Incendia

I think this may be of help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=YcvWnsiQycc

Okay...Is his question: Does matter exist independently to the mind? ...If it is I can easily prove it...We exist...that's the proof...we are matter we exist... Explanation: In the beginning of the universe there was no mind to watch the matter be created. Minds only exist if there is a body to sustain it...the body must be made of matter because it's the reactions in the matter that cause thought and behaviour and our minds to exist. The body can be robotic, cybernetic or organic...But it must still be made of matter and minds[intelligence, and thought] can't exist without something made of matter react with other matter or energy to produce different matter and energy which is how minds exist. Reactions between particles creating energy [electricity] which causes thought. Unless there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, mind filling the universe [a deity] then there is no mind to see the matter that causes the forces and reactions that cause the atmosphere to stay, and cause gravity to exist in sufficient strength and our organs to continue sustaining our mind which would make the universe exist. I don't believe the stupid quantum thingy that states that unless a conscience being is looking a quantum event could hasn't made up it's mind on whether it's done something or hasn't because without an omnipresent deity that never sleeps the universe would never have began in the first place and we would all die and then there would be no conscience beings to look at the universe which would cease to exist except for energy... [i an forgetting something, misunderstanding or thinking wrongly? Or am I correct?*Waits for response*]

Genes and your environment isn't everything...The epigenetics plays a part too...

Thanks...Nice to know someone likes my idea... ...I think I like idea version 1 better...I'm not sure... ...number 2 was just a random thought I got... It's not refraction but it is similar...refraction is to do with light. Gravitational lensing is to do with mass curving space-time which causes the light to be bent right? This idea gives the same explanation. And don't take me literally when I say space-time is a medium. Think of the idea as a different way of thinking about how space-time curves. The idea was my attempt to explain why mass curves space-time as I do not know anyone who has attempted to answer that question. [scientists find it easy to find out how and find it more difficult to find out why.] Essentially I'm just saying the space-time may be effected by gravity. This would pull space-time toward things with gravity causing space-time to bend around them. The other stuff is just me trying to find out how to add the motion of planets into it. I can not do the math as I do not know how.

Yes non-stationary space-time...Moving relative to the stuff in it. [The planets galaxies etc.]

Of-coarse the universe has a centre...It's where the big bounce happened. Relative to whatever... just generally moving... What?I don't understand what you are asking me... Just answer my questions...

Moving...in any direction...just moving...Probably away from the origin. [centre of the universe] Godel universe? ...My questions remain unanswered...

Gas is matter but not solid but still has gravity. If only solids had gravity then the sun [which is plasma] would not be able to hold onto it's planets.

This isn't science news...it's in the wrong section... A moderator needs to move this. also: 1. It would accelerate it terminal velocity and presuming the heat of the inside of the earth doesn't melt it and the planet's gravity doesn't pull it back together then it would swing past the centre of the planet then fall back and it would keep doing that over and over but would eventually be slowed down by air resistance etc. and would eventually just stop at the centre. 2. Speed doesn't equal burning. If the heat of the inside of the planet affected the log it would burn as soon as it reached wear the mantle would be...perhaps earlier...depends on where you made the hole. If you forget the heat of the planet itself then it may catch fire from friction with the air particles, but i'm not sure about that. If you forget both of those things the log would do the same thing as the metal in Q1 because there is nothing to make it burn. So it depends on the details. Things don't have real burning points. But in normal reality the Earth's gravity would close the hole before you could do that. Even if you did manage to stop that it would burn before it reaches the core because of the heat of the planet itself, which is enough to melt stone and metal.

No...For there to be gravity there must be matter...not solid...

I like your idea...but such a thing would be difficult. You would need more teachers because you would need more classes because you would need to split each year group into field of interest rather than intelligence based on statistics from exams...Also field of interest would fluctuate. One year only 7 out of 60 students want to be scientists...the next year 40 out of 60 students may want to be in science...[Yes I know thats unlikely...'twas just and example...]

Actually if you want to be technical they are reducible to particles... The way your mind works is just your brain, [made of cells, made of dna, which can be reduced to a combination of particles.] hormones and other chemicals, [as I have said chemicals are reducible to particles] and electrical signals. [And electrons are particles.] How they combine and reaction is how our brain works as as we know our behaviour stems from how our brain works. [i don't understand what you mean by functional information...]

A new discovery that says that the electric charge of fundamental particles would have been close to 0 when the universe was fractions of a second old because of the action of gravity. If this discovery is confirmed then it could help pave the way for a unified description of physical reality. The standard model of particle physics does a great job of accounting for the fundamental particles of nature and three of the forces that act upon them - the weak and strong nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force but no one knows how to fit gravity into the model. In 2006, Wilczek and Sean Robinson, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, showed that the electromagnetic force weakens at higher energies but only in the presence of gravity, which is neglected in the standard model. Others punched holes in their calculations so the idea remained controversial. Now David Toms of Newcastle University in the UK has redone the calculations more rigorously and came up with the same conclusions. In the presence of gravity, electric charge tends to go to zero as energies rise. The findings could have implications for attempts to unify all the four forces within one theoretical framework. The LHC at CERN could provide experimental confirmation but only if the universe has extra unseen dimensions as some theories suggest. In ordinary four-dimensional space-time the electric charge would approach zero only at well beyond the reach of terrestrial experiment. The article was taken from New Scientist magazine. It was written by Anil Ananthaswamy. Some information has been removed and certain words have been changed to avoid any legal issues if there would have been any from posting the article. If my attempts to avoid legal issues were futile then a moderator or admin may delete this.

You can't learn to become a genius...only to seem like a genius...

Hey...I didn't know anywhere else to post this... What if space really was moving...what if our movement meant we only saw the same side of space... What if the entire universe was spinning...again what if we only see the same side of the universe like we only see the same side of the moon... What if that spinning included space-time...[same thing here]

I assume space just ends...outside it is a space of nothing that doesn't even contain space-time...A place where there isn't even time...I also assume that in that nothingness is are more universes. With different origins and perhaps different physics. So the real question is whether than nothingness is infinite...and if the nothingness is finite then what is outside it. We will only truly know if* we get there. I believe the universe began with the end of a previous one that collapsed. [big bounce theory. A better alternative to big bang theory.] ...What began that universe I do not know...maybe that one also collapsed and so on and so on but there must have been a first one and then the question is how did that begin... *We might destroy ourselves or be destroyed before we expand and migrate there. [We as a species.]

Sweet stuff was rare and hard to get. During the ice age humans needed fats to survive. Western humans like sugar more that people from other ethnicities. This is probably because the north is cold. ...Those are just some ideas from the top of my head based on my thoughts...Someone more knowledgeable may list more reasons or disagree with one of my points.

Where an object is unaffected by the planets gravity/where space-time is not distorted by the planet... The red and purple lines are smaller objects passing the planet...

Sorry to post twice [again] but I don't have time to wait for you to post [or to make 3rd models of space-time curvature], so here is a 2d diagram: The yellow line is light moving in a straight line relative to space time. The circle in the middle is a planet. the lines inside the circle are to show there is space-time filling up the spaces between all the particles that make up that planet. The green circle is the edge of planet's gravitation reach. The cyan line shows how things might orbit. [Of coarse in real life it is less jagged] And the red and purple lines show how objects curve passing the planet. The thin planet lines on the white square are the imaginary lines running along space-time. As you can see the curvature of the lines is lesser closer to the green circle. ...Maybe this explains it better...maybe it doesn't...I at least hope it doesn't give you the wrong ideas about my idea...

A high tech Noah's ark? Wouldn't that just be a massive zoo that floats on water? Sounds stupid to me... Though if you wanted to link Alaska and Russia: 1. They are going to collide anyway. 2. A tunnel would be better as it would not effect the wildlife as much as a bridge would. About migratory fish and sea mammals living there: Below is a web-page that lists the various sea creatures living in the Bering Sea [bering strait is just above the Bering sea] and Gulf of Alaska. Feel free to research whether they are in-dangered/threatened and whether they use the strait for migration and living in: http://observernet.org/obsforum/BSGOAFishIndex1.html

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

Maybe...I don't really see the point in that though. I doubt the power is significant [though I could be wrong], most energy used by planes is in take off, and Most planes fly in the troposphere and stratosphere. The world record is 112km high in a plane. Thats only the lower part of the thermosphere/ionosphere.

Perhaps. I guess it could be possible...Nikola Tesla wanted to build towers that would take energy from the ionosphere or something like that...Though a tower that high would be difficult to build...