Spyman

Composition of Apophis: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23786 Update on Dawn: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/071011-dawn-engineupdate.html DAWN - Mission to 2 Asteroids, (old video): -> http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=090707_dawn062607 (Leonard Nimoy narrates this preview of flight to Ceres and Vesta.)

The initial nebula had some small amount of net rotation before it collapsed to form our solar system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation

Some place that needs enlightenment...

If we make two measurements, in the first the particle is on this side and in the next it appears on the other side, then you will have to ask the question: how did it get there ? If it didn't penetrate the barrier the which way did it take ? Without the "borrowing" it would be as Magic.

The evidence is piling up and is very impressive, in my personal opinion it is the most reasonable option. But there is a slight chance that the 'amphibian' is a very different creature than we thought...

Well, I don't know much of quantum theories, but like I said, if it's not anything like our own, then the ethical question is moot. EDIT: Because then there wouldn't be another 'you' facing the same choice of action, in the same situation.

Observations of X-rays from accretion discs around unseen objects is not conclusive evidence. http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-83.html http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-53.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_holes.html http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm

I can view the question in two different ways: A quantum theory allowing every possible outcome does not imply that the other 'you' is exactly 'you', nor that it's even possible to have the other choice of action. There might be a lot of possible 'you's that performs a lot of actions, but every action must still be possible. So either the other 'you' is very different from 'you', if able to choose differently in a important ethical choice, or the other choice is not a possible outcome, so it doesn't happen in any of the other worlds either. Also there is a big difference between quantum events and human actions, even with every different possible outcome of all quantum events, there is only one world where exactly that choice is to be made. Small differences in circumstances won't change your choise of action, and with large enough differances I would say that the situation is different. With different situations you might choose different, even inside a single world. In both cases "what ever action 'you' don't take some other 'you' does in some other universe" seems to be false. My answer: You can't motivate/defend your choice/action ethically with the difference in another world.

That would only make the "twelve seconds" answer even more wrong, wouldn't it ?

The "crux" is that we currently lack knowledge of the creation/ignition/start of the Universe. My main goal was to correct your misinterpretation of the mainstream thought of The Big Bang. Yes, either way is possible. They are good questions and it is naive to think Universe is constant, AFAIK it is expanding. But we don't have the answers right now, there are several alternative ideas where the Universe might have changed during the ignition phase, or might have been created as it was, or ... And swansont said: "If the big bang represents such a change, then energy would not need to be conserved during that event.", where he was responding to you. (Please note, it begins with "If".) If you propose a model where it's assumed that energy is created during the initial state of the Universe, you can't demand swansont to explain how, it's your model and you have to provide the answers. Yes, our observations is limited, we can't even see the beginning, only to ~380 000 years after. (With predictions from high energy physics we can extrapolate back to ~10-32 seconds.) Here is one report Martin posted recently: -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28372 Yes, and thats why I said: "there is more reason to belive", it is my personal opinion... But I wouldn't call it "unsupported", there is more reason to trust old models so far observed to be correct, instead of new models not yet observed to be correct. I would say that current observations is in favour of my opinion. (When we get one accepted reasonable model thereof, I might have to revise my opinion thereafter. ) Matter and antimatter can be created from energy and matter can be transformed to energy. "Law of Definite Porportions" - Never heard of it, please provide sources. "law of constant composition" - Never heard of this one either. You can't just make things up, people are not going to take you seriously. I said: "In science, a theory", it might not have been a detailed description, but it sufficed to make my point. Now, did you or did you not understand my point ?

Black Holes are not proven and have not been directly observed. They are theoretical outcomes of the model "Relativity", which has so far passed every test made. (Observations of very compact objects that seems to fit the description has been made though.) According to Relativity nothing can escape a Black Hole -> they can't be reforming to anything else. Stellar evolution is well observed and are not speculation. The nuclear process inside the star is countering gravity, when the fuel is consumed gravity wins. (Stars goes through several cycles with different fuels, depending on size.)

Since the First Law of Thermodynamics has never been observed to be incorrect, there is more reason to belive that the Universe did NOT create or import its energy. In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. Any particular conservation law is a mathematical identity to certain symmetry of a physical system. A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be violated: - Conservation of energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law In physics, the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any closed system remains constant but can be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy. In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems, and is the more encompassing version of the conservation of energy. In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, such as when electrical energy is changed into heat energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy While it's OK to have your own opinion, it's also good to know the science mainstream opinion... Where Klaynos is correct, The Big Bang Theory does NOT include any creation part: The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang YOU are the one proposing that they can change, and that has NEVER been observed. There is a HUGE difference between a physical law, a scientific theory and a goverment law... A physical law like energy conservation has never been observed to be violated. A scientific theory can only be proved wrong and is only valid until observation shows it to be wrong. A goverment law is not true or false, they are rules of how to behave, speeding law don't stop to apply because a sportscar goes to fast, and there is nothing in Nature that prevents the car from speeding. (If caught, the driver might get punished with a speeding ticket, since those rules are there for a reason.) A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from the law, either religious or civil, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest That would give a "free fall" time in the range of 27 to 31 seconds, without air resistance. 12 seconds corresponds to the approximate height of only ~700 meters, which then clearly must be wrong.

Hihi, talk about confusion and jumping to conclusions... MrSandman claims to be 8 years old and is the one TheUnknown is referring to. (Which is what MrSandman is trying to say.) EDIT: And Yes, Hi everyone and Welcome !!! (I am Spyman, that's all I say.)

My, (turkey), opinion: Space is compressed towards the center, with the rate of c at the horizon.

Introduction to Wikipedia: -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction (But I think it's still quite good and in most times accurate.)

Well, I just found out that the SFN article was deleted this summer. Deletion log: Subject that does not reasonably assert meeting notability criteria for web content. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Wafulz&page=SFN+%28scienceforums.net%29

I don't think we are losing track of asteroids nowadays, we lost this single one ~47 years ago. Don't know if we even had monitoring systems back then, but the LINEAR is pretty impressive. The LIncoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) project is a cooperative project between the United States Air Force, NASA, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory for the systematic discovery and tracking of near-Earth asteroids. LINEAR is responsible for the majority of asteroid detections since 1998. As of 21 October 2004, LINEAR had detected 211,849 new objects of which at least 1622 were near earth asteroids and 142 were comets. All of LINEAR's discoveries were made using robotic telescopes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Near-Earth_Asteroid_Research

According to Prof. Mark Morris: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2005/apr/22/changing-the-physics-of-philos/

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071005/139/6ll7d.html Heh, did we forget about it too, I thought one missing PHA would create a lot of buzz...

Still, you failed to argue my point. I showed you a logical error in your point. I was trying to point out that your saying is only a belief too, so the belief argument is at best neutral. (Not in your favour and not scientific.) Well, I am sorry you took it that way, discussions requires arguments, and I thought you where interested in arguments in opposite to your thoughts and corrections when your logic faults. My reasons for engaging in this discussion was NOT to put you down, nor about my belief of your motives. So, I am going to leave you to think about “vapourware”, without my interference. You managed to misinterpret my intensions here too. I didn't classify your thread, I gave you an friendly advice about where I think philosophy is supposed to be discussed. I don't make the rules and I won't bother much where threads are placed as long as there is some order and not totally caos. When I joined we had "Philosophy and Religion": -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=62 And later on we got "Philosophy of Science": -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=119 I did not participiate in the closure of those subforums and what others think is irrelevant, this site is AFAIK privately owned and the owner is allowed to use his money as he pleases. It's "take it or leave it" styled. Anyway, Good Luck with your discussion !

I would say it depends on the reason, we are advised to post in existing threads. I have only seen complaints when someone is trolling or spamming. So far, nobody has told me that I am a "Horrible Necromancer"... From Science Forums Etiquette: -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8730

A stellar system of two stars is known as a binary star, binary star system or physical double star. If there are no tidal effects, no perturbation from other forces, and no transfer of mass from one star to the other, such a system is stable, and both stars will trace out an elliptical orbit around the center of mass of the system indefinitely. Examples of binary systems are Sirius, Procyon and Cygnus X-1, the last of which probably consists of a star and a black hole. Most multiple star systems known are triple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system A planet, as defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion in its core, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

It seems impossible for you because you don't belive the Universe consists of a time dimension too. But I do. Just the things you also would want to take with you on a space journey, heh ? (And I never said it didn't have air and etc. - I said it no longer has.) You do realize that we are discussing TIME and time travel and NOT Black Holes, in this thread ? (And probably meant General Relativity, which deals with stuff like Gravity, not Special Relativity.)

But have you considered WHY "it's just too convenient a model" ? Reality might be something completely different than the model, but then we leave the realm of science and have to speculate with faith and belief. I put my bet on that the model who is most accurate in describing nature is likely to be closest to reality too. We can time a change and compare it to another change, we have clocks and recording machines. You can't twack my head with 15 centimeters of space either, it's also “vapourware”. And if you are allowed to twack me with a "representative", like a ruler, then I am allowed to twack you back with my "representative", like a VHS-tape. I will put a qoute from Edtharan here for you to read: Please note how many times you yourself mentioned belief in above quote. That is nothing you can prove, it's your personal belief, your faith or your opinion. We have had different subforums for philosophy and recently I think thats supposed to be discussed in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations".