[Tycho?]

"We dont know"

Now there's a useful statement. Would you like to expand on that?

Yes, if gravity was more powerful at distances then we thought, then the galaxy itself would have an unexplained extra pull on this. Why, looky here, dark matter is used to explain a mysterious extra pull that is observed on large scales. Interesting, no?

It isn't. There are a couple cases that dont really count, like something to do with phase change, but nothing that carries any information, and certainly no spaceship. It is the most famous laymans result of Einstiens work, and as a rule it sounds quite restricting, and doesn't actually make much sense unless you understand the physics. As a result, there are always tons of people who try to figure out ways to get around it, or claim that it is possible. Those who do tend to know nothing about the physics they are talking about. We've had tons of people come on to these forums claiming to prove relativity wrong in this regard, people seem to like to argue against it for some reason.

What are you basing this belief on?

I was going to reply to this, until I actually read some of the text, and decided you are a crackpot.

Yeah, just take up a bag full of ball bearings and spread them out in a path infront of a current ship. Good bye mr ship/

The words used to explain mathematics are not mathematics. You could teach someone different aspects of math with using no language at all, just standard notation. It would be trickier, and more time consuming, but it can be done.

Well yeah thats obviously tricky as well, you'd need to burn a lot of fuel unless you want to fly away. Meh, this could be overcome with difficulty though, I was just pointing out that over huge distances it isn't a very useful weapon period, even if you could do it.

I think you guys are over-emphasizing the role projectile weapons would play in space warfare. Remember that space craft move at rediculously high speeds, and even if we were just in the local solar system, the distances are massive. Ships would be shooting at eachother from thousands or tens of thousands of kilometers away, and if you are just shooting a slug of metal, it is very easy to avoid it- simply vary your thrust. Over such large distances, it would take a noticable amount of time for your projectile to get to the target, it could take minutes, hours, or whatever. If you think someone is shooting at you, put your engines on for 2 seconds, or turn them off for two seconds. The slug will miss you by a wide margin. Thus projectiles would only be useful at extreme close quarters of space combat. Lasers are where its at.

1) Yes it would work 2) Do you realize the distances you are talking about here? If we had the technology to make such a device, I doubt the experiments we would be carrying out with such a device would be all that useful. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "strategically placed asteroids with powerful magnets orbit the sun." Put magnets on asteroids? For what purpose? I really dont get it.

Whats Q?

Yeah pretty much, energy cannot be created or destroyed as far as anyone knows, so the amount of energy in the universe should remiain constant. There might be some estimates on it, but I dont actually know if there are any ideas on how much it would be. You could estimate the energy of the earth if you felt like it.

No. Amino acids, the basic building blocks of life have been created in an experiment simulating early earth. But no, we've never created new life from non living things before.

It would expand.

What is consciousness? We dont know.

If you're running through a proxy in Germany, google will show up as Germany. Otherwise I dont know what the problem would be.

You would be able to see the ground, the earth and the sun. The ground would be deceptive however, as most of the pull would be directly under you, so the horizon would not seem as far away as it actually was.

Uh, I know that beyond a couple of electrons these sort of systems are extremely complicated, and even our fastest computers can't compute systems with more than a handful. Obviously your system would be simpler, but I dont know how far you would get with that.

Uh, I dont think so. In chemistry we've studied entropy and enthalpy as different subjects. On is S, and I think the other one is G although I dont remember which is which. But yeah, opposite of entropy is order. Usually things move towards a state of disorder, so the opposite of that would be the sponanteous ordering of a system.

The poor countries burn and cut their forests for lumber and farming which is exported to industrialized nations.

Its probably you.