Radical Edward

I exaggerate a bit.. they don't know if it will smash into us yet, but 17 years is planety of time. If it is going to hit us, tehy will know in a couple of months, and seeing as it has a nice short orbit, I suspect they will knock it out of it's current orbit when it reaches aphehilion. (the furthest point from teh sun, where it's kinetic energy is least, and hence momentum can be more easily applied in a given direction)

yep, it appears to have been broken, although only on small scales. however I think there is still some scepticism within the scientific community. Remember that this only applies to tiny systems - ones that I expect are practically quantum. In effect it is saying that on very small scales, time is more or less meaningless if you can't tell which way it is flowing by the change in entropy.

that is one proposal to get rid of this one that is going to smash into us in 2019

no no, 'predictions' are something that the mathematical model shows to happen, something you may or may not expect. For ecample Maxwell's Equations predicted the propagation of elecromagnetic waves at the speed of light. Dirac's equations predicted antimatter, spin and a bunch of other stuff (and hence he got a nobel prize) what you have just typed out is 'conjecture' - something else entirely, and not a thing really sorth taking much notice of. sorry. of course if you have done the maths, and your maths predicts all these things without them having been fed in in the first place, then fair enough.

that would be the speed the moon orbits around the earth, we mean the speed at which the moon spins on it's axis.

I don't think you'd really want to do it at all, never mind make the mirrors 90% really , as I said, getting stuff off the moon is pretty easy anyway. dunno what those toys were, but I have a suspicion it could be light pressure of exactly the sort we are discussing that made them work. would I be right in saying that they only spun when the light was on?

light pressure... yes, it would work. you might do better with mirrors with a black back to them (the momentum change in one direction would be approximately double the other, creating a torque). you would however have to be extremely patient to do this though, and I suspect that the sun would run out of hydrogen some time before it made a big effect.

oh that... I know of that. It's a good idea, my school was going to do that, but they chickened out because parents thought that we should stick to a-levels, which imo are the biggest pack of cack known to man.

I think we would see stuff pretty much the same, ignoring the cact that the brain itself would run a tad faster. and yes fafalone, my apologies - yet.

you could yes, but since you can'e get faster than the speed of light anyway and overtake the light signals, then the best you can do is see stuff that is going to happen in the future, from a long way away. for exampel, when we look at the moon, we see what it was like on the moon a fraction of a second ago, and if we fly to the moon and look at the earth, we will see what happened on the earth a fraction of a second before we looked....

It is the 'Idiot Beating; program, where they take the worst of the students, and repeatedly beat them with sticks until they learn something. actually I suspect it's like a fast track system, the bright students get shoved through the system faster cos they can cope. seems like a damn good idea to me, and one the UK could well do to adopt.

oh right, my name(nick) is actually the name of the avatar too, a character called Radical Edward, from the series Cowboy Bebop. it's excellent. I don't know enough Japanese to understand them, but I get my subbed versions direct from the US (plus a small fortune in post and packaging)

it would be possible, however it would probably be entirely impractical when considering the size of the moon. The moon's escape velocity is pretty low anyway, and it doesn't have an atmosphere to be bothered with, so it's not that hard to get of (this can be seen when we compare the takeoff of the saturn rockets, and the eagle). A much easier solution would probably be to build linear accelerators and power them with the abundant solar energy resourcas that are to hand. (plus if we ever get it working, there is alot of He3 on the moon too, which may be usable for fusion) increasing the spin to such velocities may also have other issues, such as warping and damaging the planet too, which would be a bit of a pain if bits fell off. oh, and if you set the moon spinning, it shouldn't move out from the earth - it is actaully rotating at the moment, only just once a month.

self replicating structures... that's all life is. considering that amino acids have been found all over the place, such as in residue from lightning storms to drifting around the cosmos, then it becomes clear that amino acids are pretty common. since amino acids are the basis of life, and one of the constituents of DNA, RNA and such, then just statistically, you would get self replicating organisms, which then stand a chance of becoming more and more complex and so on. in terms of simple organisms, anything with even a slight advantage will win, and so you have evolution.

I suspect people have already applied general relativity to the scenario... good idea though.

it is regarded as the direction increases, yes. in terms of general relativity, it is interesting, as time depends on the observer, and indeed, in terms of general relativity, time becomes mixed with space in the terms of extreme gravitational fields, to the point where within the event horizon of a black hole, the future can only be described by the direction towards the singularity, it also looks odd when considering black holes. so time from this point of view has an equivalence to space. Quantum mechanically, it doesn't. right to the point where if one considers the entropic argument again, time makes no sense in very small Quantum regions, since it has been shown that entropy can decrease in certain quantum systems. Interesting that GR and QM disagree, since when one looks at them in their own regieme i.e. the classical and the quantum realms, they are both beautiful models. Only the future will find the link between the two.

one can't assume that all forms of life, terran and alien would evolve into two sexes, however it is proabbly likely. two sexes has the advantage that it allows mixing of genes, branted spoecies could also become hemaphrodites, and this is true for some, such as plants and worms, however for more complex organisms, it becomes more difficult, and would be impractical for mammals. any more than two sexes would become very difficult to organise in terms of handing genes and such round, and would be far less likely to evolve.

it also could point to the fact that everything you say is wrong. were I to say the following: I have been studying the moon for many years, and have discovered that it is actually made of cheese, and it is actually the earth's repulsion to the smell that is holding it up, and hance Newton is completely wrong. If newton is wrong then Einstein must be wrong as well. NASA has never actually been there, and the US Government is supressing this information, as it would prove the existance of aliens since they are the only peple who could make such a large amount of cheese. I defy anyone to prove me wrong, and I would wager my life on it. this would score quite highly, but it doesn't exactly point to science needing an overhaul.

come up with something better that explains all the made observations then. so far the majority of what you say flies in the face of observation, never mind physics itself. you still haven't addressed all the other points I have made.

are you? you're the first qualified person I've met who doesn't have sources to hand.

not california what about all those hot chicks there?

the onus on me is not to prove your theories.

what about the Lorentz Transforms?

neutrons are not fundamental particles. neutrons are not sources of magnetism. you missed the point about quarks, the mechanisms behind quarks are entirely different from anything you have described so far, and there is no way that your theory could encompass them within that sort of framework. to say that 'you expect' without providing any evidence or good reason is inadmissable, there must be some reason that you expect your theory to include quarks. will your theory actaully predict anything new? will it have all the same effects as current theory, while operating in a completely different mathematical framework? how do you intend to go about addressin the issue of the multiple body problem when considering that the vacuum is full of 'particles'? what are the properties of these particles?

you didn't address the major issues I raised.