Yeah, nice try by whoever wrote the report. I have no intention whatsoever of ungluing my ass from my seat. A 15% higher risk is a trivial price to pay for a lifetime of luxury and decadence.
Why would we be worshipping Zeus if he was right? After all, he was worshipped at one time. And could well be worshipped again for all we know. Gods keep rising and falling...
What if Zeus is right and the Christian god is wrong? What if Odin is right and Zeus is wrong? Choices, choices...
Much as I love Google for many things, I can no longer believe in investing time into its products - except for a handful. These few are Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Android, and of course Search. After Wave, Buzz, Picasa, Google Health, Orkut, and Google Reader, I finally realized that Google is not committed to its products. It builds potentially cool stuff, and then ignores the hell out of them. I am not interested in using the products of a company that essentially tells its users to go fuck themselves.
Even with Google+, I'm receiving signals that the company is losing interest - which is sad, because I have far better conversations with people on G+ than on Facebook. I have realized now that the future lies with companies who make dedicated products. This is the reason for example, why I use LastPass instead of the Google Chrome password manager. I never know if a day will come when Google suddenly decides to wrap up its password functionality saying "not enough users" or whatever.
I no longer have faith in ANY of the conglomerates offering products all over the board. None of them have the interest or commitment to keep working on them. I am now a firm believer in "Do ONE thing and do it DAMN well".
I think this depends on the nature of space itself. Are we just objects sitting on top of space, or are we composed of space in the same way that the the surface of a balloon is? If we look at your model, it looks as if you're postulating a kind of "friction" between objects and space. That's why the discs with springs will only move further apart a little bit. If the rubber sheet was completely smooth, there would never be any increase in distance whatsoever since they'll just "slip" over it.
If there is no friction, then it doesn't matter even if there is acceleration. Like if it was a sheet of ice instead of rubber, everything would just sort of slide around. What is this friction, how do we measure it, what causes it...? I'm not really aware of such a mathematical quantity. For these reasons I'm just assuming that we're more than just objects in space. We are space.
And of course I could be wrong. I have no idea really...
Well, in a spring case the attraction increases with distance (upto a point of course). But I think if the rubber sheet was stretching and pulling the two balls along with it (balls are 3-D objects, so to make it a better analogy we should perhaps be talking about infinitely thin disks sitting on the rubber sheet) then the spring will eventually stretch, stretch and snap...
In this case, yes the line is paint and is sitting on the surface of the balloon. It's an imperfect analogy. But we're not just objects "on" space. We are space in addition to bending/warping it or whatever. So while all objects will increase in size, I don't think there's any data to indicate that the fundamental constants will change. So in a simplistic model if we look at the force of attraction between a nucleus and an electron via the inverse square law of electromagnetism, the increased distance will eventually reduce the force between the two causing the electrons to slip away. And the nucleus itself will burst apart.
Of course it could also be that I understand none of this and that I'm talking off the top of my head
In this case, you're not pulling the ruler. You're stretching the very fabric of reality itself. The ruler becoming longer is just a side effect. Think of it as a line on a balloon. When you blow air into the balloon, you're not pulling the line itself. But because the balloon is becoming larger, the line just happens to increase in length.
The force should keep decreasing as the distance increases regardless of acceleration. I mean, space expansion is accelerating, but I don't think that should make a difference to the rip...
I thought hyperspace was supposed to be a fictional alternate dimension ala Asimov. What has that got to do with the bending of spacetime by objects?
The attraction is a function of distance - the inverse square or whatever is the equivalent in the quantum world. The strong force in particular works only when the nucleus is tightly bound. Any relaxation in the distances should destabilize the whole thing. So yeah, we will eventually get ripped open. Even atom in our substance will disintegrate.
Space itself is expanding and there is no limit to how fast that can happen. It can be at 1000 times the value of c if necessary.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always c. It doesn't matter if you're moving at 0.9c. If you shine a torch of light ahead of you, it will still move at speed "c".
What is meant here however is that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand. So say we have two ends of a ruler 1 meter apart. After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was. There is no theoretical limit to how fast this can happen. It can be greater than c.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
Wormholes ok, they at least have a theoretical framework in modern science. Warp drives...well if you're talking about moving a space bubble relative to space itself. But since when did "hyperspace" become even a remotely scientific theory?
Tell that to the photons reaching us from the event for whom it literally just happened. There's no such thing as an absolute time scale. Thank you special theory of relativity!