Spyman

So what You are saying is that 'baby' Universes in BH and BH+WH are totally different theories ? Good valid point, anyhow. (BB scenario backwards in time i guess, confused me at first. )

You can NOT refute a theory if neglecting the rules of the theory ! (Or without proving experimentally that it's wrong.) Then You should start with the first poster' date=' then the second and so on... (And not jump directly on the one thats seems to be easiest to argue against.) Did You and Masanov give mezarashi a fair chance ? (No.) LOL I won't either. Good words YT, hopefully this EL-guy will also read and understand them... So, I am done with this thread now, my point is that they behaved unfair and unpolite to mezarashi, which from my view, from reading several posts by him/her, seems to have a lot more knowledge than them.

The pendulum answer by swansont is correct. Some, threads You and BigMoosie may want to read: Is rotation absolute or relative ? http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11470 How is space expanding ? http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9729 Space expanding FTL http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9693 There are a lot of threads with information, most questions have already been asked and answered. Use the search function to find more...

If You step forward with the punch in a correct way, then You will end up having the full momentum of Your body weight in the force of the punch. If You are a heavy person that can also be a lot. So again it depends... If it's only to get max force, then why not do both ?

A singularity is a point without length, high and wide. Gravitational singularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity Wikipedia is a good place where You can search for this cind of things.

One of my thoughts also. If a Black Hole can create a 'baby' Universe, which have Black Holes, which creates 'baby' Universes... Then why would we be in the 'mother of all' Universe ? And if we are not in the 'mother' then the Big Bang could be considered a White Hole.

Well, at least You understand that You don't understand, but still You fail to understand that - You don't understand the Theory of Relativity . . . And why are You and Masanov pecking on mezarashi, who was only trying to help and explain ? That is the point in the Theory of Relativity You fail to understand.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/molhydro.htm

Meteorite Impact Calculator: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

No air resistance, as insane_alien posted at the same time. (And maybe an old memory from my childhood where an astronaut dropped a feather and a weight on the Moon, in black & white TV-News.) The thread title is "Gravity and Speed" - nothing about air resistance, but on Earth their speed would be depending on their individual air resistance and not their weight, so I just suggested the Moon, a close body without atmosphere (almost), where they would hit the ground at the same time. You could of course drain an elevator shaft from air, or do the test in some other large vacuum camber, here on Earth with the same result.

Is the tall building on Earth or on the Moon ? What the law is called ??? - What do You mean, I call it gravity.

Then it's NOT a hardware fault' date=' firefox is causing windows to swap memory on the harddrive. Yes, a program, (in this case firefox), is using memory, (borrowing from the system), without returning it to the system when it's done with the task, so next time it needs memory, (to do the task again), that part of the memory is already occupied so it borrows a new part.As more and more parts of the memory is occupied but no longer used, (just marked occupied), the system starts to swap memory with the harddrive to free it up. Swapping takes a lot more time, (reading and writing to the harddrive), and eventually, (if let long enough), the harddrive will be full and the system will crash. Something has changed, problably as mezarashi suggested a "windows service that runs in the background", and which is used by firefox, or a flawed update/upgrade of firefox itself. Now, I don't know anything about firefox and XP so I can't help You with those issues...

I agree with mezarashi, most likely a software problem. Does it slow down using all cind of programs or only with firefox ? You could also try running different programs to find the cause.

Even if Paul Marmet is wrong about the redshifts, it would remain a good explanation for Dark Matter. (He has made assumptions on the distribution of the H2 so BB could still be correct.) Edit: What if the distribution of H2 looked something like this: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

A simple explanation of both dark matter and redshifts that goes against Big Bang. Given the age of the article and the papers, I assume there must be some sort of catch... (More than inconvenient fact against scientist's career concern.) There should have been a lot of fuzz about this, but for me it's a surprise.(Of course I could have missed it but a Google didn't come up with much old news either.) There have been more news on other much, much unlikely theories. So where/what is the catch ? Why didn't this theory get more support ? It is really difficult to understand why it still is ignored if correct.

They, (the discoverer's), seems to think it could have an atmosphere ... http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1031 http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/large_rocky_planet.html?1362005 http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1530_1.asp

The Particle Adventure: http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/startstandard.html

Interesting hypotheses, raises a lot of good questions... Is it possible for life, (or something created by life), to eventually evolve so 'high' that controlling the final fate of the Universe will be possible ? Will that community or 'thing' become so bored so it restarts/restores the Universe ? Wouldn't there be any higher purposes and a new path for the next BB ? (Instead of a chaotic spontaneous symmetry breaking.) If that is possible, couldn't it make sure it survived ? Is there then also a chance that some other 'life' would have enough knowledge and power to avoid destruction and survive through to the next Universe ? Could every BB be an event that marks one small step in the evolution of the Universe ? And what would the Universe be evolving into ?

u = (v+u')/(1+((vu')/c^2)) and u' = (u-v)/(1-((uv)/c^2)) Observer at point A measures the projectiles speed to be u Observer at point B measures the projectiles speed to be u' Both observers measures their relative speed to be v The fomula is for transforming what the other observer would measure from his/hers view with the knowledge of Your own view.

Who's analysis is that ? Links ?

Yes, it would be an entirely different debate/thread, my misinterpretation, I will "back off". Just one more point before I leave Your thread: (I think at least I am allowed to defend my stand, against Your last post.) From my understanding it's NOT an established Scientific fact that BB started from nothing.

Well, I don't belive that all DID start from nothing, so I guess it was my reason for "taking a bite".

We don't need that to find life on Mars or Europa. Also even if intelligent aliens where on a planet orbiting another star, the star could still be close enough for communication with lightspeed. Not so long ago it could take a letter several years to travel, did it stop people from writing ? With better equipment we might be able to see traces of life on other planets far away, also without fancy warpspeed. If Universe is 13.7 billion years old and Earth is only 4.5 billion, then it's very possible that other planets was created before Earth, so there is plenty of time for any signals, created or natural, to travel to us with lightspeed. How many planets is there within a radius of say 2 billion lightyears from us ?

YT2095: I take it that Your last post was for CanadaAotS and maybe I interpreted to much from Your phrase: "for ages I`ve pondered the idea of HOW we can get something from nothing" ? Sevarian: When borrowing energy by HUP doesn't all have to be paid back ? If not then why is not perpetual motion machines and infinite energy a fact ? AFAIK Not even BH gets away with paying their depths.

There might be a fully logical explanation of why, when and how these particles gets created and then annihilates, we "only" need to find it out. Entanglement is something different but may also have an explanation. With "like pulling a spring with a weight on it down and letting go" You insert energy. ( = something is created of something and not from nothing) Which changes Your theory to why BB ended up with more matter than antimatter instead of how all matter was created. And if not there is a lot of hidden antimatter out there somewhere then there must be a difference that caused more normal matter to be created. That part I can agree on.