[Tycho?]

Hmm, my question is how this would affect photons.

A singularity is a mathmatical term, which you are free to look up. A gravitational singularity would be the same as a black hole I believe however. At least a black hole as it is understood by general relativity.

1) Aliens dont want to colonize space, for many potential reasons. 2) Local supernovae or some other phenomenon exterminates or severely sets-back life in a region of space. 3) There is something which makes intersteller space travel more difficult that we assume. Now, its pretty damn difficult already, simply due to distances. But our understanding of the area outside the heliosphere is limited, and there could be some property of the space that would further hinder space travel (ie extra high energy particles, or something more exotic that we dont yet understand.) The unlikely hood of live appearing in the first place seems decent, but life has shown to be quite tenacious and our lack of understanding on how life formed in the first place makes me not want to include this on my list. As well, aliens could simply be so advanced that we have no way of detecting them or their signals.

While interesting, I'd have to get some sort of quantifiable evidence of loop quantum gravity before I put too much stock in something like this.

Most of the weirdness comes up due to the particle nature of radiation and matter. A wave isn't like a billiard ball, with a ball you can say "this ball sits at position x". A wave on the other hand cannot be defined so exactly, its indistinct, which leads to a number of odd, counterintuitive things due to its wave nature.

What are you talking about?

String theory has made zero verifiable predictions. So, it is a lot of fancy math at this point, not really a theory at all.

Do you mean the magnetic fields of other planets?

Yes, people (and everything else) results in the production of heat. All of human activity, including things like industry and automobile use would put out quite a lot of heat into the atmosphere, enough to be measurable anyway. But it would be tiny compared to what the earth recieves from the sun.

Earth's magnetic field is like all other magnetic fields. However Earth has the strongest magnetic field of the inner planets. I dont think static electricity on the moon would affect life of Earth very much.

What does this have to do with Big Bang theory? And theories are almost never started over, usually they are partially correct and just need to be changed.

As has been mentioned, you cannot view a neutron star like a regular star. You may or may not know that a neutron on its own is not stable; it will decay in ~11 minutes (off the top of my head). Yet, neutron stars apparently do not decay, at least according to our limited understanding of them. This can draw parallels between a neutron star and an atomic nucleus- which is where most neutrons exist and where they can remain stable. So, basically, you need quantum mechanics to be able to understand such a system. This doesn't look so good, because even something like the neucleus of say a uranium atom is rather complicated. And instead having a few tens of particles, a neutron star would have... yikes, something like 10^57 neutrons***!? Thats a fair amount. Treating a neutron star like one incredibly massive atomic neucleus is a very appealing idea to me, although I doubt this works beyond being an analogy. *** calculation Wiki says neutron stars are 1.3-2.1 solar masses, so on the same order of magnitude as our sun which has a mass of 2x10^30 kg. A neutron has a mass of 1.6x10^-27 kg. 57 orders of magnitude of difference. Assuming that all or at least the vast majority of a neutron star is in fact neutrons.

Strange assignment. There would indeed be air resistance, and nothing would be in slow motion. I dont know why you would have to do this for a physics class, but just read some sci-fi. Put your society on a rotating habitat (like Halo, or ringworld, or your everyday rotating space station) to provide centrifugal force that keeps people pressed to the floor.

Still very much considered? Please, its archaic, there is zero evidence for steady state, while a huge amount for big band. Steady state hasn't been seriously considered for decades.

It would be best to use a microwave that you could do without. But doing it for such a short time should be ok, once you see it glowing dont let it go too much longer. You could try to get in contact with those people that made the videos (even posting in the comments of the video if its on youtube could yield some results).

Yeah, this was announced many months ago. I dont think it will happen, but whatever.

Well, look up entropy on wikipedia.

Yeah its pretty strange to look at.

Other planets, yes. Other stars? Not for quite a while.

You are visualizing it as an explosing thats occuring in say a 3D room. This is not a good way to think about it. There is no room that the explosion occured in, the exposion emompases everything, there is nothing outside it. The oft-mentioned analogy is this: Take a balloon, and draw 4 points on it with a marker. Blow up the balloon, and notice how as the balloon expands all the points move away from eachother. Inside and outside the balloon is nothing; you can't draw the points on just the air. So all these points are moving away from eachother, but they are not all moving away from a single point.

What the hell are you talking about?

Very interesting, thanks Martin.

Uh, yes it does mean that. But the event horizon is thousands of light years away, and totally undetectable. So for 99% of the galaxy the black hole in the center doesn't make a difference.

What do you mean by "everlasting (distance wise)" ?

Really? For visible universe or the whole thing? I thought it was still an open question as to whether the universe was infinite in extent or not.