Its 4 light years to the nearest star, and if we ever going to get there we will need to be going at a significant fraction of the speed of light.  Ten percent of the speed of light is 19 thousand miles per second.  if you hit something at that speed its going to damage your craft.  Space is is only relatively empty, even if its only subatomic particles; what kinds of impacts might you experience and what might the effects be?  Could you have eroded away before you get there, or be annihilated in a crash with something tiny?

                                                             /-----------

Past (low entropy) -------X (the present)  -------  All possible futures (high entropy)

                                                             \-----------

Where time is a wave and the present (point of observation) is where the wave (superposition of all possible futures) collapses.

So in effect the universe is created NOW and flows into the past because the future only exists as a superposition (observing it in the present causes it to collapse into a single state) the present is a static point which time flows through pouring into the past. Also, when observing any superposition, you are effectively looking into the future (all possible futures of that object)

Just an idea I had, any feedback? feel free to shoot me down with science...

My prediction is this: If we could calculate Pi to tens of trillions of digits further we would see the far end digits shifting ever upwards away from 3.

My belief is that in the early universe before too much expantion (and therefore entropy) had occurred, Pi would have started at much closer to the number 3. But entropy slowly creeps the number further upwards as the universe expands and warps.

The universe is roughly 14 billion years old - Pi is 14 points off 3.0

Coincidence...? Perhaps not

if you send a nuetrino from a transmitter to a receiver at a pre determined distance then did the same to a photon. Which would arrive at the receptor first.

New theories and observations have suggested Earth's oceans came from cometary bombardment. But if so, how did all the water arise in the first place? 

The primordial Earth acquired organic molecules as a result of lightning discharges, volcanic heat, UV light, etc, in an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, CO2, and the like. The evolutionary distance, so to speak, from there to the first cell, with its immense complexity, size, and organization, ability to sustain itself, capacity for reproducing itself and, most breathtaking of all, development of the ability to abstract its structural and functional molecules as information stored in an otherwise functionless molecule that makes it available for translation back into those components and moreover has the capacity to duplicate itself, is staggering. So staggering, in fact, that no one has proposed a plausible set of circumstances or steps by which the gap might have been bridged. By comparison, the evolution of complex life is more or less readily conceptualizable as a series of small steps up a gentle slope, a process of gradualism. The first achievement, on the other hand, feels like ascending a number of sheer and mighty cliffs with no obvious handholds. And yet the development of life after the Earth cooled took only one-tenth of the time required for the subsequent ascent to the most complex organisms, us. This seems suspiciously short. Is it reason to believe that the early Earth did not evolve its first cells, but acquired them as spores that drifted through interstellar space after being liberated by a giant impact event from the surface of another planet in a much older planetary system in our Galaxy, one that had 5 or 6 billion years in which to evolve its first cells?

There has been much speculation about how probable it is that life will arise, given a hospitable planet--from vanishingly small to near-inevitable. I have a probabilistic argument that the latter is closer to the truth: The Earth had cooled by half a billion years after the formation of the Solar System, and life had become widespread after another half-billennium--a period that represents only 5% of the total time that the window of opportunity will eventually have been open due to the nearly 10-billion-year stable life expectancy of the Sun after cooling of the Earth. In other words, although life could have taken any amount of time up to this limit to appear, it did so almost as soon as the window opened, so to speak. If the arising of life at all even on a hospitable planet is improbable, then its arising in a small fraction of the time available would be correspondingly highly improbable. Either life occurred in spite of odds against it, or the arising of life is probable. Ergo, it is probable that, across the Universe, the appearance of life is rather likely if planetary and solar conditions are conducive. Note that this is not an "anthropic" argument, the sort that declares that a certain condition must exist but does not take into account the fact that we would not be here to have the discussion had it NOT taken place: Nothing about the rapidity per se of life's debut is a prerequisite to humankind's eventual existence. At most, the window of opportunity for life to arise is restricted to 5 billion years, in order to allow "us" to have evolved before the Sun becomes a Red Giant, since in principle we could be having this discussion any time in the next 5 billion years. 

I just finished reading "A Multiverse of Parallel Worlds (June 4-10 New Scientist). The splitting of the universe into parallel universes has always raised a question in my mind. Suppose a split occurs, and there are now two universes, each one carrying on in its own direction. This would seem to imply that reality now has twice as much matter and energy in it as before the split. Where did an entire extra universe of matter and energy come from? Every time there's a split, the matter and energy would necessarily seem to double. If not, is there some sort of infinite sea of undefined matter and energy hovering "out there", waiting to be used to fashion all of these new universes? How is this supposed to work?

if space time between the galaxys is expandind in all directions wouldnt that effect the readings we get in regard to distance

Is there a cosmology model that identifies our forward motion through time as either resulting from a 'pulling ' force sucking us toward the future- or a 'pushing' force (maybe resulting from being 'sneezed out by the big bang) impelling us away from the past?

and if so can we look at gravitational effects as resulting from the force acting at a different angle or with different intensity on different items?