Spyman

Please read the ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules, especially: 5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. and: 10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

You are to late, Lee Smolin already suggested the Fecund universes theory 1992 and it was falsified by his own criteria 2010. 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. ... 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

Sounds like murder to me, IMHO the only person able to determine the worth of his life is the patient himself.

Speculations are allowed as long as you abide by the rules and keep discussions polite and scientific. IMHO the staff here is very friendly and allows posters lots of wiggle room, it's needed to disobey the rules more than once and ignore several warnings before a permanent ban takes place.

This thread might answer your question: Banned/Suspended Users.

No, if you want to challenge already accepted scientific consensus then the burden of proof is upon you. And for the third time: Why are you twisting this thread off-topic? Speculations on the nature of Dark Matter does NOT belong in the context here!

Yes, that is correct, but you didn't explain why speculations of Dark Flow or Dark Matter belongs in this thread. Dark Flow is not confirmed and even so those claimed measurements only reach ~3 billion lightyears out. Dark Matter is not likely undetected Brown Dwarfs, since we observe an otherwise impossible abundance of Deuterium.

Nah, all those bad things won't happen to me anyway...

The main value of the simulation is not the results themselves but what you might learn by doing it.

Widdekind, I don't understand what you are trying to say... First, the Great Attractor is not outside of our past lightcone, we can see it and are pulled towards it. Secondly, there are likely galaxies located so that can see us but not the Great Attractor and to them we are pulled towards something they can't see, but I don't understand the "strangeness" of that view. Lastly, I don't see the relevance of your post to the age of Brown Dwarfs versus the Big Bang theory.

Yes, but the little 1-phase fan the OP already has is certainly not likely one of those and I don't think it's possible to modify it easily either.

Yes, your old motor is not electrically reversible.

The Arduino is a small microcontroller and the "shield" is a complementary circuit board adapting its functionality to different usages. An Arduino board consists of an 8-bit Atmel AVR microcontroller with complementary components to facilitate programming and incorporation into other circuits. An important aspect of the Arduino is the standard way that connectors are exposed, allowing the CPU board to be connected to a variety of interchangeable add-on modules (known as shields). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino

Since this is posted in homework my guess is the fans are going to be small. I suggest DC fans with polarity change.

But the synchronization was not part of the question, they are assumed to be synchronized. During acceleration they are out of sync, but each would also see himself turning off the engines first. Yes, but also not part of the question.

Any aliens anywhere can measure the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and tell how long time it has gone since the Big Bang. Not a very precise calender when dealing with several billions of years but they would get roughly the same values that we get.

I am not an expert on Relativity but AFAIK you have to be in the observers frame of reference when interpreting his experiences. This is what Janus was pointing out, there is no absolute "rest" frame, in the view of the pilots they are the ones at rest. Yes, a time interval has elapsed between the emission time and reception time, there is a time lag but since they are not moving there will not be any space lag, i.e. the signals will not appear to come from a distance behind the objects because without movement there is no behind. No, gravity will be acting on the projectiles even before launch and the only thing keeping those angles is the physical pressure from the launch tubes pushing on the projectiles while the engines on the base stations are compensating for gravity and keeping the launch tubes parallel. As soon as the projectiles leaves the launch tubes gravity will start to pull them together and change the angles. When the pilot looks out through the side window he will se the other projectile perpendicular to the back-front direction of his projectile but when he looks out through the back window the base station will no longer be directly behind him. I did not think you did either, sorry if I was unclear and appeared to argue that you did. No, I said no lag in "space", there will of course be lag in "time", so there is no instantaneous action. If the pilot sends a radar ping bouncing off the other projectile, he aims perpendicular to his back-front direction and gets the ping back exactly perpendicular to his back-front direction. The forth and back trip of the ping takes time, but since they are not moving it can not come from any other direction than straight from the other projectile which is located perpendicular to his back-front direction. Ok, so lets remove the base stations and make the projectiles true spacecrafts with engines. They are located in parallel directions a distance apart and at rest with each other. At exactly the same moment they accelerate equally and then turn off their engines and coast in freefall. Before the launch one pilot looks out through his side window, did he see the other spacecraft perpendicular to his back-front direction? If the spacecrafts are convertibles and the pilots are holding a rope taut between them, what will happen when they ignite their engines? If they start exactly at the same time, accelerate equally and also turns off their engines exactly at the same time, so that they can be considered to be at rest with each other as they were before the launch, then why would they appear to be at different locations after launch?

The pilot in any one of the projectiles consider himself and his projectile to not be moving, when he looks out through his window he can see that the other projectile is not moving either and it is therefore effectively at rest with him. When he measures the direction of its influence of gravity on him it points exactly towards where he sees it. Since both projectiles are not moving they can not observe any lag in space neither for gravity nor EM radiation. Note also that it was DrRocket and not ajb that made the statement of gravity and curvature.

I vote positive on any post I happen to like or posts that have good explanations and give negative votes for posts with very bad attitude or behavior and posts stating clearly false scientific claims as real facts. I also have made it a personal rule to NOT vote negative on posts I argue against in discussions where I partake. Sometimes, IMHO, persons are using misleading and delusive tactics in their arguments and while their post are very well formulated, seems polite, without bad wordings, attacks and insults, they still are immoral and unethical, made in dishonest purpose to trick and deceive. In addition they often stall discussions, cherry pick easy to counter arguments and tap dance around difficult ones, making threads unnecessary long and complicated and waisting both readers and repliers time. When the "culpable" is very good and cunning in debating it is not always easy to determine this behavior and can take several posts to find out. This manner earns negative votes by me, on every post made in the thread I encounter it in, even if some posts on their own would not otherwise deserve it. Note though that I don't think I am repsonsible for the negative votes you are mentioning. IMHO, I don't agree. The feat of continuously gaining negative points without getting banned does NOT make someone respectable. Not getting banned only indicates that the poster is able to abide and follow the rules, which obviously is more than what some people coming here can handle, but still very far from what I require for earning my respect. That does not mean that anyone continuously getting negative votes have to be irrespectable either since the current voting system can be used unfair as personal attacks or simply to show that you disagree. And WHY would I be less repectable because I happen score a postitive point for a good joke? Of course scoring for a good joke doesn't make anyone more respectable either but since a good joke is not irrespectible and the voting system is not supposed to be exclusively to measure persons respectability, I think it's fine to give and earn positive votes for appreciation. How do you know that all anonymous voters in your case vote negative only because they disagree? I agree that there likely are some who do and also possibly a few who use negative voting as personal attacks. I also agree that negative votes should not be used because you happen to disagree with whats said in a post. (And of course not for personal attacks either.) However we only get ONE negative vote per day and post, so if someone continuously are getting negative votes for a longer duration and more than one negative vote per post, then there is clearly more to it than a personal attack or people disagreeing. What I have seen so far, I do think in general most people who continue to get negative votes deserves them, maybe it could be viewed as a partial consensus amongst the community that the poster is doing something wrong.

Radiation pressure is electromagnetic and not from massive particles, but the CMBR would exert a very tiny force on a slow moving spacecraft.

Yes and if so they would be included with other types of baryonic Dark Matter as Massive Compact Halo Objects. But there can't be enough unseen normal matter to account for all of the observed gravity, since that would cause much harder to explain problems with our understanding of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Massive astrophysical compact halo object, or MACHO, is a general name for any kind of astronomical body that might explain the apparent presence of dark matter in galaxy halos. A MACHO is a body composed of normal baryonic matter, which emits little or no radiation and drifts through interstellar space unassociated with any solar system. Since MACHOs would not emit any light of their own, they would be very hard to detect. MACHOs may sometimes be black holes or neutron stars as well as brown dwarfs or unassociated planets. White dwarfs and very faint red dwarfs have also been proposed as candidate MACHOs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object In astronomy and cosmology, baryonic dark matter is dark matter (matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter) composed of baryons, i.e. protons and neutrons and combinations of these, such as non-emitting ordinary atoms. Candidates for baryonic dark matter include non-luminous gas, Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs: condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets), and brown dwarfs. The total amount of baryonic dark matter can be inferred from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and observations of the cosmic microwave background. Both indicate that the amount of baryonic dark matter is much smaller than the total amount of dark matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter Theoretical considerations Theoretical work simultaneously also showed that ancient MACHOs are not likely to account for the large amounts of dark matter now thought to be present in the universe. The Big Bang as it is currently understood simply couldn't produce enough baryons without causing major problems in the observed elemental abundances, including the abundance of deuterium. Furthermore, separate observations of baryon acoustic oscillations, both in the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure of galaxies, set limits on the total baryon-to-total matter ratio. These observations show that a large fraction of non-baryonic matter is necessary regardless of the presence or absence of MACHOs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object#Theoretical_considerations

What exactly is your claim and how is it related to the topic of this thread?

If you continue to use whatever you seem to be taking, I think you will end up in a severe nightmare...

Yes and ~12° Celcius is probably a good enough safety limit for someone who knows what they are doing, but for a less experienced youngster eager to experiment, those low and few 12 degrees are very easy to overcome. Sure, I didn't intend to critique InigoMontoya either - I only wanted to point out the hazard involved.

LOL - I don't think Blizzard would approve...