Spyman

Link to full article: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-255

I think what you have read is about Lee Smolin's Fecund Universes: Fecund universes The fecund universes theory (also called cosmological natural selection theory) of cosmology advanced by Lee Smolin suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest scales. Smolin summarized the idea in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos. The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection. However, given any universe that can produce black holes that successfully spawn new universes, it is possible that some number of those universes will reach heat death with unsuccessful parameters. So, in a sense, fecundity cosmological natural selection is one where universes could die off before successfully reproducing, just as any biological being can die without having offspring. Leonard Susskind, who promotes a similar string theory landscape, stated: "I'm not sure why Smolin's idea didn't attract much attention. I actually think it deserved far more than it got" Smolin has noted that the string theory landscape is not Popper falsifiable if other universes are not observable. This is the subject of the Smolin-Susskind debate. There are then only two ways out: traversable wormholes connecting the different parallel universes and "signal nonlocality", as described by Antony Valentini, a scientist at the Perimeter Institute. In a critical review of The Life of the Cosmos, the astrophysicist Joe Silk suggested that our universe falls short by about four orders of magnitude of being maximal for the production of black holes. In his book Questions of Truth, the particle physicist John Polkinghorne has another difficulty with Smolin's thesis, in that one cannot impose the consistent multiversal time which would be required to make the evolutionary dynamics work, since otherwise short-lived universes with few descendants would dominate long-lived universes with many. When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun. If a more massive neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximum black hole production, because the mass of the strange quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for production of a black hole. A 2-solar-mass pulsar was discovered in 2010, so that cosmological natural selection has been falsified according to Smolin's own criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes#Fecund_universes There are speculations that the total sum of mass/energy in our Universe is zero, which could then mean that all that is required for a Black Hole is to cause the necessary conditions for a new Universe to get born.

I guess we interpret the OP differently, if you want to discuss some part more thoroughly you need to express your concern more precisely. While I agree with both J.C.MacSwell and csmyth3025, I would also like to point out that popular science articles almost always translates and mention the "observable universe" as simply the "Universe", which can cause some confusion in this matter. Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe We don't know in what size or from what conditions the Universe we observe today emerged, it could have been infinite already at the initial event of the Bang. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Well, first of all, we don't know how big the Universe is or how big it started out, we can only view a spherical volume around Earth which we call the observable universe. We don't know if the whole Universe is smaller or greater than the observable universe but most likely the whole Universe is much much bigger than the tiny part we can currently see. Secondly, the Universe is and has always, so far back in time we can view, been expanding so when we see something very distant, we don't really see how it looks today or where it is, we see light emitted sometime very far in the past and as such these objects emitting this light has probably changed a lot since then and further on they are no longer located anywhere close to where the light we see was emitted from. Lastly, the expansion of the Universe is not caused by objects moving outward through space, according to modern cosmology based on Einsteins theory of Relativity it is caused by space itself between objects expanding, and as such space is able to expand faster than the speed of light, making the observable universe grow faster than it is aging. The age of the Universe, ~14 billion years, is close to how long it took for the most distant light to reach us, but the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was emitted from a distance of only ~4o million lightyears and the matter that emitted it is now ~46 billion lightyears distant. When the CMBR we observe today was emitted, its source was receding from us with ~57 times lightspeed due to expansion of space and it is currently receding with ~3 times lightspeed. More reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

I think blue or green would be a better background color for special effects, since that would allow for easier adding of close stars, planets, moons, large spacestations or whatever is needed in the background. Chroma key compositing (or chroma keying) is a technique for compositing two images or frames together in which a color (or a small color range) from one image is removed (made transparent), revealing another image behind it. This technique is also referred to as color keying, color-separation overlay (CSO; primarily by the BBC), greenscreen, and bluescreen. It is commonly used for weather forecast broadcasts, wherein the presenter appears to be standing in front of a large map, but in the studio it is actually a large blue or green background. The meteorologist stands in front of a bluescreen, and then different weather maps are added on those parts in the image where the color is blue. If the meteorologist wears blue clothes, his clothes will become replaced with the background video. This also works for greenscreens, since blue and green are considered the colors least like skin tone. This technique is also used in the entertainment industry, for example for special effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

It seems like standard low frequency RC equipment works for the tiny depth of a few meters of fresh water, like in a swimming pool. After a small Google search I found this: I also found this buyable RC Submarine model:

Nice, but I wonder how the RC-system is built to transmit/recieve signals through water...

In free fall without air resistance: Fall Time: [math] \sqrt{\frac{6*2}{9.8}} = 1.1 s [/math] Velocity: [math] 9.8*1.1 = 10.8 m/s [/math] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#Uniform_acceleration

What do you mean with "circuit building"? I suggest you buy all RC components and focus on building the copter. If the information from Google is insufficient, you should buy a complete model kit with building instructions.

Have you tried searching with Google?

The cesium-133 atomic clock is precisely tuned to the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles when and only when the clock is on the ground on earth or when it rides the motion of earth. Once you decided that there is 9,192,631,770 beats in one second (on earth) whether these 9,192,631,770 beats stretch their own cycling motion or shorten that motion, doesn't make a difference as far as your count counts! You always count 9,192,631,770 and you call it a second. To have a different count you would have to move the clock in a different way than it moves on earth, which is precisely what happened in the experiment of time dilation. You can only compare clocks when they are side by side and at the same time. Here in your example, it is a clock that is running during the day that you compare to the same clock which is running during the night. You would need at least 2 clocks and then they would run together in unison no matter what. If 2 clocks remain side by side they run in unison no matter their internal variations. What I tried to say was that we can compare TWO clocks located close to the equator but on opposite sides of Earth. I don't see any reason why we would be unable to exchange signals with and compare the rate of these two clocks. The clocks are always moving in opposite directions, if we compare them when one is on the night side and the other one is on the day side and make a new comparison after twelve hours when they have switched places so we can check if the difference is consistent between the locations, then we can determine if there is an absoulute frame of reference.

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

Think about a "cogwheel tooth model", simply exchange "coconut" with "cogwheel" and "shell" with "tooth". "In this model our observable universe happens to be a tiny region embedded in the tooth of the giant cogwheel. We see homogeneous, isotropic, expansion everwhere. The thickness of the cogwheel tooth is greater than 90 Billion light years. The diameter of the giant cogwheel could be Trillions or Quadrillions (or perhaps Googols) of light years across." How can we decide which model is correct and which is false?

I take it you are a reincarnation of mpc755 and mpc7555 then? 9. Registering more than one account to yourself is not permitted without administrative approval. "Sockpuppet" accounts (those registered with the intent of using them to spread the original member's ideas, or for other malicious purposes) will be banned on sight, as well as those registered to evade a ban. ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules

AFAIK there is NO requirement of either expertise or education to participate here. I suppose you could post the list instead since you already have found nearly a dozen companies. People don't work here and don't get paid to help or answering questions. People replying here are trying to be helpful on their own spare time. I don't see how you are qualified to judge other peoples worth or make any demands of competence. From my experience I would say that the participants in this thread are sincere and trying to be helpful. The moderators here can see our IP addresses and multiple accounts are forbidden leading to ban. (I seriously don't think there is even one single duplicate account in this thread.) Secondly personal profile information are stored, so you can easily check how long time anyone have been a member. (I really doubt we all came here long before you, for the sole reason to stop you today.) No, that is simply wrong of you, there are lots of very intelligent and competent people around here that together cover a large area of expertice. Calling people stupid or incompetent won't help you much, you could certainly have started the thread better and fully explained the situation from the beginning, part of the "nonsense" is your own fault. How do you know he is watching, did you tell him about this site and your questions here? Threats are not allowed and I can't really see any point in your final rage rant against him.

You don't have to use hacking to get your account back, ask the administrators there for help. Have you tried the "I can't access my account" wizard at the bottom of the login screen?

No, I think he meant that people come here and start prank threads with false subjects to try to dupe us. People here are not stupid and you seem to be acting very strange. If you really are serious then you should tell us more and explain why you want to identify the drugs.

Send a PM to a Moderator, they can help you to edit and remove the image.

"If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space." Jodie Foster in the movie Contact. But what I think you might be looking for is the Drake equation.

The child is adorable and in general I agree with your argument, but: Photographs on the web could potentially draw unwanted attention, so I agree with Michel you are exposing {name removed}. You better belive that there are some who not only can say it but eagerly desire to prove it too.

There is no absolute space to measure speed against. Motion is measured relative the observers frame of reference. The special principle of relativity states that physical laws should be the same in every inertial frame of reference, but that they may vary across non-inertial ones. This principle is used in both Newtonian mechanics and the theory of special relativity. Its influence in the latter is so strong that Max Planck named the theory after the principle. The principle requires physical laws to be the same for any body moving at constant velocity as they are for a body at rest. A consequence is that an observer in an inertial reference frame cannot determine an absolute speed or direction of travel in space, and may only speak of speed or direction relative to some other object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity It doesn't matter which spaceship emitts the lightbeams since observers in both the spaceships consider themselves to be the one standing still. If the "moving" spaceship is intersecting perpendicular to the front view of the "standstill" spaceship, then observers in the "moving" spaceship see the "standstill" spaceship moving sidewise towards their front and then passing by towards their rear direction, with half the speed of light. Observers in both spaceships measures the two lightbeams to propegate with full lightspeed in their frame. Einstein postulated that the speed of light in free space is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the light source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity The "standstill" spaceship measures the other spaceship to pass with half lightspeed chasing the "forward" lightbeam with full lightspeed which makes them calculate a differenting speed of half lightspeed between the "forward" lightbeam and the other spaceship in the direction of movement. In the other direction they measure the "backward" lightbeam to recede with full lightspeed and calculate a speed differance of one and a half lightspeed between the other spaceship and the "backward" lightbeam. The "moving" spaceship measures the other spaceship to pass with half lightspeed chasing the "backward" lightbeam with full lightspeed which makes them calculate a differenting speed of half lightspeed between the "backward" lightbeam and the other spaceship in the direction of movement. In the other direction they measure the "forward" lightbeam to recede with full lightspeed and calculate a speed differance of one and a half lightspeed between the other spaceship and the "forward" lightbeam. It seems like an impossibility but the trick is that since the two spaceships are moving relative each other, they measure distance and time differently and therefore also ends up with different values for observed speed. Observers in both spaceships measures the clock in the other spaceship to tick to slow compared to their own. Time dilation is an observed difference of elapsed time between two observers which are moving relative to each other, or being differently situated from nearby gravitational masses. An observer will see the other observer's clock ticking at a slower rate than his/hers. This effect doesn't arise from technical aspects of the clock or the fact that any signal needs time to propagate, but from the nature of space-time described by theory of relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Observers in both spaceships measures the other spaceship to be shorter in direction of movement than their own. In physics, length contraction - according to Hendrik Lorentz - is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer of objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Sounds like a claim of a perpetual motion machine...

In the original ide by Smolin I don't think the Universes where physically connected by the wormhole, both the parent and the child could be infinite, the only thing passed on was slightly modified laws of nature. Other more recent models have it the other way around, our Universe expands because the Black Hole is feeding and growing. Recent speculations A more recently proposed view of black holes might be interpreted as shedding some light on the nature of classical white holes. Some researchers proposed that when a black hole forms, a big bang occurs at the core, which creates a new universe that expands outside of the parent universe. See also Fecund universes. The initial feeding of matter from the parent universe's black hole and the expansion that follows in the new universe might be thought of as a cosmological type of white hole. Unlike traditional white holes, this type of white hole would not be localized in space in the new universe, and its horizon would have to be identified with the cosmological horizon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole Michel you where born several years ago, your birth was a short event, not something that happens continuously, and yet you are still there... The formation of an Event Horizon or a wormhole is very short but the following duration afterwards could be very long, according to our timescale the Black Hole containing our Universe would have formed ~14 billion years ago and our Universe is still here, developing and aging. Whether the child Universes gets destroyed or if only the wormhole connecting them vanishes when the Black Holes evaporates, I don't know, but compared to the timescale our Universe has existed so far, our Black Holes will prevail much longer and a blink inside is an eternity outside.

Why is someone more concerned with finding out what kind of drug is used instead of who the perpetrator is? My guess is Michel is on the right track and the person's identity is already known...

AFAIK, when matter collapses into a Black Hole a wormhole is formed and a new Universe is created with a Big Bang on the other side of it. Our Big Bang is therefore thought to be located inside a Black Hole in another parent Universe.