keep_talking

So your going to escape where? Your going to travel millions of lightyears to avoid a celestial collision? Why not visit another galaxy before we kick the bucket? Wheres your sense of adventure? No, no screw it we just sit here and watch it happen. Im glad NASA did not have the same ideas about the moon. Jumping on that train seems a pretty good idea considering the alternative. I clearly stated a few problems with human movement through the cosmos. I also clearly stated that the red giant phase of our own sun would probably do us in before we get anywhere near Andromeda. Did you even read the post?

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe? The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole? How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember? its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

The tectonic plates move due to convection cells below the surface of the earth. These convection cells are caused due to the intense heat at the core of the Earth, and rest directly on the outer layer of the core of our planet all the way to the bottom of the crust. The molten outer layer circulates the convection cells below the surface allowing the mantle to be pushed across the surface. Without a molten outer core, there would be no plate tectonics on Earth. This is of course, a general hypothesis but can be tested off Earth. We know Jupiter has a molten outer core of liquid hydrogen because of its staggering array of magnetic storms at the poles from its magnetosphere. The Hubble Space Telescope verified this. The problem is we cannot see the surface of Jupiter. The facts point in the direction of a sea of liquid hydrogen because the intense pressure below the atmosphere of the planet. Temperatures can easily reach 10,000 C at the "surface" of the hydrogen ocean and allow it to freely flow on the surface. This gives almost the same conditions as the outer core of Earth.

Physics is a science of explaining observation. We can only observe that which is in the visible universe. Our account of the universe is constantly changing based on discoveries and their explanations. Christianity is a religion based on human observation of what was perceived as divine intervention through God. Our ONLY account of this is the Bible. Science and religion are two completely different things. Religion sought to explain the mysteries of the universe and its methodology through the word of God. Science seeks to explain the same mysteries through observation, hypothesis, and eventually theories.

Fantastic post, but one thing I have to ask: How can the universe be expanding without first having a reaction to cause it? Are you saying there was potentially no BB to kick it all off? Its estimated that at the exact moment of the big bang, and milliseconds afterwards the universe went from the size of an atom, to the size of Jupiter. I don't see how that could occur without a force acting upon it. That is easily defined as exponential rate of expansion. A force in motion will stay in motion, but a force at rest tends to stay at rest. A force in motion will easily stay in motion through the vacuum of space until an opposing force acts upon it. Matter and energy are fueled/produced by the expansion of the universe, but I thought matter could never be created or destroyed? All the matter in the universe is the same matter that was here during the big bang. I just fail to see how the default nature of the universe is expansion.

A planet cannot have a molten outer core without the surface having constantly changing plate tectonics. Earth is one of the FEW planets we know of that has a constantly changing tectonic plate. Unfortunately, the probes we sent into space to look at mars are not equipped with the proper equipment to measure if Mars still has "Marsquakes" and there is no sufficient data to prove or disprove this. Can we say the rapid cooling of the surface of Mars had nothing at all to do with its distance from the sun? I want to say there are a multitude of factors in Mars' wasteland like surface. Fascinating conversation to say the least.

I bolded my quote of Mars' size being its problem. Would there be a direct correlation between size, mass, and heat loss? How can mars be half the size of Earth, but only be 10% of its mass?

Speed is a relative measurement based on distance covered over time. Time on Earth is relative to Earth and Earth bound objects. S=D/T D=SxT Time on other galaxies would not be the same as time here on Earth. Time (as far as we are concerned) does not move slower or faster based on your location in the universe, but ultimately depends on the mass of objects around you. More mass = slower time progression Less mass = faster time progression Mass is the determining factor of the speed at which time moves. Mass has the ability to slow the "drag" or movement of time (slightly) relative to you.

Space does not contain mass, this is correct. But the OP said how can we turn an object (assuming all objects have mass) into energy. He suggested that the stone needed to move at the speed of light in order for this to happen. That is what I was referring too.

I thought an object with mass could never fully reach the speed of light?

Its not the size that is causing the rapid cooling of the surface of mars, its the core of mars (thought to be completely solid) that does not flow like Earth's core. The flowing of the core is what produces the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is responsible for the condition of the water on the surface of Earth to remain. I cannot remember the term used, but theres something that says the Sun's radiation can and will degrade the properties of water. There is no atmosphere to protect the surface from solar winds, and no magnetosphere to protect the surface (that would be covered in water) from direct radiation from our sun. At one time, Mars had flowing water on its surface. At this time, the core of Mars was active. When the core kicked the bucket, Mars lost it's magnetosphere, and ultimately its atmosphere.

Did they not used to use sheep's blood as an agar? Im seriously not a biologist, and I have not had any training in pathology.

Thresholds of pain vary from organism to organism. Take for instance, the collection of nerves at a given body point. Are they exactly the same for you as they are for me? Less nerves = less pain sensory More nerves = more sensory. Take for instance, the skin on your elbow. You can grab and squeeze it as hard as you want, typically you wont feel a thing. Environmental circumstances play a roll as well. There are tribes of indigenous people who willingly accept pain, and tune it out as a rite of passage.

Interphase, Prophase, Metaphase, Anaphase, Telophase thats the order of mitosis. If you have to take a test on the information, just remember I.P.M.A.T. you wont ever forget the phase orders!

The core of the Earth is the reason we have a magnetosphere, and ultimately an atmosphere. Scientists believe this to be true by comparison of earth to mars. Mars is roughly the same size as earth, has similar mass and yet, has no sustainable atmosphere, and is completely barren. if Mars had a superfluidic molten core of iron like earth, it more than likely would be a green planet of water and plant life. Seeing as this is not the case, the sun's radiation is free to ravage the surface of mars making it the barren wasteland it is today. This is thought to not always be the case. The downfall of Mars is thought to be due to its size. At one time, mars' core was spinning much like Earth's core, allowing the formation of water on the surface. The water was free flowing, until Mars' magnetosphere was stripped away due to the core of Mars had stopped spinning. The core of the Earth is made mostly of iron, giving off a magnetic charge..and a magnetosphere. As it spins, it ensures the sun is not free to assault the surface with radiation. This allows for an atmosphere to form around earth, allowing for a water cycle..and ultimately organic life. Thanks Earth!

Would traveling through time be based on our view of time? Is "time" based solely on perspective? It was explained to me that people who have orbited the earth and come back have shown to have their wristwatches a few seconds faster than they were when they left earth. This is due to the fact that Earth has mass. Mass reduces the "drag" of time on a body. For instance: A man standing next to a building will have his time altered to move slightly slower, because the building is reducing the drag of "time" on him. A man standing 200 yards away from the building will be moving slightly faster through time than the man standing next to the building. He has no mass around him to slow the drag of time...if you will. The man standing away from the building will age very slightly quicker than the man standing next to the building. The EXACT reason they advance (like .0000001 seconds) the clocks of GPS satellites in orbit. If you want to be completely truthful, we have already traveled MANY MANY microseconds into the future. Theoretically speaking, future time travel is possible and has already happened...based on a perspective. Now, if your trying to jump into a time machine and travel 3000 years into the past...not likely. Want to SEE 3000 years into the past? Look in deep space! Suppose you wanted to visit a far away planet in a very far away galaxy. As your plotting your course, and looking at the galaxy your going too, you would be seeing that galaxy in a very distant past as the light from that galaxy you are looking at is very old and has been traveling for a very long time. Hubble photos are simply very old sources of light. Your seeing a galaxy as it appeared a very long time ago. If those pictures were taken directly on top of the celestial bodies they photographed, they possibly would look very different. They might not even exist at all.

All living things must eat to sustain life. Is he really fat? You must drink water to survive. Humans wont live past a week without it. You can suspend your body in water to passively absorb water through your skin. Not the best way but its possible. So is this guy swimming constantly? The simplest explanation is this guy is totally a fraud. Offer proof of the goddess sustaining him. Why him? Why not the countless millions of other humans (just like him) that are starving in this world...and dying from it?

My question is simple. WHY??? What "force" causes the proteins to bind? Why does A bind to C? Why does G bind to T? How did DNA know to do this? Why does the random chaining of DNA inside the nucleus of a cell lead to the development of an extraordinarily complex organism? HOW does DNA know to allow its instructions to be read, replicate itself, and if need be repair itself? These are not things we would think happen naturally in our world. Compare it to building a skyscraper. Ive never seen them build themselves. It takes the hands and minds of thousands of workers and builders to collaborate. None of this makes sense to me. Without DNA we simply would not exist. Yet, something that is so small and seemingly insignificant can be the secret to the most intelligent being's on our planet? If DNA is capable of all these things, should we not consider DNA itself to have properties of a living organism? Its obviously "smart" enough to be aware of it's own existence, improve upon itself, and tell a cell to replicate, all the while not allowing it to happen without passing a copy along. At the same time, be thousands of times smaller than a single cell in your body? DNA is smarter than people think. Sure its just proteins and acids suspended in the middle of every organic cell in your body. But apparently, it gave way spontaneously, and created all life on Earth? Fat chance people. There is OBVIOUSLY a lot more to DNA than we know.

If we are truly responsible for the largest contribution to GHG...what % of GHG comes from say...erupting volcanoes? We have more GHG emissions than a volcano that erupts for a week straight? If we go out of our way to reduce emissions, it can all be wiped out in a week by nature. There is no way in hell humanity is solely responsible for the Earth's temp rising. Between volcanoes, sea floor vents, and all that jazz, I would think our emissions are simply a drop in the bucket.

Studies show the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Estimations are that in about 3-5 billion years, the galaxies will intertwine, and completely destroy each other. This does not bode well for humanity. Hell, its been said that we have front row seats to our own destruction. Personally, I would give almost anything to witness this first hand, but its just not going to happen, and personally, I don't want to live that long. I have also read that in fact, the combining of the galaxies will go un-noticed due to the vast distances contained within the galaxies. Stars and planets will not collide, merely pass by eachother unharmed. Mumbo jumbo? You decide. That being said, there has been a lot of talking about our physical limits to how far we can go and see into space. Our current technology simply does not allow us to traverse over such long distances. We would need an almost endless supply of fuel, food, water, and air to sustain us over such a long period of space travel. The amount of money and time that would have to be dedicated is completely mind boggling. Entire lifetimes would be spent travelling through the nothingness of space just to reach the point of glimpsing our destination. BUT... Since the Andromeda Galaxy is predicted to collide with us eventually (assuming the sun's red giant phase does not kill us all first), would it not be logical to look at the idea of say...leaving a bit early..say half a million years before that happens? I don't necessarily recall who it was, but they gave good evidence that at some point in time FAR into the future, we could theoretically look up at the sky and see the Andromeda Galaxy engulfing our skies. Think of it this way...(theoretically speaking of course) the Andromeda is on its way here. The distance is massive, but suppose we leave at the right time and meet it half way? A third of the way? Cut out half of our travel time? Is this possibly our best chance of surviving outside the womb of our mother Earth? Why not let the universe do the work for us? Its bringing us another galaxy to explore, and its already on its way here. The gap between our home and the Andromeda Galaxy is closing and the window of opportunity is there. 3 billion years from now, assuming humanity is still here, whats keeping us from leaving our mother, and seeking out another home? If humans plan on surviving and retaining the knowledge we have aquired so far there is no other choice. We must leave. Maybe not right now, but eventually. I am by no means a scientist, or an expert in the workings of our universe. However, I feel this is in fact a really good question that should be asked. I dont see a pile of suggestions for our ultimate survival on the table, and as far as I know, this is an original thought. Sorry for the length of the post.