Sorcerer

Didn't bother to read all the replies, but add HCL to CaC03 (limestone), is an easy way. That doesn't make sense either it's baking SODA and vinegar, ie sodium bicarbonate and acetic acid.

Without even reading anyting except your title, it depends on your definition of exists. OK, now to read... lol..... but how can we know what we cannot measure?

You can only assume this. All we can say is that from where we observe the universe is uniformally expanding. AND then assume that the universe is the same everywhere as from where we observe. Occams razor would have that be correct. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry for being redundant. I should read b4 I post. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCenter in 3D or 4D?

Really, constant? I was told light slows down when it refracts.... was I told wrong? edit: sorry just looked up at iNow's post.

He said "D"... is he right?

lol

Why do people need an Einstein quote.... isn't that obvious? edit: "before me..." is a bit over zealous.

I've always wondered about the word vibrate, is that just an analogy?

How could it "exist", by definition it can not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not sure, I was just putting out a little story to hook the question.

Get a balloon, put dots on it, blow it up. The dots are stars/galaxys, anything u want really. You could even write MW and X. Space isnt created, its just "expanding". I'm not trying to be condescending, but maybe u could look up "expand" in the dictionary.

LOL bump from 5 years ago

I'm guessing this is a rhetort to my: "Really all Krauss can say if his theory is correct, is that a universe can come into existence from a space which contains the conditions for it to do so, this is NOT the same as coming into existence from nothing." I see where the paradox lies, but it only brought me back to my thinking that something always existed, it seems to be the only way to solve the paradox and it also nicely removes a first cause, removing the best argument (I've heard so far) for a diety. However it still doesn't exclude the possibility of one althogether. You see, if everything has a net energy of 0, and can just come into being because it was bound to. Then nothing has a property (That of spontaneous existence). If nothing has a property it doesn't fit my definition of nothing - therefore even before 'nothing' split into what we observe - it existed.

Its really hard to visualise at the quantum level because particles are shown as probability distributions, never really in one discrete place (unless u force them to be by measurement) but smeared out. And that kinda bugs me too, because it implies we exert some kind of will on the universe, changing its nature by observation. I cba looking up stuff at the moment, but a rough guide is an atom (not H+) is 99.9999% empty space, primarily because the electron shells are massive compared to the nucleus.

very good, but I wasn't really looking for the obvious answer. It was in reference to sci-fi/future propulsion. So, do you think there is a potential for a "driving force" within a vacuum, for instance, not all areas of a vacuum are equal, or if the vacuum has some structure and it could be altered, to provide a gradient. Eg, seperating out virtual particles and recombining them (I know... sorry Bob ) See Severians post for a more scientific/explained possibility. I understand my post is complete non-sense if u consider the vacuum of space to be a classical vacuum, ie. nothing.

Lawrence Krauss argues that everything can come from nothing, so it must have done so at one point, he argues this primarily because of his dislike of deist ideas. In order for this theory to remove the possibilty of a deity, it must show that it was the beginning of Everything. Because if ours is not the first, or only universe, then there are still many possibilities. The existence of a deity can be among these. If universe can come into existence from space and space is flat, then we are infintesimally likely to be the first. The universe can come into existence from space. The universe is flat. In a flat universe there is an infinite ammount of space/time. (even if its volume only approaches infinity as time approaches infinity, because you can sum up all of space/time up to that point to be infinite.) Because there is infinite space, there are an infinite number of chances for a universe to come into existence. Therefore this universes chance of being the only one is infintessimal. Therefore there can be an infinite ammount of universes. (skipping a few hidden premises) Therefore this universes chance of being the first one is infintessimal. _____ Really all Krauss can say if his theory is correct, is that a universe can come into existence from a space which contains the conditions for it to do so, this is NOT the same as coming into existence from nothing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf the universes initial condition was a singularity, then it always existed. If we could observe past the MWBGR we would be observing back towards an infinitely streched space/time that never reaches a beginning.

What's inflation then? (the conditions of space time changed from one state to another, ie it was expanding at a different speed, whos to say it won't happen again, whos to say, just because inflation, made space-time flat, something else won't, or hasn't already, started making it un-flat?) I'm guessing your link is about Occam's razor, a useful tool, but by no means the be all and end all of truth. I'll go have a look. ______ Without reading the entire paper, this link doesn't change anything about my point.

This is where ideas come from, where'd science be without ideas?

^when observing the universe from this place in space time. remember we can only see into the past. The evidence shows the universe almost certainly WAS homogenous/flat.

That's right, and therefore the theory cannot answer the question, did the universe have a beginning, because it can only answer down to the initial moments after a point. To assume just before this is the beginning of EVERYTHING, because if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you have something. Doesn't follow, this is no more science than any other guess. In an attempt to fill in the cause of existence, it only begs the question, why do the laws that allow that exist.

I guess if ur constantly trying to keep imaginary particles in existence you would need to use energy to keep it going anyway, so better off just to use classical propulsion and gravity assists. Maybe an Event Horizon or a particle accelerator making anti matter for an antimatter drive, is similar to what I was getting at. Would be neat if there were an easier way though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can I ask, why does it have to? Do you mean, "and it cannot, because it always remains the same."

I just think that if its possible and its not proven false, then its still possible. Assuming the universe had a begging and adds up to 0, is just 1 possibility. We cannot see the big bang, we do not know what happened with complete certainty. All we can say is that at the moment the universe is expanding, we can observe X numbers of years back and we cant see past radiation, we infer/extrapolate/assume from the expansion that at one point it was a singularity and at that point it began. This is not proven, only assumed. Further more, hubble volumes prevent us from seeing outside another "bubble" and we cannot know what's happening at every point in our universe at the moment. Again its assumed that the universe is uniform. We dont know whats out there, so we cannot say with certainty. What would it mean if a universe popped into existence in our own and we observed it?

Simply put life runs off energy and entropy is part of that, more is needed for a full definition of life. (reproduction/evolution)

I'll keep my above post as an example of someone being totally confused and offtopic . Quotes from his speech about the anthropic principle: The key phrase being "in quantum mechanics", it just redirects the question to, "why do we have quantum mechanics?" I guess if you want to, you can just say, "we just do", alternatively you could say, "because something allowed us to have it." This doesn't necessarily have any implication of a deity, it just needs a further definition of what "something" is. I guess thats his problem then - he can't answer the question, so he overlooks it. Well, I understand he's trying to be funny, but the actual deduction from his previous statements would be arranged: Astronomers are here to measure the universe, because it is the way it is. Doesn't sound so "rediculous" or "religious" now. What hes trying to do, is argue against it using a backhanded, adhomonem attack, IE hes trying to call those people who think this, stupid. Again, NO.... again rearranged: Bees can find flowers because they can tell their colour, (among other things). I get his point, but then he goes onto say... First of all, he contradicts himself. By saying its pretty, yet ugly. Second, what's scientific about ugly? Third, the final part of the quote ( means absolutely nothing, the anthropic principle explains clearly why the universe is the way it is, not why its something different. WTF??? (check my quote, perhaps he meant to say, or I heard wrong, "....but why it has to be something different.") He should stick to science. Listen to the final question. He nearly reaches the conclusion: Therefore in one of these rooms we were created. (But skips his track, before he falls into his own trap.) From your original post: The universe MUST be flat???? He states that the accuracy the the universe is flat, according to observation, is within 1% accuracy. How can he know that the part of the infinite universe we are observing is all of the universe? How can he know that all of the universe is the same as the part we are observing? To me it sounds like he wants to beleive that, so that he can base his beleif arround 0, so that he can do easier math,,,,,, lol. I want to repeat my thought. The universe always existed, because time is dependant on the existence of something. I think the big bang was just a part of the universes evolution, it can't just be assumed it was its beginning, and it can't be known. As far as we know only this "bubble" of the universe observes a big bang happening 14 billion years ago. If he wants to assume 0 as a beginning because he has problems with infinity, then he has just as much beleif as a deist. IE it is the exactly the same kind of choice between beleiving : Everything has a beggining and Everything always existed As between beleiving : God created(/is) Everything and Everything just exists.

I was refering to vacuum energy, as in particle/antiparticle pair - borrowed energy from the vacuum of space +1 + -1 = 0. If it were possible to somehow, rip-off (for lack of a better word) the universe steal its energy (thus shrinking it) and use it for propulsion. See: A Universe From Nothing http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45226 So, if the universe adds up to 0, then wouldn't it be possible to steal some, it still would add up to 0, the conservation of energy law would still apply, spaceship +, universe - Btw, I really hope, for your sake, you're being very sarcastic.

First off use of the words "try to" implies will, it can be forgiven and omitted. Life, infact, is constantly offsetting equilibrium through the imput of chemical energy, which ultimately comes from the sun, or in some cases (Chemotrophs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph) from other chemical sources. Sorry if I took the words "in life" from your topic header out of context. Edit: this being so, equilibrium is still in process, since energy used to offset equilibrium in cells is taken from another place. IE the sun gets colder, and life gets warmer. All matter has thermal energy, except that at absolute zero temperature, this however will gain energy from other matter to obtain equilibrium. Except if that matter is also at absolute zero, this is possibly what could be call the ultimate equilibrium. Edit: The question you're asking could also be phrased, "why does entropy continually increase?" And can only really be answered circularly, it just does, its an observation that holds true, so far.