AbstractDreamer

so this paper concludes [math] H_0 = 73.24 \pm 1.74 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} [/math] has 99.9% more confidence than [math] H_0 = 66.93 \pm 0.62 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} [/math] Is that right? That's quite a huge swing? Are they only factoring measuring uncertainties and not some modelling assumptions into the confidence? Does a larger [math] H_0 [/math] value set us further to the right on the red line in this graph? https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts_exp.html

How did the ancients put down a big enough surface, and then remove all evidence of the surface? Ancients built it, aliens only removed it.

Clever and resourceful! But still, how did the ancients use that rock-pivot-move technique on soft ground? I still think it was more man power + a lot of time + some clever engineering.

I think most people agree: There's no doubt exercise relating to chi heats you up. Neither is there doubt exercise not-relating to chi heats you up. There's no doubt you can transfer thermal energy via conduction. Its not impossible that you can control blood flow, metabolic rate, and even maybe electric charge in the body using conscious thought. The question is there something else to chi beyond heat and charge that we don't know yet. Or is there something about heat and charge that medicine hasn't yet discovered? Seeing something you don't understand is not proof that "special physics" exists.

Before you starting building anything , just a few thoughts: What is your optimal float altitude? Too high you get less protection vs UV rays and yes less oxygen, too low you get weather and storms. Tempertaure variations with altitude too. Earth magnetic field is constantly shifting. It might even flip soon (1- few million years). http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html

Questionology the study of asking questions. Questography the measurement of asking questions. Law of Questions: [Math] Q_1 \leqslant Q_2 [/math]

Sigh lol. How did I not guess 1 question = 5 more questions. No more questions for now, I need to study QM basics. Thanks for all your patience.

Ok so the sum is the same, but the larger the region, the more likely a large fluctuation will appear somewhere? Are energy fluctations either positive or negative, or are they multi dimensional? Do positive fluctuations ever "materialise" into something permanent or non-virtual? What happens in the negative locations? Anti-energy?

So as space expands, does the sum total of zero-point energy increase, or are quantum fluctuations "co-thingy" with expansion. "co-volumetric"?

But if there is nothing within a particle's future event horizon, then uncertainty (of position and velocity) is meaningless as there is no reference, nor will there ever be a reference. The only reference would be in the past.

Will time ever end? If the universe continues to expand and entropy, will it ever reach a state where it can "decay" no further. A moment when no further change can happen. When everything has cooled to absolute zero. When all particles have decayed to sub-particles that do not experience time. Where space has expanded so much that there is no other particle within every particle's future event horizon? How does expansion and entropy fit with laws of conservation of energy? Does the Universe have an absolute Energy value? Can time spontaneously begin after it has stopped?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon This looks like its got trigonmetry stuff you need

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77604-reduce-ph-of-water-using-hydrochloric-acid/ This might help, just substitute in your numbers. You might need to find the Molarity of your Nitric solution.

Doubtful on radiowaves. This is biological evolution. It requires that radiowaves need to have been around for millions of years to give biology a chance to exploit it. On the other hand, free electrons is what these bacterium are "feeding" on. I guess there are many kinds of natural rocks, perhaps metallic in nature that can provide such an environment. You might be able to make any old metal stick antenna that will receives radiowaves that will then transform the EM wave into a free electrons in the antenna. Stick your antenna in a soup of electric-feeding bacteria, and then control the behaviour of bacteria via the radiowave somehow. That's not to say you cant get a primordial soup of complex molecules, and semi DNA strands and some simple bacterium, subject it to high energy radiowaves, and let nature run it course. Maybe something will form that will exploit the energy in the radiowaves directly.

I'm not a chemist or anyone with knowhow. A few of my thoughts: Isn't HCL dangerous and toxic, especially if your product is for consumption or entry into the food chain? You don't have much neutralising to do, isn't something like acetic acid (vinegar) safer to use? The minimal amount by volume is dependent on the concentration of your acid and the PH for that concentration. So surely you can discount HCL 0.1M in favour of HCL 0.5M? When you measured it by hand, did it not occur to you to note down how much you put in, so you would at least have a ball figure to work with on the next dilution? EDIT: Apparently HCL is safe according to SCOGS http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260426.htm "There is no evidence in the available information on hydrochloric acid that demonstrates or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect a hazard to the public when it is used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future."

Around 2 years ago, I recall someone mentioning they successfully cultivated bacteria that fed directly off electricity. Its pretty mainstream these days. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160613-there-are-microbes-that-eat-and-poo-nothing-but-electricity https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160621-electron-eating-microbes-found-in-odd-places/ That's not the same as bacteria being able to sense electricity, though its quite possible. They certainly react to it. Sensory or reactionary capability is a step towards communication.

i need more homework

You dont need to walk anywhere, just arch your back until the RED LINE is vertical, and hold your arms above your head. Or just swing the carrot until you can grab it. I'm going to get this wrong but here's my go: The Hubble limit is our particle horizon or "observable" universe. Its actually not calculated by the distance to the furthest object we can see, but how far a photon emitted from us could have travelled. This is all based on the history of the universe since t=0 Things beyond the observable universe can be moving away at superluminal velocity, but we might be able to observe them one day if the scale factor decreases. The future event horizon is much larger, its is a prediction based on the evolution of scale factor of expansion, from now until the end of time. It is the limit beyond which will never influence us, because they will always stay ahead of a photon emitted from us today. I guess this assumes that expansion will never flip into contraction.

I was just making a general comment. There's a lot of ways of symmetry. Inside out, upside down, leftside right, frontside back, firstone last, clockwise anticlockwise etc An anti-universe doesn't necessarily need to be opposingly symmeterical in all these aspects, but it certainly does need to be symmetrical in at least one. Being symmetrical in one measure, say distance anti-distance, is enough to make it "not of this universe". More than 1 symmetry might lead you back to the original form, via rotations, flips, and inversions.

That stick is too short, or string too long, or carrot too big! The point is the carrot is supposed to be out of reach?

Don't waste your time with me, I probably wont understand much. But if you can comment on your conclusions or possibilities that would be enlightening.

According to wiki there's 4.6% baryonic matter and 23% dark matter. Assuming gravitational constant G is the same for both types, I would expect baryonic matter (BM) to gather and coalesce around dark matter, rather than vice versa. Unless some time in our past the ratios were reversed, particularly around the early formative periods. I recall reading that the ratios evolve over time. It would seem DM is less susceptible to entropy than BM, unless "weak decay" for DM follow different mechanics.

Does antimatter (that follows normal time and gravity) entirely exclude the possibility of anti-time and anti-gravity? Is it possible that both negative energy solutions to Dirac's equations can co-exist? Just symmetries in different direction. PS I'm not really sure what I'm saying.

If you really believe in this yourself, you should focus on defining this statement. Otherwise it sounds like a reading from a fortune teller.

Would you also not require anti-distance, anti-electromagnetism, anti-singularites etc? How do you reconcile retro-causality with anti-retro-causality? Is this interpretation about Mutuality rather than Causality?