Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: jrod
Do you think the force of gravity is instantaneous, or travels at a measurable speed, say c?

What about the EM force?

Van Flandern proved it must react instantaneously.

Gravity is an instant force at all distances - wayyyyy beyond the speed of light.

If gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth would orbit the point where the Sun appears to be in the sky, rather than the place it actually is. It doesn't.

Its been proven gravity propagates at the speed of light by serious scientists.

As it turned out, the Jovian weather cooperated, and everything did go well, until the big day itself. On September 8, the telescope at Saint Croix malfunctioned because of serious tape recording problems. Fortunately, it turned out that the data from other telescopes could compensate for the loss. Although Kopeikin and Fomalont also had to discard about 15 percent of their data because of bad weather on Earth, this still left enough data to carry out the analysis. They compared the position of J0842+1835 on September 8, 2002, with its average position on the off-Jupiter days. Plugging this into Kopeikin's formula for the gravitational field of the moving Jupiter gave them the answer they were looking for. Kopeikin and Fomalont became the first two people to quantitatively measure the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature. They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21. The results were then announced at the 2002 American Astronomical Society annual meeting in Seattle, Washington.5

The result rules out the possibility that gravity travels instantaneously, as Newton imagined. If it did, a minutely different shift in the position of the quasar would have been visible on the night of September 8. This vindicates Einstein's instinct when formulating his general theory of relativity, which was to assume that the speed of gravity was equal to the speed of light

www.csa.com...

I was on my cell earlier so i wanted to wait to talk about this. Now though i agree with the results of this it isnt definitive proof of gravitational waves one of the reasons i didnt mention it. What this does is measure the effects of gravitation. Sort of like measuring the distance of a lightening strike by the sound waves it emits. Its indirect evidence though very good evidence. And when dealing with anyone who believes in Electric Universe they learn to take the smallest doubt and make a huge deal. Like the IO thing came from the thunderbolts website and they saw the report by USA today and others saying Io is like a capacitor or battery. This isnt an accurate description it is a watered down simplified version of the truth.Like i tried to explain in my last post but the I phone failed the paper was talking about a plasma tube that connects IO and Ganymede by the way to the Jovian atmosphere with mostly ionized sulfur. This is why i asked several times how the electric sheets form around Io. There is no way to explain it in EU at all because the source is the electrons being stripped from the sulfer by the solar wind as the magnetic field of Jupiter changes because Io has a magnetic field as well.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Poppcocked
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Absolutely without a doubt yes.

I can tell you're not a professional physicist.

A pro would ignore that question.

It's actually quite a fascinating phenomena. Their brains automatically blank it out like a person who has dissociative amnesia.

Ya know, I find this to be a fairly interesting topic. These guys are a case study for psychogenic amnesia arising from pure cognitive dissonance.

They know they can't say yes, but they also can't say no either.

It leads to a mental implosion.

You seem to think you have some major gotcha question here the reason this is avoided because it depends a physicist will say most definitely but a particle physicists says well i have to tell you about gravitons and re normalization they do like there symmetry. All this question shows is truly how little you know about physics The basis of GR is space time and its effects. In physics spacetime or more accurately the geometry of spacetime gives us whats called "geodesics." Simply put the shortest distance between two point these geodesics are always a straight line between the two points. Even the orbit of a planet is still a straight line and this is the major confusion for many on GR.
The other reason people avoid talking about space time is trying to explain the distortion that occurs when an object is in motion because this distortion is invisible to us and we see it again as a rotation caused by relativistic length contraction. This is one of the things that has to be accounted for even in wave propagation we see this as polarization. This isnt an effect of space but velocity but often EU people will say things like this observation or that one doesnt match GR but never take this effect into account on there arguments. These leads into trying to explain how motion changes our observations well here look at this.

faraday.physics.utoronto.ca...

So when someone asks about space time and we also have to explain other things as well so its easier to use analogies but of course people like thunderbolts will try to tear them apart to prove that somehow GR is wrong and EU is right. Your doing it as well the problem is when you do this all your doing is showing you only have a cursory understanding of physics. If you truly want to learn what we do know and dont know simple ask. If your trying to promote an agenda as a general rule any real physicists as you put it is going to explain why a given scenario is impossible or explain how it occurs. There not going to battle with you as to why its right they will point you to experiments and papers. Now if EU actually had a theory which they dont since i have never seen an entire theory and to my knowledge it doesnt exist. What EU people do is pick one observation and go see proof of EU but than when its pointed out another observation makes that theory impossible they move on.

So heres my challenge since you seem to believe gravity is either a minor player or doesnt exist depends on who you talk to in EU circles. Simply explain where the sun gets its power source sounds simple enough right? If its not fusion but instead a form of electricity whats the source?

a reply to: dragonridr

I agree without a doubt there is still a hell of a lot went dont understand about gravity, its easily one of the biggest unknowns in physics.

It has been postulated that Tesla's primary science has been censored from open source curriculum. Is such a thing possible in your opinion?

a reply to: dragonridr

The sheets are a product of the Sun's radial electric field being directed through Jupiter's magnetic field. All the plasma and magnetic fields in the solar system are always in someway related to the current flowing into and out of the Sun.

As for the sulfur:

www.rense.com...

What is actually occurring is an electrical connection between the Sun, Jupiter, and its moons, and recent discoveries have revealed this in no uncertain terms. When scientists discovered the most prominent auroral trail, or "footprint of Io," in the Jovian atmosphere, they assumed it must be an effect of "charge separation" generated by Io's "volcanoes." However, this theory was undermined in 2005, when Hubble images of the Jovian aurora revealed a similar "footprint" of Europa and its swirling tail.

A research team from the University of Liege, Belgium wrote of this discovery: "Europa is not thought to be volcanic, so what could produce the electrical current that zips along and eventually gives rise to Europa's auroral footprint?"

By incorrectly assuming that Io's "volcanos" generate the electric current between that moon and Jupiter, the authors of the 2005 report miss the point: Europa's electrical footprint in the Jovian aurora is a huge warning that the assumptions astrophysicists have applied to such enigmas can only create contradictions.

As if to underscore the point, NASA investigators found that the electrical exchange does not stop with Europa. It includes the third moon Ganymede as well. NASA's Hubble Telescope website now shows an image of the Jovian aurora, with three electrical footprints named, including that from the interaction with Jupiter's third moon. Thus, the original argument that conjectured "volcanoes" produced the signature of electrical transactions in the Jovian auroras has been fully FALSIFIED. The Io plumes are the RESULT of electrical transactions between Jupiter and Io.

A further exclamation point to the Io surprises comes from an analysis of the charged-particles surrounding the satellite. In 2000, scientists were "surprised" to discover an abundance of sulfur monoxide in Io's "plasma torus." This contradicted their expectations, since it is sulfur dioxide, not monoxide, that should be the "dominant molecule" in the supposedly "volcanically" active world.

a reply to: dragonridr

It's really straining my eyes to read your walls of text.

Did you give me a yes or no answer to my question somewhere in there?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

The sheets are a product of the Sun's radial electric field being directed through Jupiter's magnetic field. All the plasma and magnetic fields in the solar system are always in someway related to the current flowing into and out of the Sun.

As for the sulfur:

www.rense.com...

What is actually occurring is an electrical connection between the Sun, Jupiter, and its moons, and recent discoveries have revealed this in no uncertain terms. When scientists discovered the most prominent auroral trail, or "footprint of Io," in the Jovian atmosphere, they assumed it must be an effect of "charge separation" generated by Io's "volcanoes." However, this theory was undermined in 2005, when Hubble images of the Jovian aurora revealed a similar "footprint" of Europa and its swirling tail.

A research team from the University of Liege, Belgium wrote of this discovery: "Europa is not thought to be volcanic, so what could produce the electrical current that zips along and eventually gives rise to Europa's auroral footprint?"

By incorrectly assuming that Io's "volcanos" generate the electric current between that moon and Jupiter, the authors of the 2005 report miss the point: Europa's electrical footprint in the Jovian aurora is a huge warning that the assumptions astrophysicists have applied to such enigmas can only create contradictions.

As if to underscore the point, NASA investigators found that the electrical exchange does not stop with Europa. It includes the third moon Ganymede as well. NASA's Hubble Telescope website now shows an image of the Jovian aurora, with three electrical footprints named, including that from the interaction with Jupiter's third moon. Thus, the original argument that conjectured "volcanoes" produced the signature of electrical transactions in the Jovian auroras has been fully FALSIFIED. The Io plumes are the RESULT of electrical transactions between Jupiter and Io.

A further exclamation point to the Io surprises comes from an analysis of the charged-particles surrounding the satellite. In 2000, scientists were "surprised" to discover an abundance of sulfur monoxide in Io's "plasma torus." This contradicted their expectations, since it is sulfur dioxide, not monoxide, that should be the "dominant molecule" in the supposedly "volcanically" active world.

Really old data yes it is volcanic and confirmed by observation, In fact it is the most volcanic ally active body in the solar system with over 400 active volcanoes. All these volcanoes leave sulfur trails in fact it leaves a ring of sulfur orbiting Jupiter. It was assumed Io was to small to have active volcanoes at first we didnt take tidal heating into account.And before you ask yes we know its volcanic in nature seeing as we observe sulfur in the plumes.

ciclops.org...

Give up yet on the EU theory if not how is sulfur being released from a plasma discharge on the surface? How does these plasma arcs create sulfur dioxide which rains back down onto io ?Notice i keep asking qustions and you keep ignoring them while i answer yours odd dont you think?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

It's really straining my eyes to read your walls of text.

Did you give me a yes or no answer to my question somewhere in there?

As they say reading is the best way to learn new things.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
It has been postulated that Tesla's primary science has been censored from open source curriculum. Is such a thing possible in your opinion?

I wouldn't phrase it quite that way, but there's a small thread of reality going on in that claim. More specifically, Tesla said radio waves don't exist and scientists were wrong to believe in them, and I know of no schools which teach Tesla's idea that radio waves don't exist, nor some of his other kooky ideas proven false by science.

While it would be acceptable to teach in a classroom that Tesla was a bit of a kook in this regard, and present it as kind of a "flat Earth" belief of Tesla which is known by science to be incorrect with a high degree of certainty, it would certainly not be acceptable to teach students that radio waves do not exist, because this is false. So in some sense I guess you could say that teaching the concept that "radio waves don't exist" and other fallacies of Tesla's so called "science" have been "censored", but it's nothing so dramatic as that. More accurately, science does what it always tries to do, which is throw out bad ideas as evidence which rejects them is revealed, and this would be a more accurate description of what happened to Tesla's bad ideas.

Of course Tesla's good ideas are still in use today and these are sometimes taught in classrooms.

Here is a thread which puts this in context, both the opening post and Phage's reply are relevant:
Nikola Tesla Censored From An Electromagnetic Physics Textbook
Here's what he said about radio (Hertzian waves) in 1919

originally posted by: ErosA433
more than 4 hours passed and i cant edit it

Next time you make a post, click "edit" afterwards (even if you don't want to edit, you can just click the "back" button to cancel the operation), and you'll see a timer saying you have 119 minutes left to edit. There have been several requests to resolve this discrepancy between the 2 hours we actually get and the 4 hours it says we got after time has expired, but they (ATS) never fix it. So make your edits within 2 hours if possible, and you can ask a mod to edit a post for you if your time has expired.

Please check your messages, click the envelope in upper right.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

The sheets are a product of the Sun's radial electric field being directed through Jupiter's magnetic field. All the plasma and magnetic fields in the solar system are always in someway related to the current flowing into and out of the Sun.

As for the sulfur:

www.rense.com...

What is actually occurring is an electrical connection between the Sun, Jupiter, and its moons, and recent discoveries have revealed this in no uncertain terms. When scientists discovered the most prominent auroral trail, or "footprint of Io," in the Jovian atmosphere, they assumed it must be an effect of "charge separation" generated by Io's "volcanoes." However, this theory was undermined in 2005, when Hubble images of the Jovian aurora revealed a similar "footprint" of Europa and its swirling tail.

A research team from the University of Liege, Belgium wrote of this discovery: "Europa is not thought to be volcanic, so what could produce the electrical current that zips along and eventually gives rise to Europa's auroral footprint?"

By incorrectly assuming that Io's "volcanos" generate the electric current between that moon and Jupiter, the authors of the 2005 report miss the point: Europa's electrical footprint in the Jovian aurora is a huge warning that the assumptions astrophysicists have applied to such enigmas can only create contradictions.

As if to underscore the point, NASA investigators found that the electrical exchange does not stop with Europa. It includes the third moon Ganymede as well. NASA's Hubble Telescope website now shows an image of the Jovian aurora, with three electrical footprints named, including that from the interaction with Jupiter's third moon. Thus, the original argument that conjectured "volcanoes" produced the signature of electrical transactions in the Jovian auroras has been fully FALSIFIED. The Io plumes are the RESULT of electrical transactions between Jupiter and Io.

A further exclamation point to the Io surprises comes from an analysis of the charged-particles surrounding the satellite. In 2000, scientists were "surprised" to discover an abundance of sulfur monoxide in Io's "plasma torus." This contradicted their expectations, since it is sulfur dioxide, not monoxide, that should be the "dominant molecule" in the supposedly "volcanically" active world.

saved this gem for last.Lets talk about the "foot print of IO" We found the plasma has created a link with Io and the ionosphere of Jupiter the magnetic field creates whats called a plasma tube between the two (ionized particles streaming towards Jupiter). Io is surrounded by a cloud of sodium, potassium, and oxygen atoms. This is caused from the active volcanoes. Within Jupiter's magnetosphere there is a significant amount of hot, ionized gas, or plasma. This plasma moves along with Jupiter's rotating magnetic field, sweeping charged particles off the surfaces of its moons as it passes them. Io has a particularly large impact on Jupiter's magnetosphere. Io's volcanoes continually expel an enormous amount of particles into space, and these are swept up by Jupiter's magnetic field at a rate of 1,000 kg/sec. This material becomes ionized in the magnetic field and forms a doughnut-shaped track around Io's orbit called the Io Plasma Torus.

Here is a paper you might find interesting.
www.sciencedirect.com...

Now what these ionized particles do is create a link

Now these we saw as sheets of charged particles around Io AKA current sheets. Basically this is caused by Jupiters rotation which flattens out its magnetosphere making it appear like a disk instead of a teardrop like on earth. Heres where something really neat happens similar to Homopolar generator. We have a magnetic disk rotating against our plasma torus of charged particles sound familiar doesnt it. So a current is created as i mentioned earlier 5 million amperes. This creates plasma discharges in the Jovian atmosphere much like lightening being created on earth. Notice i didnt say Ios atmosphere since we learned with Galileo its almost non existent. Io is moving so quickly it leaves a trail behind it but its gravity is not large enough to hold the particles. This is why i told you over and over to take the time to read the stuff your posting you are whats called cherry picking information. But remember to understand whats going on you have to put all the pieces together.

Now see science doesnt ignore the role electricity plays in fact quite the opposite. However none of this would be possible without the intense gravity caused by Jupiter has nothing to do with the current by all pratical purposes EU theory tells us there would not be a limit to a suns size like there is with gravity. If the sun can tap into this hidden source of energy so could Jupiter in fact it would be brighter than the sun because its rotational velocity. But alas it isnt is it? But lets set that aside as well and lets look at something else shall we? Now we have ionized particles flowing towards Jupiter basically free electrons Be silly them flowing to IO dont you think? So as we verified these negatively charged particles flow towards Jupiter in order for them to arc on IO there would have to be a way for the core itself to become positively charged if they werent flowing the wrong way that is. So please explain to us how a body in the middle of deep space with virtually no atmosphere would develop this positive charge. Since on jupiter this charge is caused when the negatively charged particles interact with the positive charges in Jupiter's atmosphere. This gets into fluid dynamics which we could go over but unfortunately thats is impossible on IO.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

It's really straining my eyes to read your walls of text.

The run-on sentences probably aren't helping either.

there is all this stuff about a holographic universe, multiverses, etc.
which i think means, if you believe it, it will then form.

so if that is the case, could we be creating a multiverse because the 'media' tells us there is a multiverse?

meaning, in 1400, there was never the concept of a multiverse. so it could not exist.
in 2014, all the 'powers that be' tell us the multiverse is 'real' and its real, then it exists.
(unless like spock says, nothing unreal exists ha)

so could the powers that be, be trying to create a multiverse for some stupid reason?
or the holographic universe?
or about this bs that life is all a video game?
etc?

a reply to: dantanna
In this thread, I started the discussion with an example for which there is no scientific consensus, interpretation of quantum mechanics. I posted a video showing the results of a poll showing the lack of consensus.

I would be interested in seeing a similar poll on the topics you mentioned, because I see different viewpoints but I don't really have a good feel for the level of skepticism regarding these concepts, but there certainly is at least some skepticism as mentioned in this cover article for Scientific American:

Questions About the Multiverse

The August issue of Scientific American has the multiverse on the cover, with a skeptical feature article on the topic by George F. R. Ellis, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?, which argues that heavily promoted multiverse research isn’t really testable and can’t explain much of anything. Vilenkin and Tegmark respond with The Case for Parallel Universes.

I just took a look at some of the earliest postings on this blog about the multiverse from as far back as seven years ago (e.g. here and here). Things haven’t changed at all. One might be tempted to criticize Scientific American for keeping this alive, but they just reflect the fact that this pseudo-science continues to have significant influence at the highest levels of the physics establishment.

That's from the "Not even wrong" blog of theoretical physicist Peter Woit, on scientifically useless speculative theories.

While I find the concepts make for good entertainment in "The Matrix" movie about our existence being a hologram, and "Sliders", a TV show about parallel universes, etcetera, from my perspective Woit is right in calling this stuff scientifically useless speculative theories. Even if there are other universes, the point is moot if there's no way to prove the idea true or false. As one physicist on ATS commented on this topic, "you may as well speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

Opposing the skeptical stance are some heavy-hitters. I can only guess at their motivation, but consider this: If you make a prediction which can later be tested with experiment, then when the experiment is done you can either be proven right or wrong. Maybe the appeal of this for the folks who promote it is that it can't be tested and they can never be proven wrong? I don't know.

Maybe dragonridr and Eros and others can add their thoughts on this because I'm just sharing my opinion and that of Peter Woit and George F. R. Ellis, which I'm not saying is a consensus view, though I sort of hope it is, because I always thought scientists needed evidence to convince them. We don't really have evidence for these ideas beyond speculative models as far as I know, nor does it seem likely the multiverse model can even be tested. The Holographic principle has been tested and the tests have so far not confirmed it, and other tests are possible and may be done, though they aren't without controversy.

wot is the meaning of phiziks?

a reply to: Gwampo
42

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dantanna
In this thread, I started the discussion with an example for which there is no scientific consensus, interpretation of quantum mechanics. I posted a video showing the results of a poll showing the lack of consensus.

I would be interested in seeing a similar poll on the topics you mentioned, because I see different viewpoints but I don't really have a good feel for the level of skepticism regarding these concepts, but there certainly is at least some skepticism as mentioned in this cover article for Scientific American:

Questions About the Multiverse

The August issue of Scientific American has the multiverse on the cover, with a skeptical feature article on the topic by George F. R. Ellis, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?, which argues that heavily promoted multiverse research isn’t really testable and can’t explain much of anything. Vilenkin and Tegmark respond with The Case for Parallel Universes.

I just took a look at some of the earliest postings on this blog about the multiverse from as far back as seven years ago (e.g. here and here). Things haven’t changed at all. One might be tempted to criticize Scientific American for keeping this alive, but they just reflect the fact that this pseudo-science continues to have significant influence at the highest levels of the physics establishment.

That's from the "Not even wrong" blog of theoretical physicist Peter Woit, on scientifically useless speculative theories.

While I find the concepts make for good entertainment in "The Matrix" movie about our existence being a hologram, and "Sliders", a TV show about parallel universes, etcetera, from my perspective Woit is right in calling this stuff scientifically useless speculative theories. Even if there are other universes, the point is moot if there's no way to prove the idea true or false. As one physicist on ATS commented on this topic, "you may as well speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

Opposing the skeptical stance are some heavy-hitters. I can only guess at their motivation, but consider this: If you make a prediction which can later be tested with experiment, then when the experiment is done you can either be proven right or wrong. Maybe the appeal of this for the folks who promote it is that it can't be tested and they can never be proven wrong? I don't know.

Maybe dragonridr and Eros and others can add their thoughts on this because I'm just sharing my opinion and that of Peter Woit and George F. R. Ellis, which I'm not saying is a consensus view, though I sort of hope it is, because I always thought scientists needed evidence to convince them. We don't really have evidence for these ideas beyond speculative models as far as I know, nor does it seem likely the multiverse model can even be tested. The Holographic principle has been tested and the tests have so far not confirmed it, and other tests are possible and may be done, though they aren't without controversy.

Smart man not wanting to tackle this after all Is the multiverse a scientific hypothesis, or is it rather a philosophical speculation disguised as science? In my opinion at its most basic it probably exists i can see an just from the shear vastness of the universe that the inflation would cause Hubble volumes. These Hubble bubbles ( yes i couldnt resist) would be seprate from out universe and in fact be another universe with entirely different laws. Can we prove it well no.Well than again maybe we dont know.

But now for the fun part some physicists, such as MIT's Edward Farhi, Alan Guth and Jemal Guven have even considered whether it would be possible to create a universes in the laboratory. The idea is to shrink a chunk of matter to such high densities, forcing it to become a black hole.According to them this ball of matter could branch off to create a baby universe inside the black hole. Amazingly, this branch could grow up to a large size without interfering with the lab so that the cosmic Dr. Frankensteins wouldn't destroy themselves and the rest of our civilization. (Very roughly, think of it as a tunnel dug into the ground and away from observers at the surface.) Others, like the late cosmologist Edward Harrison, speculated that a super-advanced civilization created our own universe in a lab. This would explain why our Universe is conducive to life and so on. Lot of room to discuss but very short on evidence.

One more thing there is something we can discuss right from the LHC

When beams of particles crash into each other at high speeds, the collisions yield hundreds of new particles, most of which fly away from the collision point at close to the speed of light. However, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) team at the LHC found that in a sample of 2 million lead-proton collisions, some pairs of particles flew away from each other with their respective directions correlated.
“Somehow they fly at the same direction even though it's not clear how they can communicate their direction with one another. That has surprised many people, including us,” says MIT physics professor Gunther Roland, whose group led the analysis of the collision data along with Wei Li, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor at Rice University.
newsoffice.mit.edu...

What i was thinking about is this effect, quite possibly could be the same mysterious entanglement observed in quantum systems such as in pairs of photons and atoms. Meaning in the early universe we could have created two universes!! see isnt peculation fun.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Others, like the late cosmologist Edward Harrison, speculated that a super-advanced civilization created our own universe in a lab. This would explain why our Universe is conducive to life and so on. Lot of room to discuss but very short on evidence.

If there is a mulitverse, ours just may have been one that (by chance) is conducive to the type of life present in it, while many others are not.

That's like saying that the Earth is so perfect for the life found on there that Earth must have been made for that purpose. However, in reality , Earth life may be perfect for Earth because Earth life evolved on Earth. Other kinds of life may have failed to get a foothold here, because the planet wasn't conducive to allowing that type of life to thrive. We don't know about that life because it never had a chance to develop here.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
If there is a mulitverse, ours just may have been one that (by chance) is conducive to the type of life present in it, while many others are not.

If you look at our universe overall, it's not particularly conducive to life on Earth. Earth seems like it's probably an exception. For example Red Drawf stars are often cited as potential places for life to develop because they are long lived enough and very abundant, but they have a habit of flaring radiation that would be deadly to us.

That's like saying that the Earth is so perfect for the life found on there that Earth must have been made for that purpose. However, in reality , Earth life may be perfect for Earth because Earth life evolved on Earth. Other kinds of life may have failed to get a foothold here, because the planet wasn't conducive to allowing that type of life to thrive. We don't know about that life because it never had a chance to develop here.

That's it exactly, life is suited to its environment, and we understand how this process can take place through evolution. To infer that the environment is suited to life seems backwards from what we know. This is true even when we look at different types of environments on Earth, but the logic extends to other parts of the universe and potentially to other forms of life, and perhaps even other universes with different properties, should they exist, where maybe silicon based life is dominant instead of carbon-based life due to differing conditions.

a reply to: dragonridr
Thanks for your comments. The multiverse question came up early in the thread and then I answered that universes outside our own seemed more plausible to me than parallel universes of the "many worlds" type. I'm not sure if a universe can be created in a lab though; I'd have to see it to believe it, or it might be stretching the definition of a universe.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


As you know something being possible and us knowing how to do it can be very different indeed. Now even if possible im not sure i would want to create a universe in a lab sounds like the start of a sci fi movie.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur


As you know something being possible and us knowing how to do it can be very different indeed. Now even if possible im not sure i would want to create a universe in a lab sounds like the start of a sci fi movie.

Even if you were able to do that, there is no danger as it will create its own space