Airbrush

"...scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time...."[ /i] I think what he means is that gravity slows time, so the more massive the gravity field, the greater time is slowed down. But to get very close to a very massive object requires you to travel very fast in orbit around it, and traveling faster also slows time.

I thought I heard that matter falling into any-sized black hole will be accelerated at light speed (or very near light speed), after crossing the event horizon, towards the singularity. Extreme acceleration would begin far outside the event horizon of any-sized black hole. This acceleration would be so extreme that you would be dead before you crossed the event horizon of any-sized black hole, including supermassive ones. How long would a spaceship survive after getting caught by a supermassive black hole, when the escape velocity exceeds the spaceships top speed? I think the time would be very tiny.

One thing we know is, there hasn't been a Big Bang, in this vicinity of space-time, since the original about 13.7 Billion years ago. Maybe Big Bangs can happen anywhere at any time, and we are lucky to not experience another.

The number I've heard is 70% of all species were extinguished by the K/T asteroid 65 Million years ago.

As usual, you make good points Phi for all. It will take time for me to respond, if I can.

If all people are "broken" then how did the human population grow so successfully? People are functional enough to dominate the Earth. After the eruption of the supervolcano Toba 72,000 years ago, the human race was decimated, and yet these "broken" people came back with a vengence.

People are not "broken" they are imperfect. Broken is a serious exaggeration. All creatures are imperfect. Broken is not the word.

Simple physical exams include weighing-in, blood and urine tests, a series of questions, etc, are not terribly invasive. A doctor can track the progress of his patients. Progress is what counts. People simply need to be inspired to try to be healthy. Gym membership is not enough. Oh yeah, and tax junk food to subsidize healthier alternatives. Also, produce is often poor quality. How often do you eat an orange that is really sweet? Is there a way to control the fertilizing and growing of produce to ensure is it top quality? People bite into a sour orange and throw it away (for life) and grab that dependable candy bar, which is always sweet.

To control health care costs you need to penalize people for overusing health care. Healthy people who work hard at taking good care of themselves don't need to see a doctor as much as irresponsible people who don't make any effort at staying healthy. Accidents will happen and even the most dilligent "physical-fitness-health-nut" may need a doctor to sew up a bad cut, set a broken bone, or rotator cuff surgery. But if somebody lives on junk food and never exercises, they should have to pay a higher premium.

Your opening question was way beyond me, then you asked an easy question. If you look for "cosmic inflation" on wikipedia.com, the first paragraph tells you when it happened. "In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate." Funny though how then can split hairs over when it ended. They seem to know so precisely about it that they know it was between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds after the moment of bang. How is that possible?

I just saw an incredible news story on TV about a car that drives itself. It uses GPS and for "fine-tuning" has a spinning dome on top of the car with lasers scanning the surroundings. It has a nearly perfect image of all sides of the car, simultaneously, which is something humanly impossible. The car steered and accelerated on its' own, at rather high speeds, around an obstacle course, with perfect results. According to the inventor, the driverless car is not far away. It is invented by Sebastian Thrun of Google.

Good point. But what if religious belief has a survival value within certain societies? Then becoming "broken" by learning to believe in God will facilitate survival, reproduction, and longevity. Some people may rather stay "broken" healthy and happy. Most important is how you eat, which is my religion. We are HOW we eat (among other things).

As mentioned above the Gaia hypothesis is what you mean by "God". The Earth seems to regulate itself to allow life to thrive. "The Gaia theory posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The theory sustains that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.[1] "Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements. These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic desequilibrium state of the Earth system....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

I wonder if the word "broken" is appropriate. It implies that a person was previously in an unbroken state. How many people are atheists until they become broken by believing in god? I think more commonly a person, such as myself, was raised in a religious household and never thought much about it. After they became educated (especially by learning about how many different and conflicting religions there are) they began to question their beliefs. Even the word "believe" is not appropriate. A better word would be "accept" as in accepting a religion without giving it much critical thought. The word "believe" implies some kind of confidence in a religion, which I believe most people do not feel. We just "go with the flow" to blend in socially and appear pious to our peers. Religion or superstitions are things people accept, without believing much. It is a kind of comfortable thoughtlessness. "Ignorance is bliss." Maybe "God" is something that exists, but is too subtle to detect scientifically.

Is the universe generally accepted as having expanded at its' highest speed shortly after the moment of the Big Bang (inflation)? When inflation ended, expansion slowed down. Then gravity slowed down expansion even more? Finally, several Billion years ago the universe began to accelerate in expansion?

First step, I think, is to be able to survive for many years or decades in a spaceship with radiation shielding and artificial gravity. When that has been achieved, the next step would be a base under the surface of the Moon, Mars, or any asteroids. I believe artificial gravity could be created in sub-surface bases on the Moon, Mars, or asteroids by building living quarters that rotate, like a merry-go-round with floor sloping towards center, adjusting whatever gravity present to one G (I've never heard of this before, has anyone?). A spaceship that can get water from asteroids should be able to produce their own air, water, and fuel.

An ETI capable of traveling at 0.3c can certainly also decelerate by its' own sophisticated power.

The supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies has no affect whatsoever on the stars, dust, and gas outside the central region. Even a 4 Million solar mass black hole at the center of our Milky Way is a relatively small mass compared to hundreds of Billions of solar masses disbursed throughout the galaxy, not to mention the mass of gas, dust, and dark matter. Compared to the mass of the entire galaxy, the central SBH is insignificant, gravitationally.

You are correct that water waves interact, but that interaction does not destroy them as individual waves. Water waves travel in a complex pattern in a wave train. There are a number of waves traveling in a train and they change places like a conveyor belt or an escalator (imagine a conveyor belt of waves traveling on wheels), with each wave of the train, in turn, passing through the other waves in the train, as their individual speeds change.

There is just more matter in the vicinity of a giant star. Even after the star ignites, it can continue to grow from planets, asteroids, and even binary companion stars crashing into it. Most stars are smaller than our Sun, and very few are larger than 100 solar masses. This tells us the size of stars is limited by the amount of gas and dust in their immediate area.

Not a stupid question to me, nor is the answer obvious. Water waves reach the shore, from thousands of miles away, as distinct waves. They do not end up as a "mess" of waves. I'm not sure about light waves. Anyone else?

A tiny amount a matter contains a huge amount of energy (E=mc^2) and that is constant whether it is a star or black hole. When a star supernovas most of the matter is blasted off into space and much is converted into pure energy which also radiates away at the speed of light. What is left is enough matter to squash itself into a black hole. It never gains energy in the process.

Yes, if they have been here for a while, they may know more about us than we know about ourselves! Maybe with their advanced technology they can learn more about us in a few years than we could learn about bacteria in centuries.

Few stars can be found with masses greater than 100 solar masses. Is a star of millions of solar masses even possible? I think only a supermassive black hole can have that great a mass. Yes, please provide a link.

What do you want to know about gravity?