Xyph

The movement won't decrease because it's the movement that is causing the strain in the first place.

The higher the temperature becomes, the more strained they get, presumably, until they finally "snap" at the melting/boiling point.

As a molecule moves away from a source of gravity, it is using kinetic energy (upwards motion) to fight the gravity pulling it back. This kinetic energy is becoming potential energy. If the molecule starts falling again, it begins to lose potential energy, which becomes kinetic energy (as the falling motion). As kinetic energy increases, generally, temperature increases, because the molecules are moving around more. Eventually, the movement of the molecules will be enough to break the intermolecular bonds holding them as a solid or a liquid. The kinetic energy at this point is still increasing, but the temperature is not, because the molecules are not moving around any faster - they are just using the kinetic energy to break the intermolecular bonds, and the substance beings to melt, or boil.

Yes, if I interpret your question correctly. The more kinetic energy, the easier it is to break intermolecular bonds.

The laws of physics would change considerably, probably resulting in a completely different Periodic Table and completely different (and more complex) atomic bonding. Not sure beyond that, although that would have far reaching effects alone.

Haha, fake. That site's been the same for years now.

We do have "different forces of gravity at certain altitudes". The difference is completely negligible, but there, nonetheless. Although true, surface imperfections on the surface of a star wouldn't translate to something similar on the "surface" of the black hole.

An electron and positron can orbit each other for a short while, but the system isn't at all stable. I'm not exactly sure why, though.

I disagree. Where do you intend to get the mass to stop the expansion of the universe? On the other hand, the latter idea may not be entirely impossible given a high enough level of technology.

Potential energy is energy gained from position. Any given object will have more potential energy the further it is from any given source of gravity, the more massive it is, and the stronger the given gravity well is - for example, an object suspended in the upper atmosphere will have more potential energy than one suspended at a few feet from the surface of the Earth, and, in each case, its potential energy will be converted into kinetic energy as it falls. The higher object will have more potential energy originally, and therefore will fall further, eventually gaining more kinetic energy than the lower object. You can work out the potential energy of an object with the formula PE = mgh, where m is the mass, g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81~ in the case of Earth), and h is the height from the source of this gravitational acceleration (the surface of the Earth, for example).

I don't think that's the case at all - if anything, I think the opposite is true or, at least (in the case that not everyone lives up to their duty as a human) something close to it - in that we are capable of thinking of ourselves as a species. Animals generally consider only themselves, or if anything else their immediate family, hive, nest or herd. On the other hand, humans are capable of putting work into things that they may well never see results from in their lifetimes, simply because they hope that their species will be around to continue - and reap the benefits when technology has reached a stage that makes whatever they've worked on practical. Fine? That's quite an overstatement, I'm sure. That said, though, as deficient as modern society may be at the moment in many areas, we are still progressing and increasing the collective knowledge of humanity, so if we survive this, it will have been worth it. We have to go through less desirable stages at some time, otherwise we'll never know what to avoid in future.

Ah, sorry. That's what I assumed you meant by this.

I don't think the Earth is losing atmosphere anymore, although I could be wrong. Either way, though, theoretically the answer to 4 is yes - particles with more kinetic energy will find it easier to escape a gravity well.

Coincidence? Failing that, it's perfectly possible that the sound of the approaching truck had already increased enough in volume to wake him up, even if it got even louder after he was already awake.

Denial of it is a dangerous idea.

A billion years is a lot of time. If we're still sitting around on Earth alone by then, we probably deserve to be wiped out.

That's a galaxy.

There could be if they were spawned by a different Big Bang.

I wouldn't bother. I installed XP Pro over a freshly preinstalled Home just for the sake of it some time ago, but if I had been using Home for a while already I wouldn't have bothered. I doubt I've even used any of the Pro-only functions.

I think saying there will "never ever be a cure for cancer" might be a bit excessive... I don't know quite what the current consensus on the plausibility of this is, but it seems that nanobots could be employed to target and deconstruct cancer cells, which would be a potential cure-all - presumably there are some criteria that could be used by the nanobots to differentiate between cancer cells and noncancerous ones. More speculatively, surely there will come some sort of genetic engineering that could be employed to significantly reduce or eliminate the risk of cancer? I know it would be difficult, but I can't believe there's absolutely no way to implement some sort of inbuilt anticancer protection. A biological version of the aforementioned cancer-targetting nanobots would work well, wouldn't it? Hmm, what do you mean by this? I don't see how being prone to cancer is at all evolutionarily advantageous.

Oh, and another thing, that structure would need to be made of some sort of exotic superstrong material, otherwise it would be crushed by the Earth's rotation and the gravity, if not torn apart and flung into space. If that happened, the change in rotation wouldn't be so drastic, but there'd probably still be one.

I'm not sure the mile thick seal would make too much of a difference - it would increase the overall mass of the planet, which would, maybe, slow down the rotation a small bit, but it would be that gigantic structure on the north pole that would make the real difference. I don't know how quickly this would happen, but I expect the Earth would begin to tilt until it's axis was at 90 degrees - what was the north pole would become the equator, and that giant structure would be jutting out into space and whirling around the Earth as it turns. This would probably slow down the Earth's rotation pretty significantly, although I don't know exactly how long it would take for it to finish slowing either, or what it's eventual day length would be.

Thanks for the information. Wiki has pages on plenty of other speculative or completely fictional ideas, though, so this isn't too different.

At that point the energy you supply starts being used to facilitate a state change (liquid to gas) rather than to raise the temperature. The same thing happens if you heat ice to 0 degrees, and at the melting and boiling points of all other substances. The kinetic energy is becoming sufficient to allow molecules to escape the intermolecular bonds holding the water in a liquid state rather than just making them move around more within the liquid.

This sort of thing has happened to me, and I expect it's happened to quite a few, but I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that's it's actual premonition. It would be more logical to conclude that you first become subconsciously aware of the sound, then structure dreams around it in which you eventually become aware of the sound in the dream, and, finally, consciously recognise it as occuring in reality.