Kyrisch

Yep. There are even some hard feelings within the Jewish community. For instance, many Orthodox groups refuse to recognise their Reform counterparts as 'real Jews'.

I concede the fact that before is not the correct word. I simply used it because it is nearly impossible to imagine anything that is independent of time because of how our brains are wired. However, current M-Theory (and I know that M-Theory is pretty much backed up by nothing, but this thread was intended for speculation) holds that it is a possibility that the Big Bang was caused by the collision of two branes or some such event. While this may not have occurred "before" the formation of dimensional space per se, it is still independent thereof.

Oh dear... If there is a stable, lower-energy state for the electron in the hydrogen atom as theorised ("In his 'hydrino', the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal"), then electrons would indeed be falling to that level all the time. Plus, the idea of the specific shells and orbitals and quantisation of the energy emitted by electrons moving between them is the very core tenet of Quantum Theory. It's not as if this violates some incomplete vagary, it completely turns the past 60 years of demonstrated and re-demonstrated theory on its head. ~ Quote taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science.

That something could have existed 'before' the Big Bang that is independent of space-time.

I did not intend to throw useless terms at you. I only meant to point out that your argument is based in the semantic inconsistency of my use of the word 'before' and isn't really addressing my point.

I find it curious how something as simple as a language barrier can cause such vast lapses in understanding.

The branes in the multiverse obviously exist in the absence of space-time, they transcend what we know, and what we know is space-time. The extra dimensions in M-Theory are completely independent of the spatial ones to which we are accustomed. You keep citing the inconsistency of me using the term 'before', but I use this term in the loosest definition thereof, not with specific regards to what we experience as part of space-time.

I think the bottom line here is that IQ tests do not accurately assess pure mental capacity for many reasons, including but not limited to the bias towards literacy (I am taking the definition of intelligence to be that abstract idea of mental ability or capacity in general). Even the most spatial and abstract IQ tests must be administered by giving some sort of direction, which must be in some specific form and will therefore be biased towards those with a completely irrelevant but tremendously skewing ability with that random skill.

He's making more sense than the credit you're giving him... His first language is obviously not English. I get the gist of what he is saying but I can't for the life of me figure what he's trying to say about Jews...

Current models of M-Theory and such hold that the multiverse existed before the Big Bang and the creation of space and time.

Alright, enlighten me. I was always taught that the Big Bang marked the inception and expansion of dimensional space itself.

I do think about it. And I can't isolate a specific physical mechanism by which it works, which there must be. It's not like quantum physics or something. I mean, it makes sense that dense things should sink but that's just from daily observation. What I'm looking for is the why.

This may seem strange but I never understood the actual mechanism by which things sink and float. For instance, layers of air: Why should cool air sink? I know that it is denser, because that is the reason that is taught in elementary school, but just because it is denser doesn't mean the force of gravity is any stronger upon it. It just was never clear to me.

Because before the Big Bang there was still something. It wasn't space though, it was something like quantum froth. The Big Bang marked the expansion of dimensional space, which is still expanding today.

So my physics teacher was telling us about a climatologist who is predicted a tipping point in the whole global warming fiasco within the next decade. Apparently some studies showed much LESS CO2 in the air than what should be there based on our emissions. Upon investigation, it was found that a large quantity of it was being dissolved into the ocean. His theory is based on the simple characteristics of gas solubility in liquid. It is known that cooler solvent can dissolve more gaseous solute. As such, he predicted a time when the rise in temperature will cause the ocean to be able to dissolve less and less of our emitted CO2 and reach a point of saturation when the ocean itself will actually begin emitting CO2 into the atmosphere as well. At this point, the former negative feedback loop of CO2 emission versus absorption will become and positive feedback loop and we will basically all be screwed. Has anyone heard anything about this? I'm curious to see an actual report by this scientist on this theory.

I don't personally believe that space is infinite. What I do believe is that the universe must be infinite because the universe, as has been said before, is everything. Space, however, as we know it, with dimensions and stuff, the likes of which itself expanded during the big bang, is probably like a sphere (not that it must be spherical, but rather that it should be some enclosed, n-dimensional figure). The reason that no end is apparent, is because nothing can exist in not-space, so whenever light, or matter, or anything encounters an "edge" it bends along the contours of the universe following the path of least resistance.

"No, no, no, calm yourself! Those sharp things are what the natives use in the daily rituals! Come, let us see what they want from us; they're pointing them in this direction!"

-zig for twenty, forty, etc. -zehn for teens.

I think that mucking around in space to plant and retrieve the harvester will take enormous amounts of energy -- way too much for gravity, a very weak for, to reconcile for.

I think you might want to add that "zig" in German is pronounced "zich" so Kyle doesn't go "zig-zag"-ing around sounding ridiculous.

That's highly impractical because Jupiter's intense gravitational field will make placing anything there incredibly hard not to mention the lack of solid ground to place it on. Not only that, but even if it harvests the energy we would have to bring it back to Earth to get at that energy. And what does that mean? A whole lot of wasted energy mucking around in space.

"And as we can see here, I am precariously poised atop this sleeping volcano. At any second now, she could erup--"

In reference to a recent post... "It's just Bismuth..."

I think the aim was to dumb it down for the general public... It was an interesting read though. I sort of meant in-depth as in I understood it better than when I was explained to me in quantum mechanical terms.

MACINTOSH not 1 not 2 not 3 but 4EVER