Sorcerer

Right I see that. BUT the Hubble volume is where the expansion of space adds up over a long distance so that light past this point is receeding faster than it's speed and therefore unobservable. Shouldn't a telescope 10 light years away be able to observe a different hubble volume, shifted by 10 light years? IE we are removing 10 light years from the arithmetic series that leads to faster than light expansion away from us. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

So NOT including dark matter, whatever that is (something that's postulated because our current model doesn't fit with observation). If u tally all the mass of matter in the universe and all the mass of black holes, would it balance, eg all the black holes are made of mainly anti matter? My take on the CMB is that photons were interacting at close proximity with electrons/positrons during and after any annihilation/decay AND/OR removal of positrons into black holes, this light was intense and throughout the compact universe. This continued untill the universe cooled down/expanded sufficiently to coelesce into atoms. The CMB is a redshifted image of this and smooth because of the super fast expansion of inflation. Guenter when u say "the microwave background shows no signature of matter-antimatter annihilation", what do u mean? Surely the signature of this is photons and microwaves are photons. Please clarify.

Really? I thought cosmologists compared relative brightness of stars (redshift) to conclude the expansion of the universe. I'm not sure but I think perhaps the answer I was looking for was plancks constant is constant because it is coefficient relating the proportionaity of other measurements (E= hc/ wavelength). I'm still having trouble with planck length, trying to pair it with space expansion and also gravity's stretching of space. This just confused me more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly_special_relativity

Ok, if we put a telescope for sake of argument say 10 light years away from the earth and set it to transmit it's data to us. Could we then see outside of hubble volume by 10 light years in that horizons direction and receive the images 10 years later?

Ok, need isn't really a reason for something to exist, who's need? Yours? (sorry for being pendantic ) I see you are trying to use the copehagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to refute the many worlds interpretation. My multiverse is independant of both, it is a multiverse over vast ammounts of time, rather than one within moments of time (planck time).

Imo opinion something cannot come from nothing. 1. Nothing by definition does not exist Therefore at no time was there nothing for something to come from it. 2. Nothing has no properties Time is a property Therefore at no time did something come from nothing. Because there is no time before something and because nothing doesn't exist, it is not possible to argue that there was nothing 'existing' before a beginning for any ammount of time. Therefore something always existed. ____________________________________________ I have heard arguments that 0 (or as they try to argue nothingness) can be split into positive and negative side, which allows it to have existence. These arguments fail in that there is a property of that nothingness, which is the precondition which allows it to split into something. Therefore even the balanced total 0 energy is not nothing. It has the property which allows it to become something.

anti higgs boson?

Your questions are a very feeble attempt at aristotlean argument, that really only works when u corner them with ur argument in person and ask each question in order so they cannot refute the next question without refuting their previous answer. You tell me what is "soul"? Yes the nature of existence boggles my mind too, the fact that there is something rather than nothing is wonderous. I find alot more wonder in science than I do in religion. Religion states facts as faith, it doesn't allow room for progression, it stifles creativity and removes mystery. Science is the ultimate thriller in the writing, wait for the next edition. Maybe read a few previous ones

Personally I see the presence of plasmids, viruses and transposons (horizontal transfer) as evidence of early life still occurring today. These would have been very helpful at shuttling around RNA/DNA before there was full blown abiogenesis (IE cell replication/mitosis). As for it still happening, all the niches have been filled and adapted to, outcompeting life with protolife doesn't fit evolution. However it is possible there may have been several competing 'protolifes' during abiogenesis, after all competition can accelerate evolution and the emergence of life did happen fast on earth. Perhaps even archea and bacteria are 2 seperate abiogenesis events (but I doubt it).

Why? and What evidence? I don't understand why an excelerated expansion of space would mean the universe is imploding as apposed to exploding ( or "going in/going out" as u put it) - surely the evidence ( type 1A supernovae, microwave background ,etc) shows the universe is expanding. It would however be possible to conceive of our universe as the inside of a blackhole that has/is expanded/ing. - in thinking on what u said, pehaps the effects of mass(blackholes) distorting/stretching space between us and our observed data could make us "see" dark energy - ie the light has been curved and appears further away because it has travelled further than expected. This could also be accounted for by darkmatter, or darkmatter could be black holes. Ok, I didnt read all the thread just ur first post which wasn't very clear. Did you mean space's excelerated expansion is due to a super massive black hole stretching everything towards it? So, as we approach it we see space expanding at an increasing rate. Well if so, we could observe type 1A supernova from different locations on our horizon, and the difference between them would be propotional to their angle with 0degrees a straightline from us to the supermassive black hole. IE when we are directly between a type1a supernova and the black hole the expansion of space or "dark energy" would have a different value than to when the supernova was directly between us and the black hole.

No need for any "first cause" arguments here, just discussion of the many ways there could be a multiverse. The Universe that was always expanding Space is now expanding at and accelerating rate (cf dark energy) If we extrapolate backwards, we could conclude there was a big bang. If we observe, we can only see signs of inflation from just after this moment (cf Inflation theory, cosmic microwave background radiation CMBR.) Therefore we cannot say for certain there was a big bang. So it's equally possible that the universe's default state is inflation. Matter and energy are fueled/produced by the expansion of space: Space produces virtual particles (VP) (cf uncertainty principle) As the volume of space increases the probability that more VP's will be produced increases. When space is in its default state of inflation every frame of reference is receeding away from another at faster than the speed of light. Virtual particles appear in pairs which cancel each other out and provide extactly the same ammount of energy that was used to produce them. E.g. Matter/anti-matter pairs. When inflation is in process: The probability of an anti particle pair increases as space inflates The likelyhood they will "annihilate" decreases as space expansion (from their reference frame) approaches the speed of light. The seperated pairs energy, which allows for their existence (E=Mc^2) is then deducted from the energy that is producing inflation. So, inflation produces a tempory "swarm" of virutal paricles: many annihilate and produce a large ammount of photons - these reduce the energy inflation contains (inflation reduction) and contribute to the CMBR Some don't annihilate and remain till now - many bosons and mesons are produced - they are seperated by the faster than light expansion - inflation reduction Due to an assymetry the majority of the anti-particles decay first = more energy into photons = inflation reduction Inflation reached an equilibrium; with the matter/energy it produced and the gravity this mass then provided, and its initial energy. This is the start of our universe we can observe (cf hubble volume). ___________________________________________ 'exotic' matter (cf dark matter) is produced during inflation during its lifetime it acts via gravity as a buffer to inflation and produces 'seeds' for galaxys. It gradually decays and its energy is given back to increase inflation The rate of decay is proportional to the rate of increase in expansion (dark energy) _________________________________________ Space is now expanding at and accelrating rate (cf dark energy) If we extrapolate forwards, we could conclude there will be a big rip. That is the default state of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry If all the black holes in the universe were made of antimatter would it balance all the matter? IE would the problem of why there is so much matter left over from the big bang be solved? Would the question of why there was/is an imbalance between matter and antimatter in black holes be more of a problem than the original CP violation idea?

The universe by defintion means the "one whole" so anything else is just another 'part' of the universe. Sure there are many parts of the universe we cannot observe. Look up Hubble volume. Inflation made the universe expand very fast, the observable universe is ~13.7 billion years old, but the size of the observable universe is ~46 billion light years radius. IMO outside is just another layer if it exists.

Ok cant be bothered looking through all this now. But perhaps ur confusing the concept of nothing with 0 the mathematical number. It still holds a place. 0 = -1 +1 -1 is a real number +1 is a real number 0 is just a way of looking at them canceled out we will never perceive 0, I see why ur having a problem with nothing

Space is now expanding at and accelerating rate (cf dark energy) If we extrapolate backwards, we could conclude there was a big bang. If we observe, we can only see signs of inflation from just after this moment (cf Inflation theory, CMBR.) Therefore we cannot say for certain there was a big bang. So it's equally possible that the universe's default state is inflation. Matter and energy are fueled/produced by the expansion of space: Space produces virtual particles (VP) (cf uncertainty principle) As the volume of space increases the probability that more VP's will be produced increases. When space is in its default state of inflation every frame of reference is receeding away from another at faster than the speed of light. Virtual particles appear in pairs which cancel each other out and provide extactly the same ammount of energy that was used to produce them. E.g. Matter/anti-matter pairs. When inflation is in process: The probability of an anti particle pair increases as space inflates The likelyhood they will "annihilate" decreases as space expansion (from their reference frame) approaches the speed of light. The seperated pairs energy, which allows for their existence (E=Mc^2) is then deducted from the energy that is producing inflation. So, inflation produces a tempory "swarm" of virutal paricles: many annihilate and produce a large ammount of photons - these reduce the energy inflation contains (inflation reduction) and contribute to the CMBR Some don't annihilate and remain till now - many bosons and mesons are produced - they are seperated by the faster than light expansion - inflation reduction Due to an assymetry the majority of the anti-particles decay first = more energy into photons = inflation reduction Inflation reached an equilibrium; with the matter/energy it produced and the gravity this mass then provided, and its initial energy. This is the start of our universe we can observe (cf hubble volume). ___________________________________________ 'exotic' matter (cf dark matter) is produced during inflation during its lifetime it acts via gravity as a buffer to inflation and produces 'seeds' for galaxys. It gradually decays and its energy is given back to increase inflation The rate of decay is proportional to the rate of increase in expansion (dark energy) _________________________________________ Space is now expanding at and accelrating rate (cf dark energy) If we extrapolate forwards, we could conclude there will be a big rip. That is the default state of the universe. Edited for spelling and grammar

Since space expands and everything is moving away from everything else. Why is planck's constant, constant? And more specifically why doesn't planck length expand too?

I think u might have to improve ur thought process/vocabulary, "blip" wtf, time is something we perceive, perhaps ur just a blip. Ok sorry, yeah I'll try to take that seriously now. OK sure we can try to describe our time/space as a blip in a infinte "super" space. But all that we can try to do is make measurements within our own space/time. Perhaps from these we can infer that there is something greater - which we cannot measure, but I'm not sure if it's possible to do anything more than that. To say our own 'personal' universe (Hubble volume/Copenhagen interpretation) has particles popping into existence that create a new universe should be testable, within our reach. If it isn't then who knows, and it doesn't really matter does it.

In regions of low gravity space won't be curved. I read somewhere recently astronomers discovered a great void http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy), if this doesn't contain dark matter space there will be fairly flat. Also the shape of the universe is thought to be flat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe. Also it is worth noting that even if light/space curves around a massive object, the path it travels can still be interpreted as a straight line. Paradoxical I know, but for this reason - a straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points.

Hmmm, but Hawking Radiation addresses a very similiar problem/question without a unified theory. And thats all to do about quantum virtual particles and black holes. Couldn't get a better mix of gravity and quanta there. I am liking this idea, actually the more I think about it, it could be used to describe a cyclic universe removing the big bang. Our initial inflation couldve been part of another universes great rip. I also gives rise to a multiverse, which removes anthropic principle problems.

No thoughts? Was my post too vague or too complex? I could rephrase it. The Big Rip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_rip Virtual Particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles Hawking Radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation Another thought, if the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light during inflation, could this same process have created matter and slowed inflation? Could Dark energy then be this matters slow decay back into the "borrowed" vacuum energy, thus reverting at an increasing rate to the original faster than speed of light expansion that was inflation - which is also the big rip?

Matter absorbs the light at certain wave lengths, it doesn't need mass it has/is energy (E=mc^2). The light is then emited again. Electrons can move between shells using photons, when they lose that photon they jump down a shell and floresce. Hence glow in the dark materials/minerals.

I am not going to read this becaue I'm drunk and I enjoy it. Ignorance is bliss, yadyyada, I don't care when I die as long as I've lived. To live in fear is to live wrong.

Wanking over internet porn?

Shows how sensitive occam's razor is when it comes to complex things. Swansont I don't disagree, I wasn't actually afirming anything.

I can't be bothered reading all these posts. To selfish gene theory: rename it because 'selfish' is a derogatory word in laymens eyes. To selfish gene theory: group selection also plays a part. Evolution and occams razor need a blunt edege (if u don't get the metaphor talk to my lawyer). Now I'm thinking of developing a "shellfish" gene theory where octopi rule the Earth (joke) Merry Xmas, I'm not Christian, but I hope this is a funny present for u.