting to climb Everest is my time. My time is what I have. The lives of others are not mine, neither is the time they had.

When you press a key on a keyboard you are, for the duration of the key press, creating one or more electrical paths that are detected by an electronic component. This component stores a number in it's memory that represents the electrical pattern it has detected because of the key being pressed. When you release the key the stored number is sent along the keyboard cable as a series of electrical pulses. When an electrical signal is detected on the keyboard cable by the CPU it causes the CPU to monitor the incoming signal. This signal is interpreted by the CPU as a number, a number that represents the letter on the key you pressed. The CPU stores this number in memory and also changes the memory used to store the screen display so as to display on the screen, in an appropriate place, the graphical representation of the key that you pressed. So as you can see, pressing the key causes the computer to store the key press and also indicate to you what key was pressed. At this level the computer is not 'looking' at what is on the screen. The screen is there to let you know what the computer is doing. When a computer does 'look' at what is on the screen it is to read the screen memory and use whatever it had stored there before. Each pixel on the monitor is a representation of one or more bits in the screen memory on the graphics card or within the computers memory. This process continues until you press a particular key, perhaps the return/enter key, that causes a new response from the computer. Think of it as someone asking you a question. You remember each word until you have a complete sentence that forms a question. A change in pitch of the others persons voice is the key to you knowing when the complete question has been asked. Unlike the computer though you don't repeat each word the other person says to you. Once you press the return/enter key on the keyboard the computer then reads all the characters it has stored from your key presses. At this point it could be some software like an interpreter that is being run to process the key strokes. By reading each key value in turn the software will determine what instruction you have given. If the instruction is valid, of the correct syntax, the computer will then attempt to execute the instruction. It may be that to execute the instruction the computer will adjust the display memory in such a way so that you will see the result of the instruction being executed on your monitor.

Everest is the highest mountain on our planet; it is a limit. Another galaxy though is just another galaxy. Climbing Everest isn't too expensive either. In terms of real cost it uses up a relatively small amount of a persons available time and perhaps a small amount of a few other peoples time. Considering what a galaxy is made up of, it seems likely that what is in one galaxy is also in the next. If there were mountains on each continent as high as Everest then you are going to climb the one closest to you first. And if climbing that one takes up a significant amount of your available time then you are unlikely to travel to another continent to repeat the process for no gain. It all comes down to cost. Travelling to another galaxy is going to be very expensive. If it is going to cost more than you have then why would you do it?

I wouldn't consider that a justification. What are the chances of finding something in another galaxy that we couldn't find in our own galaxy? Not only would we need to know that something existed in the other galaxy, but not in our own, we would also have to find it; and it would have to be worth the expense of going there. I'm assuming though that intergalactic travel will always be expensive.

You could wait for a galaxy to coalesce; assuming you have sorted out interstella travel. But why would anyone want to travel to another galaxy? What could justify such an undertaking?