JaKiri

Under current models... no. There is no current model that has the universe's expansion accelerating then stopping.

Very little work is being done because there are more fruitful areas of research out there.

Oh, we haven't done anything that grand; we've just looked for various deviations from the expected information we're getting from suns, which can be used to imply the existance of a Jupiter sized object in close orbit.

There are. We've found bucketloads.

You misunderstand. He's not talking about seeing a 2 dimensional object, but about being only able to infer two dimensional information from a single set of photons. Take a photograph of something. The picture in the photograph is two dimensional, although neither the picture itself or the objects pictured are. Now change the camera to an eye. The effect is the same; the information received is two dimensional.

It's not a vibrationary effect. It's an effect that promotes the electrons into a higher shell ('excites them'). If there are no gaps between atoms, then define where an atom ends. Yes? We call invisable waves things like gamma rays or radio waves. We don't call them 'green light'. Then stop posting in a forum in our one.

I'm running out of sarcastic ways to imply that you're an idiot, you know?

Roffles.

hahaha ur funny lollyroffles

Incorrect. The rate of time passing for identical atomic clocks has been shown to obey the Lorenz Transform for time, and is independent of any 'mind'. Unless you're claiming atomic clocks can think

Current models suggest it will. Don't state that with such certainty.

What are you talking about? The empirical edge of the universe is what we can see (ie limited by the speed of light), which is less than it's total volume...

We can't perceive it, but we can make empirical predictions.

The unit is called the Planck Time, and in less time than that nothing has any meaning. Think of it like a 'turn'; like a turn based game, where you can only take actions during your turn, actions can only take place after a planck time.

infinity is available in black

Well, 'proof' isn't empirical for a start. Secondly, without quantum physics you explain to me the photoelectric effect, or any of the other myriad experiments that empirically proove the standard model? Saying there's no proof for a very commonly accepted (and taught) part of physics is at best a gross underestimation of the physics community.

Infinity can have different sizes

Controlled by a single locust? You're talking crazy speak! To Pseudoscience to you! ONLY I UNDERSTAND SCIENCE

I heard that it made sheep go pink!

You can change the spin of an electron by putting it in a magnetic field.

No there isn't.

Erm, depends PRECISELY what you mean :|

Apologies from earlier in the thread go to whoever I was arguing with over singularities. Forgive me for forgetting all my mathematics. Although the Event Horizon is also a singularity, just a removable one. (Maths to follow for those of you who like this kind of thing) The eqn we're looking at is g^11 = (-1)/(1-2:lambda:/r) Obviously, you'll get a singularity at r=2:lambda:, but this can be removed by an appropriate coordinate transformation and is designated as such. In fact, r=2:lambda: gives us the location of the event horizon, but we can leave that aside at the moment. The other interesting case is that g^11 => 0 as r => 0. This seems perfectly trivial, until you consider that space time curvature is by the double differential of that equation (with respect to r), and so you find that curvature ~ :lambda:/r^3, which will, when r=0, give infinite space time curvature as was said earlier in the thread. ps. It was faf I was arguing with, although his question 'What is the mass of a singularity?' is entirely pointless. This reply sponsored by Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering by Riley, Hobson and Bence for reminding my ignorant brain of what a singularity is.

I hope he isn't, and that I can still persuade him. I need to fund a 'fact finding' (ahem) mission to Canada.

And the existance of lasers. Oh, and emission spectra, but that's pretty much the same thing. As is every example of colour, except the flavour of gluons.