Thales

What about a cyclical universe? Then there is more than one everything...

I don't think StarCraft is a valid scientific reference.

It is entirely possible that other universes exist. Another universe being a 'region' of a multiverse where the laws of physics are different and it is not in contact with our space time.

I'm not voting in the US, but I would assume one great reason would be that he's not Bush???

Howard is more 'economically' responsible, in that he runs the country like a business, its all about the bottom line. However after blindly following Mr Bush into a hornets nest, and signing away many of the things that makes us Australian, to the US, Latham is the more attractive option for me. Sure he might not be a natural born leader but if you ever listen to Howard "answer" a direct question, it becomes clear that he doesn't see himself as accountable for anything. That and Mr Howard places more emphasis on big business than on Health and Education. Something I am adamitly against. So for me its Latham then Greens, with the Deomcrats getting my senate vote.

Q: Why don't you ever see lawyers at the beach? A: The cats keep covering them up with sand.

The level of bureaucracy in most space oriented institutes is amazing. I would even go so far as to say that a large majority of the cash spent goes to wages of unnessercary employees. We also have maintained competative approach to a common goal, as someone already stated, is a hangover from the cold war. Sure there will be applications society will implement, applications which have the potential to make money, but these are a byproduct of the process and shouldn't be the reasoning that drives it. International cooperation on space research would bring countries together, bind them on a basis that doesn't rotate around money. Reinstill confidence in humanity, that goes missing when we start trying to blow each other up. I think that we can never spend 'enough' on the pursuit of knowledge. I grow weary of the thoughts for economic viabilty that hinder real human progress. That said, I am aware of the reality in which we live, aware but morose no less.

There are more interesting reads than the dictionary, say, the rest of this thread for instance. Sayo and I already thrashed out the what is a universe question previously. Oh and MX, please don't quote me out of context as the last five words of that sentence were indeed its crux.

edit: Pulkit explains it better below...

True. The 'Mars' like object was a proto-planet similar in mass to mars but different in material. It is thought to have formed at one of the Lagrange points (most likely L4) in the proto-earth - Sun system. False. The Earth-Moon system rotates around its shared centre of mass or barycenter. The Earth is much larger than the Moon so the barycenter is in the Earths interior. There is a 'wobble' caused by the Moon (when viewing the earths orbit around the Sun. However it is the Moon that orbits Earth. Partially True. Some water would have been deposited via comets. Much of it however is also thought to have come from the rocks in the earth. False. If there is the potential for life to exist elsewhere then it would be highly highly highly improbable that we are the first. The Earth however is not only rare but unique' date=' but seeing as the organic material needed for life exists in comets one would assume that other Earth-like planets may exists and even if they don't it would be naive to assume life cannot exist in different forms/environments to ours. False. The Kuipier Belt is located just beyond Pluto (at about 10^6 km). The Oort cloud is much futher away, a large fraction of the distance to the nearest star (around one light year). They are not the same but are thought to consist of similar objects, ie cold, small, icey/rocky, objects.

Firstly scientifical is not a word. Secondly your explaination/graphics were based purely on conjecture which people tried very dilligently to explain to you was erroneous.

Ignorance is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is an attitude. To ignore something, you are aware of its existance but you choose to not understand it. In many respects Mr. MX, you are ignorant. Ignorant to concepts such as manners, and ignorant of the extent (or lack there of) of your intellect. By the way choosing to abuse drugs impresses no one here. It is not something to be proud of.

rgr

I know what it is, but I'm not telling. Well at least not yet, give us a few months

I am not American and I won't vote but I will say this; If Bush is re-elected it will not reflect well on the American public(as the rest of the world see's it) and we will be in for the most dangerous four years in the worlds recent history. Not to mention heading towards global meltdown at an ever increasing rate. Bush is a moron, and if you can't see that, then you maybe one too...

That depends on your definition of close. Time dialtion occurs with all particles that have velocity, its just the faster you go the more profound the effect becomes.

Arrogance breeds ignorance my friend. I think you would be doing everyone a favour if you chilled out a bit. DreamLord is obviously curious and trying to understand what is a difficult and convoluted subject. Putting people down isn't a great way to communicate and if you think the tone in which you have dealt with explaining things has somehow made yourself look more intelligent, then you would be sorely mistaken. These forums are supposed to be an outlet for inquisitive(and sometimes young) minds. Beratting people hardly encourgaes openess in thinking and while those of us who have the answers feel somewhat obliged to share them, we should do so in a constructive manner. DreamLord has a definate point, in that just because their is no evidence for an idea does not mean it shouldn't be thought about and discussed, assesed on its merits/drawbacks, which is why we are here.

So its not a rock? and its beautiful? You really do need help...

Jordan......chillax Maybe its because music is a big part of peoples lives, people who may not have time to read through the archives after joining the site...that and its something interesting non-sci to chat about??? Anyways tis an interesting cross section, lots of old school rockers in here. PS. Wasn't Linkim Parks album called Hybrid Theory, I didn't realise they were ever called hybrid theory though...

This movie makes you think, I think some people are afraid of that. Afraid that if even some of the movie is right, then they have been wrong. People don't like to be wrong....so they are afraid instead.

yourdadonapogos, you are right, a suitible definition of the universe is;everything. However there could be other everythings, other zones of space-time, other bubbles that 'decay' out of a false vacuum, other incarnations of our universe (our's in the sense that it is our everything). One can also talk about 'other' universes in the sense of cyclical universes. Sure, for each sequential universe, time has no meaning before 'their' big bangs. But something triggered the expansion, so something exists 'outside' our everything. Oh and AtomicMX, what gives you such confidence in the assertion that there is no multiverse? No other everythings? Just because it sounds crazy and has been degraded of its sciencfic credibility by cheesy sci-fi shows does not mean it does not exist. Proving its existance directly may be impossible, but if the maths is solved by its inclusion or a TOE states there should be one/many other universes we may have to make the call and accept we are not alone, in the universes... A wormhole can be a Einstein-Rosen bridge but it may not always be the case (ie if it doesn't lead to another part of the universe(it could land you in the past for instance...)

Any out an out violations of relativity, that exist in the real world would have been headline news, so the answer would be, other than hypotheticals, that there aren't any that we know of. Thats the beauty of Einstein's theories, written nearly 100 years ago and yet to be disproved...

Just out of curiosity what type of music fo you guys/gals like? I find all to often 'popular' music is what the record companies tell us to be popular and rarely reflects intelligent people choice in aural enjoyment. Personally I am a big fan of Breakbeat(also sometimes called Nu-skool) which is basically electronic music built around a syncopated or 'broken' beat (see Freestylers, Stanton Warriors, Rennie Pilgrem etc.). I like a fair bit of Drum and Bass also (Aphrodite and the like). Nothing like phat worbling bass with crazy drum loops to sooth the soul.

No offense, but you have convinced me of nothing. This theory contains very little physics and much conjecture. Perhaps fine-tune your idea a bit futher before continuing...