Thales

YT the carbohydrates are the plants mass, stored as its 'flesh and bones'. Primarygun, my initial conjecture rests on the idea, which I still believe to be correct that there is an excess(small perhaps but an excess no less) of hydrogen produced. To simplify; CO2 + Photons + H20 = Oxygen + Hyrdogen + Carbohydrates(food) Oxygen + Hyrdogen = Heat + Electrons + H20 H20 goes back into the plant. So the system operates independently of local water supplies(or lack there of). Overall benefit; Less CO2 in the atmosphere Heat Electricity Food Small Excess of water Seems logical enough to me...

Indeed however, on the grandest of scales, the universe/mutliverse is a closed system, that's my point.

Perhaps if you stated your objection more clearly I would be able to respond more articulately...

???

Energy (in its purest form) is needed to create anything. You cannot have a universe with nothing in it, its not a universe, it is nothing. Unless you invoke a deity who can place some particles here and subtract some there, then having a universe with different laws but nothing in it would be neither functional nor meaningful. Think of a very primitive version of the anthropic principle; a world cannot exist without anything in it to define its existance. As for the laws of conservation...sure the matter would not be in the same form as there would most likely be a discontinuity at the boundary between universes but the matter/energy would still exist no less (all be it in a different form). This is all on the erroreous assumption, no less, that there exists 'bridges' between universes. My main arguement against the creation/destruction of matter is that, if these wormholes exist then there would presumably be many of them (given the age/size of OUR universe). And if that was the case and matter could simply 'leak' out, then the universe would deflate, rather than expand...

No problems here brother, juts a heads up. Sometimes on forums people get a bit 'carried' away but I am not a moderator and I have no problem with you venting your ideas, infact as I said a post or two ago I applaude those among us who speak their mind. Keep up with the inquiring mind, and I also offer my apology if I sounded overly harsh, tone is next to impossible to express through type. No irritation here matey, if anything it was a subtle dig at the few people who have 'declared' their IQ etc, as though it is some justification to spurt s**t. I am always interested in new idea's, and just because people might not agree with yours, it is essential to the scientific process to reassess your own theories at every turn. I hope I can help you in anyway I can...

23/m/Oz Australia is great, we really are the lucky country, but I'm still a pom at heart though(its where I get my good looks from). It's an interesting age spread across the forums...

Supposition indeed, but I stand by my comment that without matter or energy to apply the laws to, the laws themselves are meaningless...

One of the big problems with our atmosphere is its abundance of CO2, so if plants Do create hydrogen, be it in miniscule amounts, wouldn't it be a good idea to combine it with the oxygen the plant expels. This process would effectively turn CO2 and sunlight into water and carbohydrates...yes/no?

Sayo, regardless of the laws of physics being different, they are meaningless without 'stuff'(ie matter/energy) to apply it/them too. As for a definition of a wormhole, I don't believe that it is possible to 'escape' this universe in any way shape or form, so any wormhole would only take you to another part of the universe. Possible its center, possibly far back in time, but not out of it...

hmmm...for an Englishman/woman your English is terrible. Communication is the key my friend, you might be the smartest person in the world but, as someone else so eloquently put it in another thread, if you can't communicate your idea's, things will become much more difficult. Modesty doesn't go astray either, I've noticed a lot of the self professed 'geniuses'(mainly the youngens) on these forums often turn out to have little or no clue. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but just be weary that blowing your own trumpet just to make noise, can be irritable to say the least.

Does it even qualify as pseudoscience? More like pseudowacky! But good luck no less, like Sayo says you get even two or three right and I'll eat my hat...

Why not? The energy/mass has to come from somewhere...

Cheers Primarygun, those equations will go into my records. The reason I was asking was because if a plant(possibly a food crop) needs water, but can generate hydrogen, then wouldn't it make sense to combine the hydrogen with the oxygen the plant expells in order to make this water(via a fuel cell)? The process creates heat, electricity and most likely a small excess of water, all while making a crop grow in the most arid of areas? Thoughts/Criticisms more than welcome...

Agreed

Hooray for the logical beings! People like you guys give me hope...

Quite easily, think of the analogy of a computer processor. The smaller it is the faster it is, however this efficiency in 'perception' comes at a sacrifice to complexity, thus...bird brain. Flies 'brains' are a bundle of reactive nerves, their 'perception' of time is only faster because they don't think they just...fly. Two puns in one post. I feel so dirty.

If there are white holes in 'another' universe there would have to be ones in ours(conservation of matter/energy/information). Some people theorise that quasars are white holes although it is merely conjecture. As for creating universes out of 'over-expanded' quantum wormholes, where would the energy and matter to create the 'new' universe come from? If the answer is our universe, then it is not so much a 'new' universe as a transformation of an old one. Out of curiosity please define ghost radiation.

Logic is different from abstraction, and when we talk about leaving logic far behind, it is viewing logic as an outcome of common sense. The postulates of SR and many fundamentals in QM will leave you in a state, if you try to always deduce the 'logic' behind them. The universe has no need or will to be logical. Things that seem 'logical' to us, are based on our experiences, but lorentz contraction and time dilaition are results of mathematical logic not common sense logic, which appeared to be Mr Batty's line of attack. Swansot and I were merely trying to point out that one can 'theorise' till your blue in the face, but without a firm understanding of the concepts that have been previously nutted out, by generations before us, your arguements will be baseless. "If I have seen farther, It is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" -Isaac Newton Personally though, I encourage people to think freely topics, its both intellectually stimulating and the process of peer review of such idea's makes us all more well rounded individuals (in both communicating to others and understanding concepts better ourselves). That is not to say, however, that words alone are enough to convince anyone of a particular theorem's scientific validity...

Gravity Probe B was deisgned to test whether space time is 'dragged' by the earths cosmic movement...not nessercaily a consequence of gravity waves but an outcome of general relativity no less.

IMO macroscopic 'instantaneous' teleportation is impossible. You'd have to create a device that can instantly scan you, turn you into code, transport you and reassemble you, without flaw, instantly. Most unlikely.

There is a theory of time-travel that eliminates this paradox. It is, that at each point in history, there is a branching of the space time continuim such that each possibilty is actuated, but in a different 'dimension'. However seeing as this would require an infinite amount of energy and an infinite amount of dimensions, the idea doesn't sit well with me. Reminds me of the 'many paths' section of QM though. There is also the theory that Time travel may be possible but people cannot travel back any further through time than the point where the machine is 'switched on'. This sounds a bit more reasonable to me, although it makes you wonder what sort of crazy crap would fly out of it the second you turn it on.

Biology is matter that is in a transient state. Its constantly changing and it relies constantly on what has just happened to it. It is very sensetive to what is going on immediately around it. You could not teleport someone atom by atom and reconstruct them in the exact same way. The momentum of the indidvual particles, where they were heading prior to disassembly, would not be conserved, thus I conclude it is impossible to teleport any 'living' thing and have it survive the journey. I would like to be wrong, teleportation would be crazy, but I think the technology to master it for the travel of sentient beings, would be beyond even the most advanced of the universe's species.

Not sure if its been posted but; Two cows are standing in a field, one turns to the other and says, 'Are you worried about Mad cow disease?' Cow 2: 'Nope' Cow 1: 'Why not?' Cow 2: 'Because I'm a Chicken!'

Ohh too true, too true.