JaKiri

Current information suggests infinate expansion.

Well, under current reckoning the universe won't converge, so that's pretty immaterial. They also don't have to collapse around a centre, just around any point which may or may not move. The final point doesn't have to have been the centre.

Sorry, yes, I'm wrong about that. (/me puts down the beer) However, that doesn't devalue the rest of the post.

So what you're talking about is the possibility that a self aware computer will form entirely by chance, when struck by lightening. I think we can ignore that one for the time being.

You're assuming that we're the centre of the universe. We're not. Every galaxy is accelerating away from every other galaxy. If there's a centre of the universe, then not all rest frames are equivilent, which rather kills special relativity, which is a very nice theory and everyone assumes its true and to the best of our measuring it is. ps. Empirically, of course, there isn't a center of the universe EITHER because we can never find the edges.

I'm a physics student, and if the universe has a centre a whole swathe of physics gets unhappy.

No. Trust me on this one.

The universe has no centre, and as to the gravity comment, Whut?

I have the copy of scientific american that's taken from. It has a caveman on the front.

We've had a thread on silicon life, and the general consensus in the scientific community is that silicon has nowhere near the number of possible reactions required to be able to form life, at least was we know it.

Just an educated guess.

Once again, you'll only get infinite mass IF AND ONLY IF THE MACHINE GOES BACK IN TIME AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES. Which it doesn't. It goes back once, and there happens to be two when there was one, temporarily.

It will take more energy to give the equivilent light of, say, a 40W bulb out through beetles than using a bulb.

Using fireflies would be more expensive, less efficient and much less reliable.

1. Do you know anything about the scientific method? 2. Do you know that evolution DOES exist, at it's most basic level as a mere logical consequence of random variations in characteristics? 3. Do you realise that science is all about choosing for yourself, finding the path that has the most evidence? 4. Do you realise that (on a creationist website that most of the other one's I've seen have linked to) most of the 20 or so 'flaws in evolution' were explained in my geography class when I was 9, as a part of the national curriculum?

It's not going to be a theorem, is it? Someone needs to learn the lingo!

It won't keep on adding up. Say I moved a brick back in time to 3 minutes ago. For 3 minutes, there would be two bricks, but then one would vanish and you'd just have the one brick again, except 3 years older. ps. The net difference between what you eat and what you excrete will be removed from your body when you leave the planet. pps. Hold on, that's the Guide.

'hahhhahahaa'

I think a better question is 'Why do you refuse to give your name, then give instructions on how to find out what it is?'

I see someone didn't read the original post. And please be civil.

There's also muon catalysed fusion, which uses hydrogens with muons instead of electrons, making the atom smaller and thus requiring less energy to get close to another one.

They resolve Zeno's paradox. ps. http://www.oed.com is superior, but requires a subscription.

We use fusion for bombs, but we haven't got a profitable sustainable fusion reaction yet.

Planck units.

Special Relativity states that all reference frames are equally valid.