ZetaX

I have to side with K^2 here: you are the irrational one in this case (mostly by ignoring the actual argument on a basis of "I said something different [despite it being a special case of yours/covered by you]"). There essentially is no formal reason to differentiate between ablation-based and reaction mass-based rockets. They should be the same in regard to everything relevant to its job as a means of acceleration. Even more, an ablation-based engine is definitely a special case of a reaction mass one, so everything that applies to the latter automatically does so to the former.

Look up what a code is. DNA (or to be more precise: the genetic code) fits it perfectly.

Can we please not have another (fifth¿ sixth¿) round of this "discussion" that will mostly consist of "weird missunderstanding of quantum stuff" versus "the universe as we know it would break"¿ It had been done often enough in this thread, just look it up if you have a question, proposal, hypothesis or whatever; almost everything that can be said has been said. Give it a rest already until there are lots (!) of new data.

It surely isn't that good an idea, but calling it outright stupid needs some explanation. If I recall it correctly, then the main reason against the "use nuclear weapons to change the landscape"-style plans was mainly the lack of precision.

If the centrifuge is really huge and at the right speeds, there is no difference at all. If it is too small, people will get motion sickness and such, and possible some worse long term effects. But to find the latter we would need to actually put such a thing in space (it would still be huge: minimum diameter would be ~10m) and find someone who can actually stand all that motion sickness for months or years.

That first quote was before I realized that you are not talking about frames of references but actual coordinates here. Now I don't get the insistance on coordinates. We are assuming there is one that satisfies the assumptions of (in)finiteness; we are not necessarily assuming that each of them does. But I don't know about subtleties of that term in the context of relativity. Please write down your actual assumptions (especially how you define homogenity, infinite space and finite time), because I doubt we agree on the meaning of "infinite space" and "finite time". There is a relevant disctinction between "arbitrary large" and "infinitely large". For example, the finite subsets of an infinite set are the former, but not the later. As a much closer example, look at [-1,1] \times \mathbb{R}: every line through the origin, with the exception of the vertical one, is of finite length. While not entirely the same as in the universe, any choice of two lines will induce coordinates, and only those few involving the vertical one will actuially have infinite components. Or take one of those subsets of the plane that have finite volume, yet arbitrary (or even ininiftely) long segments. Both concepts _might_ be the same in our setting, but that requires an actual argument. The real concern I actually have with your argument is by the way that you continue throwing in more and more physics from our real universe without explicitely stating that. If we go that far, I would claim that such a universe is already impossible to begin with (how is it static¿ why are Schwartzschild-radii not a concern¿ how did stars actually shine since forever if time is infinite¿ and so on...).

If two objects A, B are one light year apart and don't move relative to each other, then light from A will need 1 year to reach B. If now B accelerates away from A up to a speed of c/2, then light from A will need 2 years (in A's frame of reference) to reach B. It's 1.73 years in B's frame of reference. The problem is that the distance changes.

Instead of indeed being rude, you could at least answer the question properly...: No it is not. It is the point of relativity, yes, but obviously not of bright skies. It's our sky we are talking about, not any other. Arbitrary long is still finite. The whole point of "infinite time" is that it is actually infinite (which then automatically is independent from the frame of reference). Why¿ Only the past is necessarily finite, we have no assumption on the future.

Like those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator ¿

Ours. I don't see how other frames of reference are relevant. Edit: actually, why is it relevant¿ The infiniteness of space and the finiteness of time does not depend on an observer moving slower than c.

If that chunk is a km in size, how else would it have originated¿ Either it was Theia or there was another really huge impact we don't know about.

Why ¿

If they are large enough, then there probably never was any other impact that could have created them. It might also be possible to find the age of an asteroid and check if it matches up. Possibly the orbit also tells something, but I am unsure wheather this really suffices.

Not really: A too young universe won't do due to the limited speed of light (not sure about ~4 billion years, the original one even assumed infinite age; but 100 years definitely wouldn't do); as would probably the very hypothetical scenario of having large black holes everywhere (which might become somewhat more plausible in a homogenous universe). Sure, those assumptions are minor, but they are to serve as an example that homogenity itself does not formaly imply the result (only after inserting some assumptions that probably are true in real life; but if one goes into hypothetical scenarios, then all conditions should be stated as good as possible). Also, didn't we have posts about this in the past¿ I think I listed a couple of things that give the bright sky, and a couple that would not by themselves (including homogenity).

And as K^2 already said: that does not imply a bright sky. You need homogenity and a few other assumptions for that.

Even worse: assuming black holes can work as wormholes, then it might happen that they only connect in a pre-set way, including us being unable to create new such wormholes. This would make them much less useful to wat people think about when saying "wormhole".

Or the particle gets across the horizon (as anti- is self-dual, this would normally make no difference, but your next sentences suggest you very specifically mean antimatter). An antiparticle has positive mass. The mass is lost in creating both particles, while only absorbing one.

Indeed, this is consistent with the observation that size is inversely proportional to lethality (as seen e.g. in by: being hit by the moon, hit by a plane, hit by a bike, hit by a bacterial infection, hit by a virus infection). This is not known to be factual. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Anyway, the concept of ouroborus was not new then. He probably saw a ring (maybe that one) and concluded that it matches the observations well (and there were indeed many observations available). No, science generally works by stuff being researched, not by crazy things being done. There may be a few exceptions, but those are completely irrelevant in comparision to "normal" research.

Yeah, the number of deaths by 0 each year is astonishing!

It seems the number 0 is surprising...

We know pretty well that it is man (and woman)-made

Yeah, you are good at quote-mining. Stop putting stuff completely out of context already. Unless you seriously think that "vaccines" is synonymous to "all matter in the universe". By the way, the same argument applies to DNA/RNA, forgot to also list that. I have no idea what your response even has to do with the bold part. My post was talking about you quote-mining and justifiying it with others supposedly quote-mining as well.

What is averaged on what¿ If those were country-averages, you would not have any intra-country color changes, yet many exist.

Am I the only one who finds it unconvincing that so many boundaries of "weather", even the temperature ones, supposedly match up with those of countries¿ I would understand that if they were solely based on official warnings, but that seems not to be the case.

Where I live we often get 38°C, sometimes 40°C, together with almost no winds and enough humidity to be really annoying. But stll no comparision to my time in mexico...