Enteroctopus

A few competing ideas exist, and seem to pass in and out of favor depending on the latest science (and often who you ask): The Big Crunch involves a beginning and an end, but as far as I know makes no predictions about anything else. Bang, expansion, contraction, crunch and done. This model is outlined in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers' Guide.." series as I think it was prominent at the time. The Cyclic Universe is a bang-crunch-bang-crunch universe that is infinite in the time scale, finite in the spacial dimensions. There are no beginnings, but rather expansion and contraction, repeat. It is comforting to think that this is all just cyclical, but we have no way to prove anything "before" or "after," so it's a non-falsifiable claim, much like the Multiverse. If the universe were cyclical or a part of a multiverse or a dream of a unicorn we have no way of testing that, so it's pure speculation unless someone invents a "dreams of unicorns" detector. Maybe they will some day. The Big Chill scenario involves a definite beginning with an infinite (in time) expansion and cooling leading eventually to everything, including black holes, evaporating away to nothing. Pretty dark and eerie idea, I'm not sure why no one's written a heavy metal album about it yet. As far as "Crunch or Chill?" that depends on the curvature of the universe and/or the specifics of Dark Energy, both of which are under debate at the moment. More recent data has supported the Chill scenario, but then I've heard some evidence to indicate that Crunch might be making a comeback. I like Crunch better, but that's a philosophical preference. Seems less like everything is pointless. Or maybe I should just accept it and become a Buddhist? I am not aware of anyone who supports a "no beginning" scenario. No scientists anyway.

"Beyond" implies "in addition to" not "instead of." Relativity is "beyond Newton" because it adds certain mathematical factors to existing physics. It in no way disproves Newtonian physics, it simply improves the accuracy of predictions at certain extremes, namely velocity (as in SR at near light speed) and gravitation (as in GR near neutron stars, black holes or similar). I don't see much need to go "beyond" Relativity unless it is an effort to reconcile QM, and for that String Theory, Quantum Gravity and the like are a good start. At least read Brian Greene to get an intro to that stuff, whether you believe it or not is up to you, but no sense reinventing the wheel when lots of smart people have been working at this for years.

This disregards the remainder of the spectrum. Why did Newton choose seven? He could see them, so he had some reasonably accurate means for showing that the observed colors were there, and others could repeat this in the affirmative. We can detect infrared, UVA, UVB and so on with modern sensors. They are not discreet "colors" but a continuous spectrum, although there are distinct peaks derived from the absorption and emission spectra of gasses, and so one can easily show that the sun or an incandescent bulb or a candle's flame have strong and distinct coloration. Of course they do! They have gasses absorbing and emitting light which account for the observation. Red and blue shift is further evidence of the continuity of the light spectrum because the distinct lines "move" depending upon the relative motion of the source.

This is somewhat speculative, but I suspect this is partly related to the types of tissue found in the lungs and their ability to regenerate, or lack thereof. Connective tissues are extremely resilient, withstanding acute insults far exceeding those of other tissues, but once damaged they don't tend to return to their normal level of function. One must simply manage, or treat the condition as-is. Emphysema is a lack of elasticity, that being a function of healthy connective tissue. That tissue develops in utero, and is largely done forming and growing in adults. The tenacity and malignancy of cancers is a function of their origin (cell type), blood supply, endocrine factors, and location. With lung cancers I'd imagine it is the cell type - probably sarcoma in a lot of cases - combined with the fact that as mentioned earlier you may enjoy many years of presumably healthy life with a steadily growing cancer. Once symptomatic it has often reached a grim stage.