Sato

Ah, then I'm having a misconception of the environment on board. You're saying full-blow forest like areas, including rain and different animals? And I think the idea in the book is a bit drastic, but who knows.

I did, and made an opposing reply. Still, I see how it was a bit vague so I'll restate: There's a fair chance that the initial travelers would reach their destinations due to their traveling at (close to) c and aging maybe 1/4th of the rate at Earth so, time is indeed relevant.

This seems somewhat plausible but where would they build it? How would they keep the plants from dying out after draining the soil of nutrients, or some other method? Nonetheless, this is a very cool idea and I hope for it to be constructed one day. The life time of the initial travelers shouldn't be too significant of an obstacle in that situation; read all of the above posts.

I was being very specific, stating exactly what I wanted to communicate.. You shouldn't manipulate what people say just because you don't like how it looks.

You're so difficult, it's almost overbearing.. So tell me, where do you see anything about it taking 20 years to travel 80 light years here?

Do you have a problem distinguishing between 'year' and 'light year'? I've only mentioned the former.

Is it so difficult for you to comprehend a simple response? I said that the time changes not the distance. The time it takes decreases from their perspective while they still travel the same distance. Are you still confused? Edit for: Removing extra newlines.

I think this might be a good reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space.

Good job, you tried to interpret my answer. Since the time slows for the object traveling at c, they'd be experiencing maybe 20 years rather than 80 years.

If you were traveling at c the time it would take to travel a distance would only be a fraction of what it is normally due to time dilation.

Photons aren't actually moving across the object at the speed of light, you're just changing direction of the laser and light is being fired at that new position. For example, imagine you're observing a 100km long object from a relatively large distance, now point your finger at one edge of it and move it to the other edge; you may have moved across the whole object but your finger is indeed not moving 100km per second.

The dome would probably need a depressurizer to accommodate the depth, some source of oxygen(either pumps or maybe electrolysis of the water), and a lot of structural support.

I might have misunderstood but, did you just say that protons break down in to electrons and photons?

Then, I assume, the answer is that there is no literal proof for this interpretation.

If I needed you to give a conceptual explanation and your opinions I would have asked for them, but I didn't(=p). Also, I apologize for using theory; as you said, 'many-worlds interpretation' is the correct term.

I've been reading about the subject and stumbled upon the quantum many-worlds theory. Is there any observable or mathematical backing for a 'new universe' sprouting from every possibility?

Finding all of the possible combinations isn't science fiction at all but predicting 'what makes sense' isn't all too feasible considering that a small change would be insignificant and there would be an extremely large number of solutions so that a computer wouldn't be able to deduce for one solution... eg. assuming the situation includes a tree, is the tree 9', 10, 10'1" and so on. A computer is man made; if we see it on a computer then we have discovered it. 1. No, not everything will be created; numbers being infinite, it would take an infinite amount of time for a computer therefore it can't discover 'everything'. 2. It isn't known whether our universe is finite or infinite, so that was erroneous as well. Look back at my first answer. No, if you're talking about a video taken with any normal video camera; it's a frame of captured light.

Haha, you're right about why I chose 24 years; I found Apophis while looking around here some time ago. Though the impact probability is much less than 1%, it's good to be optimistic.

I don't see any possible doomsday coming up within the next 24 years.

From the above paragraphed responses, the simple answer is that you (most likely)wouldn't be alive within the event horizon. edit-Unrelated @OP: Tesseract?

I recommend practicing on Projecteuler.net; they have 379 programming challenges that you can try out.

I'm pretty sure that De Pretto was using it to describe conditions of the light æther and his cousin(who worked with Einstein at the patent office) show Einstein who in turn developed correct theories from it. I'm all for Einstein but some credit is definitely deserved.

Knowing the math includes knowing the symbols and operators- http://physics.info/symbols/. Have fun learning the math.