[Tycho?]

E=mc^2 Energy in Joues = mass(kg) times the speed of light squared. speed of light is 3x10^8m/s 0.001x(9x10^16) E=9x10^13J

Since we dont know what dark matter is, how can you say it can "absorb" the earth?

Madscientest, excellent post (the first one) Now, you're wrong, but thats ok. Way to many people come in here saying that relativity is wrong, and that they seem to know everything and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is clearly a moron. You come in and ask an intelligent well thought out question, and are humble about it to boot. Good for you. I wont go into too much detail (since I dont know much). But galaxies and solar systems are generally flat because they rotate, not because gravity is stronger at one point. A solar nebula for example might start out with a slight rotation. As it colapses in on itself, that rotation will speed up to conserve angular momentum. The nebula will have a rotation in one direction slightly larger than in another direction, and this will be the direction of rotation of the system. Other particles will be moving in the opposite direction, and coming down on top of and from blow the disk. As these parcticles hit the (more plentiful) particles already roatating in one direction, they will tend to do the same. The end result is a mostly flat disk of matter spinning in the same direction. When the star at the center is born, the matter will already be spinning in this direction. When the planets around it form, they will already be orbiting in the same direction. There are exceptions of course, caused by collisions or objects that enter the system after its formation. For example pluto orbits above and below the plane of the eleptic, and it isn't going to change this orbit any time soon. You can orbit the sun at any direction and gravity will be equal no matter how you do it. ...I ended up going into detail, even though I'm not too sure about some of this. Someone should give this a look over to see if there are any errors. (good chance there are).

I dont know how they did it, you could easily look this up on google if you are curious.

In the early 90s two researches claimed they had observed a fusion reaction that emitted energy but occured at room temperature. There results were not valididated by others who performed the experiment, so nobody gave it much credence. Cold is a relative term remember. Fusion normally requires tens of millions of degrees and a huge amount of pressure to occur. They didn't say it would not heat up, it has to if heat is created, but it certainly would be be around the millions of degrees normally required. Also, the exeriment was not large scale. They had only a small amount of reactants, and they observed a few neutrons. This amount of energy would not heat much of anything even if it did exist. It may not be entirely incorrect though. While nobody has been able to come to the same conclusions the original two researches did, when performing similar experiments more neutrons are produced then can be normally accounted for. This odd result has prompted many to continue research in the area, although they are often ridiculed as crackpots. They even hold an annual conference if I am not mistaken. Maybe possible. It would be nice.

I've never heard that before. If he was talking about the validity of god, then he was being rather abstract about it.

Man, you have a post count of 10 now, is a single one of those posts not complete bullshit? If you are going to say quantum physics (one of the most successful and useful theories of the past 100 years) is hogwash, you had better ****ing back that up with something other than poor grammar.

It isn't a massive contribution. It isn't a contribution at all, it was his opinion at the time. His massive contribution was relativity and other work. This dice comment was not backed up by any physics, in fact it was contradicted by physics. Its meaning is pretty clear, since Einstiens opinions on quantum mechanics were well known.

Umm, yes? Because there are so few outside forces such as friction or gravity acting on an object in space acceleration is easy to measure.

How does the wave part of the particle work? I've never heard more than an extremely vague discription of this.

Like say, how would you measure the mass of something in space, not in a noticable gravitational field? I dont really know how they do this now, but you could easily measure it by exerting a force on it and measuring its acceleration, since Force(N)=mass(kg) x acceleration(m/s2).

No. The gas giants are beleived to have a core. Jupiter for example is believed to have a core comprised of metallic hydrogen, as a result of the huge pressures, as well as rock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28planet%29

When matter is moved to the speed of light, it does not become energy. You can' move matter at the speed of light anyway. The moving arm thing... i havn't a clue what you are talking about. E=mc^2 is conversion for matter to energy and vise versa. E is energy in Joules, m is mass in kg, and c is the speed of light, 3x10^8m/s. You put a mass into the equation, say, 1kg. You then multiply it by c squared to get 9x10^16J of energy from 1kg of mass. This is for rest mass, if the mass is moving, then it will just increase the mass by a tiny bit. I dont remember the full equation at this moment.

If the results are totally unobservable, it would make the results scientifically useless anyway. Scientific method is just fine how it is.

Uh, living on the gas giants would probably not be a good idea. Even for an airborne habitat, gas giants usually have huge wind currents. It would be a lot easier just to live on one of the moons of said planet.

I dont understand relativity, obviously. However, the logic, and the equations, and the testing are quite clear on the subject. Now, here is my theory on when I detect a logical flaw in something that •was written by one of the most intelligent men in history •has been peer reviewed by some of the most intelligent men over the past 100 years •has been tested to death, and proven right I tend to think that its MY logic that is faulty, not theirs, since there is no way I can keep up with the equations involved. When your v increases, time slows down for you. Equations were already given for this. Why does it work out? It has something to do with c being a constant, which makes absolute time impossible. Get a real textbook on the subject, and read up about it.

Thanks martin, I did indeed read your original post, but I think I looked for "heliocentric gravitational constant" instead of "heliocentric coordinates". Now I found a site that perfectly describes it, thanks a bunch.

I'm almost postive that this energy was emmited because of the heat of the universe, not matter anti-matter reactions.

Ok, I failed to articulate myself properly. I have no trouble thinking up ways to navigate in space, refference points to use, ways to view it, things like this. I've already thought up a way to define the x,y and z axis from which to get coordinates for the solar system. x is the plane of the eleptic, y is going through the top of the (rotational) poles of the sun, and z is a line intersecting the sun and a planet of choice. It would probably be earth for convienence, but for other solar systems the second largest mass in the system would be used. Or you could use distant stars for refference points, galactic orientation etc. I want to know if there is any sort of system in place for this already. Like can you point to a place in the solar system and name the coordinates there by some international system? Or is there no system currently in place for this?

How does one measure position/direction in space? Not how the acutal data is collected, but how it is written, and what refference point is used. Would position be maesured in refference to the earth, or to the sun? Is direction the same, such as degrees off of the axis of the earths orbit? Does such a system even exist? I am considering writing a sci-fi short story, possibly for a school project, and I want to know how this would work in space.

I too have trouble wrapping my mind around this. Namely its that direction thing, that I think of the big bang as something like, say, the sun, only way brighter. But I can't really think of how that would mean that I would be able to see the light no matter where I look. I know that the universe is expanding, and expanded at an extremely high speed during the early universe, but I still have trouble with it.

Is this a joke? I can't really tell, we get some odd stuff here sometimes.