Sisyphus

It is consistent with the big bang theory. Atoms wouldn't be able to form at first, and the first that could be formed would be hydrogen. Due to various stellar processes you would see the heavier elements be fused from hydrogen, more and more over time. This is in fact what we do see as we look back in time. And when we look at the current universe, we see the proportion of heavier elements increasing. There is far too much of the light elements to be in a steady equilibrium.

But there are for subcultures. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree that racial labels in general are silly. I think "[blank]-American" should be reserved for first generation immigrants, or at most for subcultures and communities that still maintain a coherent connection with the blank. This would make Tereza Heinz Kerry an African-American, but not Bill Cosby. "Caucasian" should be for people who actually live in the Caucasus. Ideally "race" wouldn't be discussed at all, but realistically we can't just pretend that culturally they don't exist. Luckily "black" and "white" aren't considered offensive, so why not stick with that?

I didn't mean anything too complex. Edtharan pointed out there was no universal "now," and michel seemed to take that to mean that the "real" thing was the diagonals rather than the horizontal. But the diagonals are no more universal than the horizontal "now" line, because simultaneity of events separated in space doesn't hold between different reference frames. If the observer in the center of the diagram had the same location but a different velocity, those diagonals would be passing through different events, because: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

There are no universal diagonals, either.

I don't think that suggests that, necessarily. Even octopi have shown some tool use, and I think it's a pretty safe bet our last common ancestor with them wasn't using tools. And it's not like the concept of the spear is instinctive. The chimps that use them have to be taught by other chimps. It's culture, not instinct. But is it plausible that the LCA of humans and chimps used crude tools? I guess. It was probably pretty clever. (I don't actually know anything about it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English

I don't really understand what your argument is. You're saying that we should only judge a person by the standards of the era of his youth?

Ever look in a mirror?

I don't know what you mean by empty, but it is true that looking at a given spot will not show you all the light that has ever been emitted from that spot. But again, "light cone" is not the same as "information cone."

Well that's just it. It would be fine to say we don't judge 1948 Strom Thurmond by 2003 standards. But Lott basically was judging him by 2003 standards, and saying he was right. Or at least, that's how it sounded from the way he phrased it, and it would hard to interpret it another way.

Is the paper your dissertation? Anyway, best of luck!

Points C, D, and E are not observable with light, though possibly with other means. Also, always keep in mind that the points on this diagram are not places, but events. I think you understand that, but it's easy to forget. So point E, for example, would not be Alpha Centauri, but Alpha Centauri exactly ten years ago. Alpha Centauri would be a vertical line, intersecting the light cone about 4 years ago, because it is 4 light years away. Anyway, yes, you seem to me to have the right basic idea about a light cone, at least as far as classical physics goes. The problem is in laying it on the diagram of cosmic expansion, as it seems like you're trying to merge two completely different abstract representations. The cosmic expansion cone is representing that space is expanding, but it is not supposed to represent the entirety of the universe itself. Remember, for example, that the universe does not have edges.

I think there's definitely a double standard (although it's more complicated then just "one party can get away with things, and the other can't"), but I don't think that's a good example. I don't think a Republican would have to do more than apologize for that comment, either, even if the usual suspects would be more up in arms about it. The difference between those two comments is too stark for a direct comparison, IMO. Reid is basically talking about America - that we would be too threatened by a dark-skinned black man who spoke in dialect to elect him. Using the word "negro" was stupid, but it's not a terribly controversial opinion. As for whether Reid thinks it's an accurate observation, I think we all know that standard Washington procedure at the slightest hint of "racism" is apologize and move on. Insisting it's "just an accurate observation" is what commentators who want an audience do, not politicians who want votes. And yes, I think any Democrat who said what Trent Lott did would be in a lot more trouble than Harry Reid is now.

So they've demonstrated >100% efficiency? No? Then it isn't a proof of concept. How is that "premature?" Incidentally, they claimed to have a working model years ago, remember? And everyone who examined it said it was a fraud. Yet they keep dragging their feet, hoping to scam a few more gullible investors, always insisting the "proof" is right around the corner.

If it's not >100% efficiency, then it's not a proof of concept. I would call it a failed attempt at a proof of concept, if I was being charitable.

Thread moved to speculations.

That is what I was saying, yes. Anyway, it definitely doesn't have a center. The way expansion behaves isn't consistent with expanding away from some central point, like a conventional explosion. That doesn't mean it must be infinite, though. A relatively simple alternative is that it folds back on itself. i.e., that a long enough straight line just points back at itself. Think of it like a computer game where going off one end of the map puts you on the opposite side, but 3D. So the volume is finite, but it has no center and no edges. I forget where I saw it, but I remember some physicist claiming that if the universe is finite, then the ratio of universe to observable universe would have to be at least that of the Earth to a 1 inch sphere. I have no idea if that's a consensus or current view.

That's right. The black hole itself would be a single point of infinite density. toastywombel is probably talking about the volume inside the event horizon. The radius of the event horizon is directly proportional to the mass of the black hole, so the volume inside would increase with the cube of the mass. However, I don't know what significance if any this "density" would have to the question at hand.

The verb would be "enduring." But my point was, why think of it as an action and not just a property? You don't think of the length of a ruler as an action of that ruler, do you? (Although just as an artifact of speech, you might say "it extends for one meter" as well as "it has an extension of one meter.") Actions/events are how things are different between points in time.

"Duration" would be the equivalent to "extension" as applied to time.

Can I make a suggestion? Instead of thinking of A traveling through time from time 0 to time 1, think of it as having an extension of 1 time unit. If you have a plank of wood that's 1 meter long, you don't say it travels one meter (or make up some other word), you say it has an extension of 1 meter in that dimension. Basically what I'm trying to say is that "chronotion" is making my eyes bleed.

If you're referring to your own personal ideas in contradiction with mainstream physics, then no, don't bring that into this thread.

I'm not sure how to answer because I don't know what you're picturing. By everywhere I mean that the Big Bang was not an event that had a particular location in space, but that it was the beginning of the expansion of space, which is quite possibly infinite and certainly doesn't have a "center." I don't know what you mean when you say "other CMBR."

Please, the U.S. military's IT department is totally awesome.

If space is infinite, then it has always been infinite. Why would that imply that the Big Bang took place at some localized region? If anything, an infinite universe makes that especially nonsensical. The Big Bang took place everywhere. Just remember that infinity /= infinity. Picture an infinite space, filled with particles spaced an average of 1 unit apart. Now expand the space itself, such that particles are an average of 2 units apart. See? Now collapse it, such that particles are infinitessimal distances apart. No problem. Infinite in all cases, but not the "same infinite."