[Tycho?]

Well, Hawking was apparently assuming that growth would continue with the same trends we have today. Now this is obviously not possible, current world population is about 6.3 billion people. I did a basic glance at population growth, and actually found something reffering to a Hawking quote, something like it doubles ever 40 years. So population of 6.3 billion doubles every 40 years for 700 years...

700/40=17.5 6.3*2^(17.5)=1167791.9

Over 100 trillion. Which is a stupidly high number, but each person would not have to burn much energy to make the earth a very very warm place indeed.... hell, maybe they could do it just on body heat!

Umm.... no.

There are 4 base dimensions for one thing, with string theory I've heard from 5-13 dimensions, dont know which one is favored right now.

Science is based upon facts' date=' and since man was not around to record the facts in pre-historic "time", then anything before man-made records cannot be considered a science, correct?

[/quote']

 

Incorrect. We observe light that was emitted billions of years ago. We find fossiles that were buried millions of years ago. We find geological formations created by glaciers thousands of years ago.

 

These are all things we use to learn about the world around us. They are most certainly sciences, and thing before records are definately science.

Discovery magazine had an article about space travel. They said a hydrogen

"maser" engine could accelerate to ½ the speed of light in 7 years.

How does this work, I've never heard of this before.

I just have to say, that that pear experiment was amazing.

Time travel is just ideas. Nobody knows how causality really works, so untill we build a time machine its just people arguing with no evidence to support anybody's claims. Which is why I dont like discussions about time travel, becausee everyone always argues their point while generally not accepting others. It is irritating.

Why use farenheight instead of the kelvin/celsius scale?

And for that matter, why use this temperature scale at all, kelvin seems to work very well.

Your opinions are baseless.

Being in other galaxies would be able to see it, but I dont think we would be able to see our own past.

I thought it was aeronautical engineering, not astro.

Well aeronautical engineering definately exists.

I just took a brief google search, and it seems it does exist, although "aerospace engineering" may be a mroe common term for it.

Time is not moving, I am saying that New space is added to the 4th dimension at the speed of light. Also, I am saying that the Universe could very probably be expanding at the speed of light also.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Listen to people here, or leave now. Too many people come here claiming to have brilliant new insights into the workings of the universe. Saying that is a sign of ignorance. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would be publishing a scientific paper on the subject, not posting on some internet forum.

Hey I think I've figured out 4th dimension speed. (speed of time)

I sometimes wish this was like another forum that I go to, where saying something like this would get you flamed for eternity.

A sphere has the lowest area for its volume of any 3 dimensional shape.

Well no, there isn't much dissention. For someone to dissent they would have to come up with a totally different theory for how everything works, while many of the ones we have now have been around a very long time and have been proven countless times. Tools can influence the development of theories by being increasingly accurate, and there by showing that a previous theory is accurate or inaccurate. If it is inaccurate, then it will be changed to one that does fit.

"I would be interested to know if there are any credible views in the scientific community which involve non-electromagnetic interpretations of natural phenomena"

There are 4 known fundamental forces. In no particular order they are: electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity.

I'm not really sure what you are looking for here.

When you talk about discreet points, are you talking about individual photons? Because those would be difficult to see. But yeah, sure this seems true.

Hmm, I didn't know that photons continually switched like that, I thought only high energy gamma rays did that. Wait a sec. When this happens to gamma rays, 2 photons are emitted when the pair collides. How does this happen with lower frequency photons?

If ANY mass crosses the event horizon of a black hole , it is accelerated to c ( light speed ) . The mass becomes infinite & hence the energy release becomes infinite ( even if time ( to an outside observer ) stops . Yet black holes seem to exist & must have accreted mass ( maybe the source of energy for quasars ? ). Infinite is infinite so how come the universe is still here ? Is Einstein only approximately correct ?

Einstein is pretty correct, since wherever you got your information is incorrect.

What exactly is what?

This is interesting, but it sounds like one of those theories that you can't really prove, or do much with. Would it expand into our universe? Would it even affect our universe? I dont think we really have enough information to answer important questions at the moment. So its just one of those big cosmological "might"s.

I love it when Martin respondes to his own posts, and nobody else does.

All of this is well above my current level of education.

Has anyone heard the latest on the situation with neutrinoless double beta decay. If it occurs then aren't there major problems with the standard model of beta decay?

neutrinoless? No I havn't heard anything on this, I thought beta decay always produced a neutrino. Have a linksy?

Velocity is relative. One is at rest, the other moves. The other is at rest, one moves. They both move. All equally valid. Its relative. And there is not "at rest", except for relative to something else.

Astronomy October 2004

http://www.astronomy.com/

I can't find it, can you find the article and post the direct link?