Incendia

Just answer the question...If anything it will strengthen and clarify the current view physics has of the universe which can only be good. It could stop some physicists following red-herrings etc. If more it could give you a reason to re-think your current theories as the why could conflict with your ideas of what and how or could spawn a lot of new predictions and open up new theory opportunities. We can't experimentally test many theories...it can be falsified by other facts and theories...it can be confirmed by sounding true and matching observation. You may think this is a waste of time, Swansont, but it isn't.

Depends on your definition of fair...Equality isn't fairness contrary to popular belief.

I saw that video...it doesn't help...[but I did only watch the first 25 minutes] @Sisyphus: If there is more space...where did it come from?...and planets can move through space...they aren't fixed like dots on a bloon. Space isn't solid like rubber and planets are not fixed...space just phases through objects through the empty space in-between atoms. Also it is the distance that increases not the space...

I know you don't have to know why...but knowing why can disprove your other ideas of how, what, when, and where... ...So again...why does mass curve space-time?

Exactly what is in the title... I am confused..How can it be possible for all galaxies to appear to move away from the one you are using as the point of view? Looking from one galaxy it appears that the others move away but if you use many as your point of view how can they all move away from each other? If you universe began from a singularity how can it not have a centre...everything must have expanded from that singularity...therefore everything must be expanding evenly from 1 central point.

That's not good evidence...There are other factors involved other than time...civilisations do have a tendency to you know...destroy themselves...Then there is nature...I think there predicted number of alien lifeforms should be halved...I think the equations we used to show how many alien civilisations there should be are over-optimistic. They need to be updated to get a more pessimistic answer. The italics in this post signify opinion.

...I'm a GCSE student...trying to teach me complex physics equations is like attempting to teach a fish how to walk. Math is there is show the evidence. Why is an important question to answer. Currently there is an explanation of what and how...but if why was discovered that disproves the previously accepted what and how then you know your why is either wrong or your previous what and how are wrong...why would you take the risk of your previously accepted what and how being wrong?Perhaps the answer you got to why is right and it turns out you have been wrong about what and how.Do you really want to risk it? ...I thought gravity was caused by space-time distortion and space-time distortion is caused by mass...

Why is it more probable that alien races are more advanced?

The stereotype that aliens are vastly more advanced than us.

People are over-reacting...the scientists aren't even sure how Arsenic is incorporated into it...

I haven't seen or used many chemicals but I'd say it was either powdered sulphur or whatever that was I made ago which turned into some weird purple/black crystals once the water had evaporated...I've thrown it out now but it had been in more room for ages...I think it had dust and some dead flies in it...must have been a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty bacteria...I forgot about it after I made it...don't even remember what I made it from or why... ...Actually I just remembered Bromine...

bump...why has everyone abandoned my thread?

Nope it belongs in physics because his question is whether or not the reader/replier thinks boiled water can be supercooled.

Light is not an object...it has no mass...It is made of energy...

I'd say it is important...If I knew that they didn't need a continuous input of energy and why then this would be dis-proved...

ACK! Science should be making things simple...not creating 1000 new types of energy where they are not needed...

Electricity is classed an an energy...

I didn't mean the energy is lost...I explained...the photon itself 'loses' energy as it moves because it cannot just conjure up kinetic energy that it needs for motion from nowhere. The photon itself converts into kinetic energy because as I understand it photons are made of energy. *Refined OP*

I don't understand...why is this wrong? I said I was wrong without saying why...

Yes they do...they convert energy into kinetic energy...we move and we convert chemical energy into kinetic energy which we lose.

Nope...they tell these are the 9 main forms of energy then stop teaching what the forms are altogether...maybe they do in university or college but that seems unlikely. ... because...it doesn't make any sense... it's seems illogical... just no...It would be like saying the motion of my arm out-stretching is it's own type of energy... It clearly isn't.

Well...I was thinking about energy...If photons are a form of energy [electromagnetic energy] and they never stop moving then shouldn't they lose energy to motion? That is my speculation...That if photons are energy they convert into kinetic energy...hopefully that makes sense... It's common sense really...it's just I haven't found any sources that tell me photons lose energy due to their motion...although as far as I know it is a perfectly logical conclusion. Have I stumbled upon something new or has this already been thought of?...or dis-proved?...

Well then why don't they teach us that in schools? Also sound should never be classed an an energy...not even as a manifestation of kinetic energy...This topic has given me an idea...

Radiation is done through photons not electrons...Modified main post.

Human equality...oh no...Are you sure you want to remove free bus travel for old people? Or make bus travel free for everyone?