mistermack

That might be true, but it's best not to lose sight of how and why our minds evolved, and those of whales. Mind and body evolved to reproduce our own genes. Anything else is a byproduct. Our own instincts to protect other species are their because they spill over from our instinct to protect related members of our own species. It happens more in long-lived social animals which don't produce large numbers of offspring. But not exclusively. There's an instinct to protect the young in a lot of mammals, even surprising ones. I've seen video of lionesses protecting a fawn after killing it's mother, also leopards protecting baby monkeys. It's usually females, and it may happen when their female hormone levels are high. It's not always the mind in isolation that drives behaviour, sometimes the hormones can drive the mind.

I don't think that follows. Space curvature causes objects to accelerate every day. Just drop a brick on your foot, and you will discover this. When two massive objects move closer together, the curvature changes, and I believe that the kinetic energy comes from the change in curvature of the system, which is equivalent to a change in the potential energy of the massive system.

If I wanted to organise an insurance fraud, the Bermuda Triangle would be a tempting place to do it. But if it was a genuine problem, insurance companies would refuse to cover travel in the area. I've never heard of any restriction, and they have the figures, and statistics and tools to work out the risk.

It's obviously easy to think you understand them.

I don't find the idea of an infinite past any easier than any other kind of infinity.

The question of why things exist, rather than nothing, is riddled with infinities, everywhere you look. Once you understand real infinity, you can start to examine the question of something from nothing. I'm infinitely far from that understanding, and I haven't heard of anybody being any nearer. What bugs me though, is that some people try to extrapolate that problem, into the existence of a bearded man in the sky, who I know nothing about, but should still "love" and praise every day. (and give them some of my money)

I didn't say it was non-scientific, I said it was a dumb question. Scientists CAN ask dumb questions, and produce dumb answers. They are not exempt. I think it's a dumb question for the reasons I gave, which you ignored, so I'll repeat. The modern situation is just a miniscule blip in evolutionary time. Even if there were some sort of trend, it's likely to be local and temporary. That's because it's a result of culture, rather than ingrained non-changing properties. Culture changes quickly in evolutionary terms, and the changes are accelerating all the time, in multiple new directions. I do think it's dumb to claim that you can predict the consequences of something so volatile and varied. It's only a moment in evolutionary terms, since parents used to select the partners for their children. Some still do. What about the effect of that change? And many women now have children by two or three different men in their lifetime, or even more. That applies across social boundaries, with divorce being common and growing. Are the different partners all going to have the same level of dumbness? Just to simplify it to such an extent, as to say "dumb people have bigger families" shows a complete lack of insight into how complex and unpredictable human culture is, compared to evolutionary pressures in wild populations of animals that are far far less intelligent than humans, and consequently, much more predicable.

It's fewer babies, not less. Smart people generally know that. Maybe dumb people have bigger families, AT THE MOMENT, but this century is hardly a tick on the evolutionary clock. And it only applies in a few modern wealthy countries. And it's more likely to be well educated, rather than smart people, who conform to the stereotype. So in terms of evolutionary science, it's a dumb question.

To be in motion, you have to be changing position with time. Changing position in what? Changing position in a reference frame in space time. How can the entire Universe change position in space time, if it includes within it ALL of space time? Does space time extend to infinity, or is there a boundary after which spatial dimensions don't exist? I don't think anybody knows. Maybe there is a boundary, but it's constantly being extended at the speed of light, so it's impossible to reach.

Well, thanks for trying.

Isn't warping a comparative thing? At it's maximum near a black hole, and at it's minimum at a point at maximum distance from a gravity source? So while you can't point to any area of non-warped absolute space and time, can't you point to somewhere that approximates to it, and infer what non-warped space time would be like?

It's in the nature of lots of materials, that they have a yield point. You can deform a spring again and again, so long as you don't get close to that point. But you only have to pass it once, and the spring breaks or permanently deforms. It's probably a similar case with the materials here. You can use it up to certain speeds again and again. But once you go past a certain speed, something passes it's yield point, and breaks, and then the whole thing self-destructs.

The instinct to protect a vulnerable creature from attack doesn't require human thought. In fact, many people act first, without thinking, and lose their lives protecting something. People die trying to save dogs from drowning and it's not always their own dog. The dog later gets out of the water. It's quite a common thing. So it's an instinct, not a thought out action. There's no reason why whales shouldn't act on the same instinct. Evolution puts those pre-determined instincts in our brains.I don't think it's something we learn. There's good evolutionary reason for social animals to protect the vulnerable. In the case of animals who live in social groups, the vulnerable creature under attack could very likely be carrying many of your own genes. So if you protect it, you are helping your own genes to survive. Of course, it's wasteful to protect everything against attack, even when it's not related. So we have a mechanism to restrict our altruism to our own species. But nothing's perfect. And that mechanism is stronger in some individuals than others. So it's not an unexpected thing for whales to do. But it's likely to be only a few that have a strong protection instinct, and a weak "own species" restriction, that would do it. I feel the same thing, when I watch an Orca toy with a seal. I'm rooting for the seal. That's probably how the whale feels.

This is an off-the-cuff answer, so if it's wrong, I was only guessing. An orbit is essentially a stable state. If the planet goes any closer, it speeds up, which sends it back out. If it strays any farther out, it slows, which sends it back inwards. So if nothing else is interfering, the orbit naturally stabilises at a certain level. It would have to lose kinetic energy to move closer. Rather like the Solar System, a planet doesn't need to be close, to orbit a black hole. It can be a long way out, or close in. It depends on the kinetic energy of the planet. Our Solar System is actually orbiting a black hole that is at the centre of the Milky Way. And we are a hell of a long way away from it. Actually about 25,000 light years away. Of course, our orbit is influenced by all the other matter in the Galaxy so we're not simply orbiting the black hole in isolation.

How would you detect that field? From a long way off, the Earth is very close to the Sun. And Mercury. And Venus. And Jupiter and Mars etc. There's a lot of random stuff coming from our direction. You would have to ask an astronomer working in the field of exo-planets how you would go about detecting something so weak at such a distance. But that's why I doubt it. It's very low energy, at a huge distance, with lots of noise coming from close by. It might be so small and indistinct that it's impossible to detect from the nearest exo-planet. Let alone the more distant ones. No matter what level of technology you have.

Maybe Apple are working on the notion that countries will pass a law compelling phone manufacturers to include preventative measures against recording gigs and fllms. After all, today's phones are better than some of the video cameras that pirates used to record films a few years ago. The ones that appeared on black market DVD within days of a film's release. And official DVDs of gigs are a legitimate money spinner for artists and promoters. So if countries DO insist on prevention measures, Apple with their patent might be able to corner the market, and charge a hefty fee to the competition. Of course, it all depends on the politicians making the preventative measures mandatory. But they can be bought or bullied. Or both.

I doubt if aliens looking our way from extreme distances would be able to discern such a subtle change to our Van Allen belt, or work out what it meant. Does the Van Allen belt actually affect anything that leaves the Earth? After all, we can't detect anything that leaves any exo planets. The only reason we know that they are there is that they block some of the star's light, or give it a wobble. And this is a huge difference locally, not a nearly imperceptible one. But on another tack, I wonder if they could use VLF transmissions to protect against solar flares?

From a quick read of the OP the answer to what is empty space, is "spacetime". If you ask what is that, we don't exactly know. But we know that it has properties called spatial dimensions, and time. So I have to agree that empty space isn't "nothing" otherwise it wouldn't have the dimensions, and two metres of it would equal ten metres, there would be no difference, as 2x0 = 10x0

Tell that to Andre Ward. Rather you than me !!

Yep, I looked and it's correct. Which seems to negate the objection to flywheels being used to supply power to vehicles. It makes it more complicated, but it shouldn't wear out your tyres or make you go straight when you turn the wheel. Nice illustration of it on youtube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGun5athdfg Edit. I guess that maybe the forces on the bearings might be prohibitive. Although wheel bearings seem to take plenty of force in their lifetimes.

According to Wikipedia, "heavy" is a way of measuring weight. and again, "the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity" So you are defining "heavy" as having mass? That's simple enough. Not sure if it's accurate though.

A definition is of use, if it more clearly explains what people mean, by a certain word or expression. And that can vary depending on who's talking, and the context. Hence the debate about defining weight. Do gravitons respond to gravity?

I think it's possible, but unlikely, that womens asses are the way they are because of sexual selection by males. And the same goes for the asses of men. While sexual selection CAN play a big role in shaping the bodies of animals, it usually works the other way. The best bodies shape our sexual preferences. A nice pair of breasts might look that way because they are in perfect working condition for feeding a baby. And the male brains evolved to automatically recognise that shape and be attracted by it. It can work both ways, but usually, it's brains evolving rather than bodies. There's very little cost to evolving circuits in the brain, but to change bodies to match brains risks a downside in performance. But it still does happen sometimes. As in the Peacock. A big awkward tail is tolerated by evolution, because of it's attractiveness to females.

But what's the official definition? Wikipedia says "In the teaching community, a considerable debate has existed for over half a century on how to define weight for their students. The current situation is that a multiple set of concepts co-exist and find use in their various contexts.[2]" If an apple is hanging from a tree, it's heavy. If it's in free fall, it's weightless. So it depends what it's doing. I remember reading somewhere that if you trapped a photon between two perfect mirrors, the system gains rest mass, until the photon escapes. In inertial motion through curved space, the photon would be weightless and in free fall, but so would the apple.

Ah, are you talking about two gyroscopes rotating on the same connected axis? I was picturing two parallel. If the two are connected through the axis of rotation I can see how they could cancel each other that way.