LOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC explanation for there bieng a GOD, please reply

[jnthnmc]

Explain life ? Why aren't we just a bunch of rocks? A common scientific belief is that we exist from a large explosion in the universe a zillion years ago and that "life" has evolved from that. If the "big bang" theory is true, and further evolution from a large ball of mass occurred, how/and or what influenced the unique design of eveyrthing that has life, or considered to be Alive as we know it? What constitutes life? Think for a moment of yourself as not a human bieng, but what you are as a collection of cells and further a collection of molecular chains made of zillions of atoms. Our smallest make-up above individual atoms are cells. Cells have "life". They perform the necessary functions that make the physical aspects and activities of living creatures. Cells are also able to die just as we are. What infulences each individual atom to come together to construct the chains of molecules to form the cells that "living creatures" have, and futhermore what makes it "Alive"? How does life evolve from just a collection of (dead)atoms? Atoms are not proven to be alive but are joined and disjoined with other atoms based on their charasteristics. You cant kill an atom, you may split it, but matter is never lost, only takes on different forms. Explain birth? Infants are born from a collection of cells formed in the mothers womb from matter taken in from the mothers body. Why dont we give birth to rock?, what influences our unique design, after all we are all just a collections of atoms, there must be a logical scientific reason as to the unique pattern we have in species. It is obvious that everything on this earth was "uniquely designed" by a higher bieng. I mean why do we as humans even have the unique physical characteristics that we do? Why do plants and animals have the unique characteristics that they do, but at the same time be very similar with other species? Why are we alive? Why arent we just a collection of atoms some where? Life can only be explained by a pre-determined design that a higher bieng gives it. Even cloning. There is still a birth process where Life is given. I may have overstated my point here, but should be obviously made. I just wanted to provide a little different perspective on the idea of there bieng a higher bieng with a plan behind why we are here, because I would like to think that if there wasnt a God, we would have atleast some inclanation as to where we are from? and would see no reason for us to be very unique and very similar all in the same. I think there is plenty of evidence all around us in everything that we see and who/what we are to prove there is a God.

[GodlessHeathen]

At least do a search before posting something that has been covered ad nauseum.

[evident_enigma]

These knids of questions have been adressed, and addressed again. Simply search the forums my friend.

ee

[PanAtheist]

jnthnmc,
Yes, welcome to the RAF!! :D

It is clear that you are EXTREMELEY interested in exactly *how* we are alive.
And you are going to have a *thrilling* time learning about all this!! :D

The primary topics that teach this knowledge are called "physics", "chemistry", (and, finally!) "biology".

When you have *learned* about physics and chemistry and biology, you will have a *great* appreciation of how we can indeed be, alive *without* having been designed and purposely built.

And you will *realize*, when you *really* know about the activities of the physical powers-that-be in alive-beings generally, that it is *impossible* for alive-beings to have been designed, because aliveness springs entirely *directly* out of the actions of the powers-that-be! There is truly *no room* for some "Creator" to have had any kind of role! The powers-that-be take care of everything!

Now, it is clear from your post that you *can't* appreciate all this now, simply because you do not have the necessary background education. I hope this reply will encourage you to *pursue* an education in this area, because it is *enormous* fun to pursue, and is *very* delightful.

And if you take with you, in this pursuit, your idea that "life has been designed", and then examine the new facts about life that you discover, you will then have a real opportunity to actually find out whether it is possible to establish whether this idea is right or wrong. This is an example of an *enormous* pleasure that is part of that thing called "doing science". (Right now, it is clear that you simply don't know enough to know.)

And note, that I think that from where you are coming from right now, "intelligent design" of aliveness, is a *valid* idea.

However, note well, it is never an explanation!

Because such an idea, begs the question, "So if life needs to be designed, who designed the designer?"

Nevertheless, it seems that from where you are standing right now, that their *may* have been a designer, of *unknown* origin.

As I've said, you have an opportunity to find out!!!! I wish you luck and success!!

I just ask you to not get pissed off at people who have already done the legwork, and *have* already found out for themselves the answer to this question, and live and act according to that knowledge!! (Folks have always got to do, what folks have got to do, you know :-)

Anyway, to seek this education, the best way is to speak to teachers, speak to students, speak to science professionals, take some courses, and go to bookshops in university towns to get your reading material.

If you have a specific question about how to begin, you are welcome to email me, and if you tell me exactly what your present education is, I may be able to offer a helpful pointer, as to where to go next.

Best wishes,
PanAtheist, BSc (Biology)

[AGENT-ADAIR]

Gave me a headache.

[Purity]

PanAtheist haha yes good work you basically answered saved me alot of time!

jnthnmc: dont know what went wrong with your education... But you must look into evolution...

[PanAtheist]

Thank you Purity!
That bucks me up, after writing all that! :D

[Purity]

Oh and also... Your a FOOL, your didn't Give any explanation logical or scientific too prove your point, your feel for the usual gullabul religiouse idiotic simplistic conclusion that "god did it" i mean hey i'm too stupid to open my mind and think, "why not just say someone/ something, big and strong and powerful did it? eh works for me."

You idiot...

[jnthnmc]

That reply is nice, and I will admit to not having the education on the necesary subjects as well as others may, but your reply told me absoultely nothing. You said "powers that be", what are you talking about? School me please?
And on the subject of the crator bieng created, time is not a constraint to the crator(God). He is outside of time and has no begining or end, something we can not understand simply becuase everything we have has a begening and end. But I am definetly interested in "the powers that be". Atleast give me some links or something, I wouldnt know how to research this. Please, I am very interested.

[jnthnmc]

First off, Strictly based on the attributes that the Bible has specifically says God has.

Secondly, based on science and some research on the origins of the universe, dimensions that we can niether see or completely understand, here are some info:
"According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe (2). Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimensions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3).

The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to creatures (us) which can only exist in the confines of our universe (4).

The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do (5). We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls (Can you?) and could not know what happens outside of his sight.

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (6). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward (7) (forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began (8), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line (9), based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist in at least two dimensions of time."

more info can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

[Baphomet]

You do realize that an all good and all powerful and all knowing god is contradictory, right? Look for my post "The Story of the King" that was intended to explain it.

Also, lots of creation scientists have tried twisting the laws of probability and left out stuff to support their case. For example:

Say that you see a bag (a system) in which you find a stack of metal disks all lined up perfectly to make a metal cylinder of sorts (organization)
Now, a creation scientist would tell you "The chances of anything happening like that are so rare, that it must have been done by a creator." At first glance, he appears right. If you were to take a bag of metal disks and shake them, they would never line up into a perfect cylinder...

However, using science, you find the disks are magnets. That is, they follow certain ordered and natural laws. If you shake up the bag, the magnets will begin to order themseleves, and eventually form into a cylinder.

Now it is important to keep in mind that things follow natural laws. Creation scientists try to make it seem like the universe does not have any natural laws. They make every event in nature incredibly far fetched from what it is. For example, the if you combine hydrogen and oxygen in the right way, you will get water. You will never get gold, or some other element naturally. Creation scientists, however, try to use probability stating something to the extent of "Well, there are millions of combinations of atoms, so the fact water formed is impossible without a creator". This is completely untrue. They are acting as though EVERY possible outcome is possible, just like saying I could get gold from hydrogen and oxygen.

THings follow natural laws. They just do. They don't need a god to be here, either. Or else, what laws gave god the qualities that define him.

But seriously, read "The story of the King" and that should put a new light on the myth of the christian god.

[jnthnmc]

No, the extra dimensions of God ar not necesarily my views, I believe becasue of my faith which is what any chrisitian who belives soley on the word of God should, but finding new scientific evidence to back it up is definetly delightful. But no, I am very interesed in other's views and why they believe what they belive and love to have my beliefs scientifically challenged, as well as backed up. I thought the extra dimensional theory of God was very interesting myself and was intrigued. I hope to find more scientific and logical proof of His existence, but if I never do, and probably never will because of who He is and who I am, that is compeletly fine because I have faith. We are at an advantage in today's age because we have such technological advances in science to uncovering things never known before, although it may actually be more of a disadvantage as to tyring to establish faith based on evidence instead of experience from life changing God and willfully chosing to belive in Him. Those who "belived" many many years ago relied soley on faith, and no science. I am not trying to change any one's belief here as I am sure you may not be trying to change mine because I am sure that we are both greatly influenced by our current beliefs and would not change them under any circumstances. But, I will definetly read your story about the King, and continue to read others views. Thanks for your replies.

[kmisho]

Ultimastely, there is no difference between living and dead things. So appeals to life solve nothing. Are virii alive? Sort of...

The fact that there is a gradation from living to dead shows that living and dead are not absolute categories but more conventions based on excluding the middle. Most categorizations outside the mathematical are like this.

[Jennifer]

Quoting Debbie (http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2005/10/teaching_the_controversy.php#020988) from the front page
Isn't the Christian religion built on faith? Faith is an
unquestioning belief that exists in the absence of proof or any credible evidence. If there was credible evidence of god's hand then faith is not required.

Thus if god were to provide evidence of a designer through irreducible complexity in biology he would be providing clear proof and therefore eliminate the need for faith.

Therefore he would also be eliminated by his own hand.

[Rat Bastard]

Ultimastely, there is no difference between living and dead things. So appeals to life solve nothing. Are virii alive? Sort of...

The fact that there is a gradation from living to dead shows that living and dead are not absolute categories but more conventions based on excluding the middle. Most categorizations outside the mathematical are like this.
If, by the excluded middle, you mean that mathematics is a dichotomous structure, that is not true. While most mathematical logic is used to determine true/false, the study of some aspects of numbers establishes orders of magnitude. Orders of infinity come to mind. Gradations of existence abound, even in mathematics.

[UnknownUser]

First off, Strictly based on the attributes that the Bible has specifically says God has.

Secondly, based on science and some research on the origins of the universe, dimensions that we can niether see or completely understand, here are some info:
"According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe (2). Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimensions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3).

1)The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to creatures (us) which can only exist in the confines of our universe (4).

The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do (5). We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls (Can you?) and could not know what happens outside of his sight.

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (6). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward (7) 2)(forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). 3)If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began (8), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line (9), based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist in at least two dimensions of time."

more info can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html
1)Based on your assertion that this 'god' exists in the 10 principal dimensions then he must continually exist upon these 10 levels, he cannot at any time lower himself to say, the 5th or 3ed dimension, just like we can not take away our depth and become 2 dimensional, therefore that restricts god, making him not all powerful...

2)Not true, i suggest you read "Time travel in Einstein's Universe" By: J.Richard Gott for a good explanation...

3)In order for god to have existed before anything, he must exist outside the 10 dimensions and again he is restricted from interacting with our 10(+) dimensional universe.....

[Baphomet]

Theists, this reminds me of an old saying:
"If a dog goes looking for a stick, he will find one"

In other words, if you're looking for proof that god exists, you will find it. You will also find proof that faries exists. You will find things match up as you realize that faries really exists in other dimensions, which is how they can hide and what-not.

Science does not support god at all. Christians just say it does. It's like me saying "Ra the Sun god is real. There is a sun, and so if you deny it, you deny Ra!"

Also, god's supposed qualities are contradictory. As in my post "the story of the king" a fun filled read for atheist and theist alike.

[jnthnmc]

Yea that made absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain it any other way? Maybe give me some links to research on what it is you are talking about.

[jnthnmc]

Please correct me if Im wrong (by showing facts, reasearch, links, etc:), something besides your on responses. I'll try and do the same.
There has been no scientific proof(facts, clear evidence) from any experiment or anything that life formed by itself.

On the other hand, to be fair I must add that science has not proven to this point, in the same manner, that life was formed by a higher bieng, but logic based off of scientific probablity very very very highly indicates that it has, as well as exact proof and facts from proven experiments show that life could not have formed by itself. The one "theory" that hasn't been scientfically proved impossible,the fact that life occurred by shere chance is extremely highly not probable.
Please read for proof: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html (please dont be discouraged to read the article because it has the word "christ" in it)
and by all means give proof against this, especially on this new theory of "theoretical forces" that force molecules to bond in a specific and very similar, but also unique way to from amino acids, protiens, dna, etc (aka life)., which by the way at this point is just still a theory.

[Mog]

So jnrthnmc, are you aware of talkorigins.net?
There is an article about abiogenesis probability here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Sites like christiananswers.net try to hedge their data by assuming more is random than it seems. You don't need a full blown DNA, but a self-replicating peptide to get the life cycle going, and chemical reactions don't really happen by sheer chance. Certain molecules are more likely to form than others.

You are right in that there is no clear scientific proof, as of yet, but the current hypotheses for abiogenesis are still considered plausible.

[ProveIt]

ps, do you do anal?
OMGawd... It's fkkin contagious....

[Rat Bastard]

jnrthnmc, said

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (6). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward (7) 2)(forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). 3)If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began (8), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line (9), based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist in at least two dimensions of time."


This may be the most idiotic rubbish I have read all year. Firstly extending the equations of General Relativity to include space and time is devoid of all meaning. These equations are already descriptions of space and time. That is ALL they are you fool. If you want to calculate a trajectory in a region of known gravitational field you use the GR equations to calculate the metric of the spacetime in that field, and then you calculate a geodesic (shortest distance, but in curved space) which will be the trajectory. Thus, you are crediting Hawking and penrose with doing absolutely nothing.

Second, it is NOT scientifically impossible to travel in time. It is thought to be impossible to do so and create a paradox, but there is no way to know if this would be resolved by a many worlds type of theorem, or if paradox producing time travel would be intrinsically impossible. In any event, the laws of physics allow for time travel, and using some theories of wormholes it was shown that as GR stands now, if you sent a particle through a wormhole such that it came back out slightly earlier than it went in (time travel) and prevented itself from entering the wormhole (paradox) the solutions that describe this are highly unstable and break down under even a quantum oscillation. In other words, nature appears to be self censoring when it comes to paradoxes.

Time is also not fixed in one direction according t the laws of physics. Entropy always has to increase, so there is a generalized directionality but it may be overcome locally, and it is possible that in a big crunch the total entropy would decrease. The laws of particle physics are symmetric with respect to time, and it is perfectly valid to treat antiparticles as normal matter particles of the same type travelling backwards in time. The wavefuntions are identical to the more usual approach of negative energy particles travelling forwards in time.

This complete lack of understanding on your part renders the rest of your "argument" irrelevant and very very wrong. The next time you try to use things you don't understand at all (that is, science) at least do a little research so as not too look like a co0mplete fool.

ps, do you do anal?
PWNED! You have already savaged his sphincter...
But I gotta go review my qm, I don't recall any "negative energy" particles, or reverse-temporal particle motion.

[Rat Bastard]

pwned?
My kids use it, I picked it up. One step past "owned" basically. Meaning that the individual has just been totally dominated.

[ProveIt]

pwned?
My kids use it, I picked it up. One step past "owned" basically. Meaning that the individual has just been totally dominated.
In referring to a post by a new member -Jeff Wade (thread titled Hi, I'm new here -I think in General discussion?)
Nice avatar. Pure pwnage rocks.

[snap crafter]

I think p-o-ned but that's just a guess.

[nakedatheist]

No, the extra dimensions of God ar not necesarily my views, I believe becasue of my faith which is what any chrisitian who belives soley on the word of God should, but finding new scientific evidence to back it up is definetly delightful. But no, I am very interesed in other's views and why they believe what they belive and love to have my beliefs scientifically challenged, as well as backed up. I thought the extra dimensional theory of God was very interesting myself and was intrigued. I hope to find more scientific and logical proof of His existence, but if I never do, and probably never will because of who He is and who I am, that is compeletly fine because I have faith. We are at an advantage in today's age because we have such technological advances in science to uncovering things never known before, although it may actually be more of a disadvantage as to tyring to establish faith based on evidence instead of experience from life changing God and willfully chosing to belive in Him. Those who "belived" many many years ago relied soley on faith, and no science. I am not trying to change any one's belief here as I am sure you may not be trying to change mine because I am sure that we are both greatly influenced by our current beliefs and would not change them under any circumstances. But, I will definetly read your story about the King, and continue to read others views. Thanks for your replies.
Everytime i think I've heard it all, I come to this site and some whackjob crawls out of the rock. This time, I've been inspired to stop wanking off and looking at porn and actually register and post. Bloody, hell man. Stick with a thought and finish it...

Here's the scoop dude...even if science could somehow "prove" that a being somewhere at some time created everything we see, that still would not prove that your god exists. And another thing...why do I get the feeling that theists think that if they can introduce doubt into an atheists worldview that somehow that will make us going running to whatever religion is the flavor of the week?

Seriously. Let's get NAKED people. Shed those delusions. Friggin' loosen up and have a drink - preferably alcoholic. I recommend a nice Sheraz...I used to think it was a sissy wine, but I've grown rather fond of it lately...

[kmisho]

Ultimastely, there is no difference between living and dead things. So appeals to life solve nothing. Are virii alive? Sort of...

The fact that there is a gradation from living to dead shows that living and dead are not absolute categories but more conventions based on excluding the middle. Most categorizations outside the mathematical are like this.
If, by the excluded middle, you mean that mathematics is a dichotomous structure, that is not true. While most mathematical logic is used to determine true/false, the study of some aspects of numbers establishes orders of magnitude. Orders of infinity come to mind. Gradations of existence abound, even in mathematics.
log, i would be glad to include gradtions into math, but my point still stands. Phenomenological cateogrization usually excludes the middle, and this can happen in math too.

[kmisho]

No, the extra dimensions of God ar not necesarily my views, I believe becasue of my faith which is what any chrisitian who belives soley on the word of God should, but finding new scientific evidence to back it up is definetly delightful. But no, I am very interesed in other's views and why they believe what they belive and love to have my beliefs scientifically challenged, as well as backed up. I thought the extra dimensional theory of God was very interesting myself and was intrigued. I hope to find more scientific and logical proof of His existence, but if I never do, and probably never will because of who He is and who I am, that is compeletly fine because I have faith. We are at an advantage in today's age because we have such technological advances in science to uncovering things never known before, although it may actually be more of a disadvantage as to tyring to establish faith based on evidence instead of experience from life changing God and willfully chosing to belive in Him. Those who "belived" many many years ago relied soley on faith, and no science. I am not trying to change any one's belief here as I am sure you may not be trying to change mine because I am sure that we are both greatly influenced by our current beliefs and would not change them under any circumstances. But, I will definetly read your story about the King, and continue to read others views. Thanks for your replies.
Everytime i think I've heard it all, I come to this site and some whackjob crawls out of the rock. This time, I've been inspired to stop wanking off and looking at porn and actually register and post. Bloody, hell man. Stick with a thought and finish it...

Here's the scoop dude...even if science could somehow "prove" that a being somewhere at some time created everything we see, that still would not prove that your god exists. And another thing...why do I get the feeling that theists think that if they can introduce doubt into an atheists worldview that somehow that will make us going running to whatever religion is the flavor of the week?

Seriously. Let's get NAKED people. Shed those delusions. Friggin' loosen up and have a drink - preferably alcoholic. I recommend a nice Sheraz...I used to think it was a sissy wine, but I've grown rather fond of it lately...
Good points nakedatheist.

[PanAtheist]

And another thing...why do I get the feeling that theists think that if they can introduce doubt into an atheists worldview that somehow that will make us going running to whatever religion is the flavor of the week?

Seriously. Let's get NAKED people. Shed those delusions. Friggin' loosen up
Heh!
We *celebrate* doubt!
And we call it *honest wonder*!!!

Here we find the real difference between a "scientist/atheist" and a "theist/raver".
An "scientist/atheist" expresses honest wonder, and is excited by it, and delights in experiencing as many wonders as they can!

And a "theist/raver" gets a thrill as he/she parts company with sanity.
It's not that they think we'll go running to join them!
It's just they have decided that they, and everyone, needs to be insane, and they *randomly* spout insanities, for the thrill of it. :D

[PanAtheist]

When I say "thrill", I mean, they are a little experentially-challenged. :D

[PanAtheist]

They are thrilled by fear.
Acting against sense brings a stab of thrilling fear, and a sense of social inclusion with the rest of the insane.


(I am ranting and raving today!
Please don't mind me! :D )

[nakedatheist]

naked atheist, do you enjoy anal?
And God said...let there be anal. And there was anal, and the anal was gooooooooooooooooooood...

[ProveIt]

(I am ranting and raving today!
Please don't mind me! :D )
I think it's the weather... I was like that yesterday. Took it out of me though, I could fall asleep in a heartbeat right now. I need more sleep... :(

[Rat Bastard]

log: IF you recall the Dirac equation you solve it for two solutions (neglecting spin, which gives four solutions). These are due to the use of the Einstein energy relation, which I hope you know does NOT say merely that E = mc^2, but in fact says E = +/- mc^2.

The negative energy value is antimatter, i.e., positrons in this context (although the concept does carry through to hadrons and all charged antiparticles (since neutral particles are their own antiparticles). Now, in a standard Bloch wave (to keep it simple) you can write the wavefunction as exp(-tE) etc. (t is time). However, if you change the sign of E what do you get? That's right, exp(+tE), which is what I mean when I say that a positive energy particle (+E) travelling backwards in time (-t) is functionally equivalent to a negative energy particle (-E) moving forwards in time (+t).

Take my word for it dude. It's really just a curiosity since nobody ever talks seriously about particles moving backwards in time. The point I was trying to make is that is is certainly NOT forbidden by the laws of physics to travel backwards in time. Time and space are just the same, so there's no problem (so far).
If a particle could have a negative mass it certainly would be hard to understand. That is why physicists define mass to be always positive. So by definition there is no such thing as 'negative' mass. This is not an arbitrary definition as there are very deep reasons as to why a negative mass could never be physical.

Sometimes, in employing mathematical models to describe Nature, we come across solutions to equations that may allow for negative masses. For example, the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle is

E2 = m2*c4 + p2*c2.

Not quite the case:

So a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could presumably have a positive or negative mass. Dirac interpreted these negative mass states as anti-particles that he hid away in the 'Dirac Sea.' While this anachronistic interpretation still lives on in old-textbooks and new-Age books on quantum mechanics, we now know that this picture is wrong. Anti-particles have positive masses just as any other particle (see http://www.physlink.com/ae247.cfm). These 'negative' solutions are simply not physical and are dropped. Not everything that has mathematical meaning has physical meaning!

Another place where people like to talk about negative masses is in reference to 'tachyons.' The tachyon (whose name comes from the Greek word tachys for swift) was originally any solution to Special Relativity that had a velocity greater than the speed of light. Such a state (like Dirac's 'negative energy' states) are non-physical. These particles would have imaginary masses (that is the mass-squared is negative) and this is just as unphysical as a negative mass or a negative energy. Thus such solutions are always discarded or removed from any theory that claims to describe Nature.
Tachyons are only in SciFi stories like Star Trek.
For a discussion on the flow of time only going in one direction, see: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm#H8

[Tenspace]

Wow, I didn't know tachyons had taken on such a bad rap in physics. :)

Are you guys familiar with tachyon condensation? I was reading the other day about tachyons and D-branes, which led me to this new subject (I too used to dismiss them as sci-fi enablers and nothing more).

Here's my "layman's" summary (overly simple, I know): In String Theory, a type of string can be open, but its ends must terminate. This type of open string attaches to D-branes, which form the boundary of the string's existence. Remember, String Theory says that all fundamental elements are different vibrations of fundamental strings. Like a piano or guitar, the different fundamental notes you play can be translated into the language of mathematics. Each vibrational pattern represents a different note. String Theory states that each vibrational pattern of a string represents a different particle.

What are D-branes made of? Plugged into some versions of String Theory, the question returns an answer: tachyons. In fact, the theory neatly blends tachyon condensation with the symmetry breaking of the electroweak field and the creation of particle mass via the Higgs mechanism.

Check out the wiki article on tachyon condensation. I stumbled across it the other day and was quite intrigued.

[Rat Bastard]

you are wrong loggy boy.

If the negative energy solutions are dropped why is the Dirac equation still heavily used? It was the presence of negative energy solutions that led to the prediction of antimatter and won Dirac the nobel prize, so don't tell me that they are "dropped". that is a crock. of shit and only someone who has never used the dirac equation would say this.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DiracEquation.html

You can talk about time's arrow all you want, but the fundamental laws of particle physics are symmetric with respect to time. (talking about combined operations of time charge and parity is another story).

I never mentioned tachyons, these are bullshit particles.
I did not say the Dirac equation is not used. Read the post again. If you don't want to do the work of checking out how it really is, I understand. But I will not bother to discuss it with you further, since your attitude is "Take my word for it, dude". This sounds like either an arrogant blow-off, or expecting me to place my faith in you, which would be misplaced, as you can see from the posts made by credentialed physicists contradicting your claim. Also, I am not impressed by people waving around formulas and Nobel prize winners' names. Misconstruing the facts and formulas, even with cites, means nothing. Wrong is wrong. Are you really a fundie at heart, to expect me to just take your answer on faith? Time's "arrow" is linked to entropy. Go mix a rum and coke, and then just extract all the rum back out of it, leaving the coke in the glass. Can't do it. Entropy obtains, no go-backs in the time tunnel. As anecdotal evidence for not being able to travel back in time, have you seen any tourists from the future lately?

[Rat Bastard]

Read my post again dude. I mentioned Entropy and then went on to point out that Entropy can be locally decreased, which means that the "arrow of time" does not by itself prohibit time travel.

The credentialled physicists whose work you quote is a fucking grad student! You clearly don't know anything about it yourself so you just cut and paste the first thing your search engine spits out. Then you go and pirate hawking with the "no time travellers". That's pretty lame considering I was not arguing that time travel is actually possible, just that the laws of physics as we understand them today do not preclude it, as some assclown had stated. You are very good at being wrong, perhaps you should consider becoming a Christian.
And you are how high in the physics food chain? In the particular cite, yes, he's a grad student. But he is still correct. If you mean locally decreased entropy, as in ONE quantum mechanical event, yes, such does happen. But you are still wrong about the arrow of time. Local events do not affect the flow in the global sense. Thus the global flow is always in the direction of entropy, one way. Pinning theists down can be fun, and generally nobody at the RA site would care if you were wrong, because it supports the belief structure here, and, to be honest, MOST people, not that I am giving out blame, are not interested in digging that deeply into a difficult discipline like physics. I think you are a poser, and that is why I did not "go deep" myself. The fact that you immediately started with flaming in your response is the tip-off. OK, I grabbed a couple of quick quotes from some readily available websites, and I apologize now for being lazy and not going out and composing my own response. The fact that you know where they are tells me that you do the same. Qualify your statements to your heart's delight, but the bottom line is you don't have the knowledge. Sorry if I have ruined your street cred with the RA group.

[ProveIt]

Play nice boys.... But definitely keep playing... this is fun... hehe

[Rat Bastard]

I have no desire to explain my scientific education to you, but it is more than sufficient to point out your mistakes. Local events do not affect the flow in the global sense??? What is that supposed to mean. Is a computer more or less ordered than the parts from which it was made? What has happened to the entropy then? Do you think constructing a computer (or anything else for that matter ) constitutes a single quantum process? Of course not.

It doesn't matter about the global flow if you are trying to attain a short term local goal, like making a computer of time travelling, so I respectsully suggest that you stick the arrow of time right up your fucking arsehole.

As for ruining my credibility, as if! I couldn't give a toss one way or the other, but if you want to try to do that go ahead. I'll be happy to debate you in real time on matters of physics, so you have to use your brain instead of lifitng shit from the net.
OK, I get it. Your knowledge of physics is WAY less than I thought. The fact that you dismiss the level of education is one determinant, another is your statement: "Local events do not affect the flow in the global sense??? What is that supposed to mean." "Local" events are quantum mechanical events, which occupy extremely small volume, thus local. "Global" is a large volume, not necessarily encompassing the known universe, just large enough to provide a statistical sample that is reasonable. The construction of a computer, as you state, results in a machine of high order. But the entropy of the universe increases more yet, since the amount of disorder engendered is larger than the order created in the computer, as there is no machine with 100% efficiency, and that includes the "machine" (the process of making the computer, including the people driving to work, etc), in fact. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. A short term goal like "It doesn't matter about the global flow if you are trying to attain a short term local goal, like making a computer of time travelling, so I respectsully suggest that you stick the arrow of time right up your fucking arsehole." doesn't mean jack. A short-term goal is as if you yourself could affect a quantum event. There is no more negentropic event (creation) than one local (confined to a small volume of the universe) quantum event at a time, anywhere in the universe. But don't misinterpret this. There are many quantum events, but they all "smear" across the entire universe. You can't take 'em all and cram 'em into one computer (well, they could all be likely crammed somewhere at sometime in the same space, locally speaking, say the size of a laptop computer) but the statistical nature of the global universe would not necessarily make a computer, any more than all those monkeys and all those typewriters could actually make all the works of Shakespeare. We make computers using a huge chain of processes that increase entropy WAY more than the end product. It takes mass quantities of solar energy, water, wind, etc. to make a head on a wheatstalk. That amount of order you may well imagine. Just pick out the wind as an example of the lack of order.

OK, I used my brain, my training as a Mathematical Physicist (admittedly, it's only a FUCKING B Sc) instead of being lazy and grabbing some well-known theory to paste.

I would like it if you would argue (in the philosophical, as opposed to the scatological, sense) the issues.

Anybody here versed in the identification of fallacious arguments willing to take on the description of who is using which type?

BTW, I was raised Catholic, but I can see that it was wrong in so many ways. That is why I am posting here. But note that my response had no hairy thunderer in it. Just logic, and an explanation of current physical theory. Your response tells me more about you than it does about the correctness of mine.

[Rat Bastard]

If you mean by a system, a computer, this is too large a device for quantum (say, "like making a computer of time travelling,") events or the control therof. I am talking about quantum mechanics because that is the only place in physics where an event can happen that is in "violation" of the second law, thus not irrelevant to the discussion. My challenge to you is to come up with your time machine, computer-controlled or otherwise. At least, that is what I think you mean by "like making a computer of time travelling,".

[Tenspace]

Way more fun than a theist catfight. :D

I'll chime in with one observation. An initial misunderstanding, if you will. Teabag, your use of local in a general sense to explain one system is contrary to the rigid physical description of locality that Log is used to. I could be wrong, but I think the initial animosity started there. Oh, and with the namecalling. :)

It also seems we lost the focus of the argument early on:

Loggy boy originally said, "So by definition there is no such thing as 'negative' mass."
Teabag responded with, "It was the presence of negative energy solutions that led to the prediction of antimatter and won Dirac the nobel prize, so don't tell me that they are "dropped". that is a crock..."

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about two different things here. I know mass and energy are equivalent, but in this specific context, aren't they different enough to allow positive and negative energy to be real, but only positive mass to be real while negative mass is treated as imaginary (in a mathematical sense)?

I'm just trying to understand. I'll step back from the chalkboard and sit back down. :)

[Rat Bastard]

that was a typo and should have read "making a computer or time travelling" and this is not even the point. I will spell it out for you:

I am not and never was actually saying that time travel is possible.

I have only one point in all of this, and that was that the laws of physics do not prevent time travel.

You invoked thermodynamics, and specifically Entropy to refute this.

I said that although total entropy must always increase it is still possible to do things in which the entropy is decreased.

I then gave the computer as a trite example. In fact any ordered system would have done, like a single crystal of silicon or the rings off saturn. Your challenge is bogus.
Actually, the "laws" of physics DO prevent time travel, for all the reasons described previously, specifically, entropy. You cannot unstir the rum'n'coke. Again, the only negentropic occurences are quantum-mechanical and extremely small in extent (as in subatomic scale). And if you say "making a computer or time travelling", then that is the point you are making. Yes, 10_, that is my rigid definition (BTW, that is not what I mean by "rigid member"). But remember, the whole reason the xtian premise is invalid is the lack of physical (or any other) rigor in the definitions. How do you think I came to not believe in a deity in the first place?

10_ said:
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about two different things here. I know mass and energy are equivalent, but in this specific context, aren't they different enough to allow positive and negative energy to be real, but only positive mass to be real while negative mass is treated as imaginary (in a mathematical sense)?

Almost there. Negative energy is also a mathematical construct, for the same reason as negative mass. There is no physical explanation for it, thus it does not exist. This is a real bugbear in the sciences. Some things (really neat mathematically) simply cannot exist in the real world.

St. Teabag said: "I then gave the computer as a trite example. In fact any ordered system would have done, like a single crystal of silicon or the rings off saturn. Your challenge is bogus." I think "rings off saturn" contains a typo- "off" should be "of", yes? Notwithstanding typos, a single crystal of silicon (up to and including a boule, which is a MONSTROUS crystal- check out this pic: http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2004/pictures/Fair/4088.html)
is still an ordered item that required mass quantities of disorder (entropy) to make. BTW, do you think the rings of Saturn are an ordered system? (one gets a foreboding feeling of beartrap being cranked open).

Understand this (preachy, but what the heck): The "laws of physics" are NOT laws! They are merely mathematical descriptions (approximations) of what man observes of the physical universe. Newton made mistakes. Einstein made mistakes. Dirac made mistakes. We all do. But we do the best we can, and the formulas (laws) get adjusted, and we get closer to the "truth". Science uses the inductive side (it is predicitive) of the logical house. That is the way most new things are learned. Deduction, on the other hand, gives us a mathematical truth, but gives us no new information. The theists come in, as everyone has seen, and spew "truth" with no basis, or even a claim to approximation, that is what causes the most grief to reasoning beings.

I submit to you that my challenge is not bogus. I will not, however, sit here and refute any and all comers on any non-physical theory they want to present. At most I will point you to a direction via website (yeah, yeah, lazy, but how tired do you get of all the xtian's booshwah, and refer 'em to the wank thread?) where you can get a little of the knowledge you seek. Be warned, the math and physics is complicated and time-consuming. I am not trying to put anyone off by bamboozlement or appeal to my "great smartness". Just know that it ain't easy...and it wasn't easy for me to learn it, either.

[Tenspace]

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about two different things here. I know mass and energy are equivalent, but in this specific context, aren't they different enough to allow positive and negative energy to be real, but only positive mass to be real while negative mass is treated as imaginary (in a mathematical sense)?
Almost there. Negative energy is also a mathematical construct, for the same reason as negative mass. There is no physical explanation for it, thus it does not exist. This is a real bugbear in the sciences. Some things (really neat mathematically) simply cannot exist in the real world.
::raises hand excitedly:: Ooh! What about the reality of negative energy? I understand what you mean, but I thought that the physical potential of a negative energy density was very real. I see where you're coming from with negative mass (my untrained brain would posit that negative mass == black hole)... but isn't vacuum energy equivalent to negative energy?

Also, what do you think of Forward's analysis of negative mass?

[RenaissanceMan]

LOL. I would expect... that if travel back in time were possible, that it would have destroyed us all by now. Think, McFly! If reverse time travel were possible... then it WOULD be discovered in the future, and as such... rain it's wrath upon us in the past. Unless you think people in the future are too stupid (Or dead) to do the math.

No. The universe is STABLE. It has demonstrated itself to be stable for billions of years.

[Mog]

I've heard it suggested that if time-travel existed, the time-line would fluctuate wildly from the nearly endless time-travel until the universe would reach a state where time-travel was no longer possible. This is Larry Niven's Law of Time Travel.

[Tenspace]

I'm more in the Deutsch (http://www.qubit.org/people/david/) camp. Time travel to the past is possible, but the past you travel to is not on the same worldline that you originally traversed through spacetime, therefore all grandfather-type paradoxes are irrelevant. You'd be killing the grandfather of a different you, in a different universe.

[There Is]

I agree with Tenspace, except that I'm also including the ability to travel back into one's own universe, only because the Terminator movie offers a paradox I'd like to test. :P

[Philboid Studge]

What part of "hypnotize Jenna Bush a la The Manchurian Candidate, cryogenically freeze her until a time machine can be constructed, then thaw her out and then send her to 1935 to kill her grandfather, George HW Bush" do you people not understand?

[Baphomet]

What part of "hypnotize Jenna Bush a la The Manchurian Candidate, cryogenically freeze her until a time machine can be constructed, then thaw her out and then send her to 1935 to kill her grandfather, George HW Bush" do you people not understand?
The uh... freezing part. Are they gonna use like, a really big refrigerator or somethin'?

[Rat Bastard]

OK, teabie, I have identified the following fallacious argument styles in your discourse:
1. Argumentum ad hominem.
2. Argumentum ad populum.
3. Red herring.
4. Strawman.
Further, you have demonstrated your ignorance of the system whereby doctoral candidates defend their theses, and the naming of a doctoral thesis. To me, this proves you a fraud. Look at my sig. You, sir, fit that to a Teabag. Your frothing fury at having your sacred ox gored makes me think you really are obsessed, and ought to be prescribed calming medication, or, if you already have said medication, to see your physician regarding adjustment of the dosage. Since it is obvious that there is no way to get a rational response out of you, just diatribe, I am going to abandon this topic. I have seen your ilk before. If I were to post on another topic, you would rant at that post, regardless of its veracity. I cannot be bothered by such silly, infantile behavior. I bid you and your site adieu, loser.

[Tenspace]

What part of "hypnotize Jenna Bush a la The Manchurian Candidate, cryogenically freeze her until a time machine can be constructed, then thaw her out and then send her to 1935 to kill her grandfather, George HW Bush" do you people not understand?
The uh... freezing part. Are they gonna use like, a really big refrigerator or somethin'?
No, they're gonna reinsert her into Laura's twat. There's no colder place on Earth, natural or artificial.

[Tenspace]

OK, teabie, I have identified the following fallacious argument styles in your discourse:
1. Argumentum ad hominem.
2. Argumentum ad populum.
3. Red herring.
4. Strawman.
Further, you have demonstrated your ignorance of the system whereby doctoral candidates defend their theses, and the naming of a doctoral thesis. To me, this proves you a fraud. Look at my sig. You, sir, fit that to a Teabag. Your frothing fury at having your sacred ox gored makes me think you really are obsessed, and ought to be prescribed calming medication, or, if you already have said medication, to see your physician regarding adjustment of the dosage. Since it is obvious that there is no way to get a rational response out of you, just diatribe, I am going to abandon this topic. I have seen your ilk before. If I were to post on another topic, you would rant at that post, regardless of its veracity. I cannot be bothered by such silly, infantile behavior. I bid you and your site adieu, loser.
Ouch! And log was having so much fun here.

I hate it when people leave the site. :( But it's his choice.

[Jennifer]

No, they're gonna reinsert her into Laura's twat. There's no colder place on Earth, natural or artificial.
I hear that! Remember her remark about stem cells and the spinal injury victims. Our Millennium’s "Let them eat cake" moment....and the Millennium is just starting!

[Choobus]

OK, teabie, I have identified the following fallacious argument styles in your discourse:
1. Argumentum ad hominem.
2. Argumentum ad populum.
3. Red herring.
4. Strawman.
Further, you have demonstrated your ignorance of the system whereby doctoral candidates defend their theses, and the naming of a doctoral thesis. To me, this proves you a fraud. Look at my sig. You, sir, fit that to a Teabag. Your frothing fury at having your sacred ox gored makes me think you really are obsessed, and ought to be prescribed calming medication, or, if you already have said medication, to see your physician regarding adjustment of the dosage. Since it is obvious that there is no way to get a rational response out of you, just diatribe, I am going to abandon this topic. I have seen your ilk before. If I were to post on another topic, you would rant at that post, regardless of its veracity. I cannot be bothered by such silly, infantile behavior. I bid you and your site adieu, loser.
What a pussy!

I notice that he didn't even try to address Teabags extensive points either. Sounds like a sore loser to me, and probably gay as well. .

[calpurnpiso]

I'm more in the Deutsch (http://www.qubit.org/people/david/) camp. Time travel to the past is possible, but the past you travel to is not on the same worldline that you originally traversed through spacetime, therefore all grandfather-type paradoxes are irrelevant. You'd be killing the grandfather of a different you, in a different universe.
That's so true. I was watching the discovery channel last year when this was explained. Though I'm not a physicist, it made perfect sense by simply using logic...........The scientist was also explaining worm holes with a pizza!!..fascinating....:)

[There Is]

The scientist was also explaining worm holes with a pizza!!..fascinating....:)
I like when they use donuts. HmMmmMmmm, Do-o-o-ooooonuts.

[Tenspace]

Loggy baby, why take defeat so badly? So I kicked your arse, it's no big deal you lame fool. For the record, I didn't give yo umy thesis title because I thought it wouldn't mean anything, but it was "Positronium formation at surfaces and the production of cold antihydrogen". I guess you can't take having your ass handed to you on a platter. I reccomend going to a library and reading some books before you come back you nonce.

Good day
Can I take a gander at your paper? Is it online?

[Gazz]

Dam Teabag, log..

Great reading guys, you are some educated bastards in the scientific realm, its been awhile since Ive read through arguments and felt stupid after!:D

Thanks! I can learn something from these forums other than how ignorant and irrational theists are! Hoorayy!!!

G

[Rat Bastard]

Loggy baby, why take defeat so badly? So I kicked your arse, it's no big deal you lame fool. For the record, I didn't give yo umy thesis title because I thought it wouldn't mean anything, but it was "Positronium formation at surfaces and the production of cold antihydrogen". I guess you can't take having your ass handed to you on a platter. I reccomend going to a library and reading some books before you come back you nonce.

Good day
OK, back from the reading room. St. Teabag, sir, I apologize. I was, um, er, choke...wrong. Man, that hurts to say. It doesn't happen to me often that I shoot my mouth off before my brain is engaged. I thought my face would break. As a fitting punishment, besides the thorough flaming you gave me, I will use the flame avatar for one week. I just can't stay away from you crazy bastids. St. Teabag, if you are a member of the group that realized a 4.5E4-fold increase in sensitivity, my hat is off to you (bow). BTW, I appreciate your caution with the positron source, that was pretty damn hot (based on my experience with nuclear materials in the Navy). Also, a real thesis title made a huge difference...I was thinking teenage boy watching Star Trek when I read "antimatter beams". I have known enough physics groupies. But now I know better. I read the whole thesis (don't know if it was yours or not), but do not pretend to understand it all the first time through. Since you are actually a grown-up, I am sure I can expect only a little heckling when I misspeak, and not a loco following me around the site, flaming me further, yes?

Peace?:D

ps I worked on separating U-235 from natural U in the early '80s at a company whose name I better not mention, but we beat out two national labs with our process, with an efficiency that I may not divulge. At least you get to talk about your work.....

[calpurnpiso]

Loggy baby, why take defeat so badly? So I kicked your arse, it's no big deal you lame fool. For the record, I didn't give yo umy thesis title because I thought it wouldn't mean anything, but it was "Positronium formation at surfaces and the production of cold antihydrogen". I guess you can't take having your ass handed to you on a platter. I reccomend going to a library and reading some books before you come back you nonce.

Good day
OK, back from the reading room. St. Teabag, sir, I apologize. I was, um, er, choke...wrong. Man, that hurts to say. It doesn't happen to me often that I shoot my mouth off before my brain is engaged. I thought my face would break. As a fitting punishment, besides the thorough flaming you gave me, I will use the flame avatar for one week. I just can't stay away from you crazy bastids. St. Teabag, if you are a member of the group that realized a 4.5E4-fold increase in sensitivity, my hat is off to you (bow). BTW, I appreciate your caution with the positron source, that was pretty damn hot (based on my experience with nuclear materials in the Navy). Also, a real thesis title made a huge difference...I was thinking teenage boy watching Star Trek when I read "antimatter beams". I have known enough physics groupies. But now I know better. I read the whole thesis (don't know if it was yours or not), but do not pretend to understand it all the first time through. Since you are actually a grown-up, I am sure I can expect only a little heckling when I misspeak, and not a loco following me around the site, flaming me further, yes?

Peace?:D

ps I worked on separating U-235 from natural U in the early '80s at a company whose name I better not mention, but we beat out two national labs with our process, with an efficiency that I may not divulge. At least you get to talk about your work.....
very commendable!! Accepting our mistakes is a sign of true of true intelligence and mental health...after all, we all know we know nothing!!. Wouldn't be great if those infected by Christ-psychosis would think this way?.....You have a great mind as well as Tea Bag. It would take me 150 years to understand nuclear science, astrophysics, or simply accounting...:)

[Rat Bastard]

Logarithm,

fair enough, I am not one to hold a grudge (actually, that's not really true, but I do so only when it is deserved), and I did engage in some underhanded attacks as well, so I say let us call a truce.

tenspace, unfortunately my thesis is not online: I had to write it on a 386 PC and word embedded figures made the computer crash so I had to cut and paste (literally, with scissors and glue) and then photocopy, but I can dig up some actual published papers if you want.

By the way loggy, I did a stint at Lawrence livermore and it put me off turning to the dark side (as we used to call any work that required a Q clearance). It was bad enough having a machine gun pointed at you every morning going to work, but having FBI people snooping on your computer and bugging your phones at random is too much. Plus, once you start doing that sort of work it's very easy to be trapped in it since you can never tell anyone what you've been doing.
Yeah, I know. I am looking forward to the day when I don't know anything, and I have to burn it BEFORE I read it. Then I'll have to wear a foil hat and live in a Faraday cage...:lol:

[Choobus]

I am proud of teabag and logarithm.

One question, can anyone recall EVER seeing a theist post the words "I was wrong"?

[Tenspace]

Loggy baby, why take defeat so badly? So I kicked your arse, it's no big deal you lame fool. For the record, I didn't give yo umy thesis title because I thought it wouldn't mean anything, but it was "Positronium formation at surfaces and the production of cold antihydrogen". I guess you can't take having your ass handed to you on a platter. I reccomend going to a library and reading some books before you come back you nonce.

Good day
OK, back from the reading room. St. Teabag, sir, I apologize. I was, um, er, choke...wrong. Man, that hurts to say. It doesn't happen to me often that I shoot my mouth off before my brain is engaged. I thought my face would break. As a fitting punishment, besides the thorough flaming you gave me, I will use the flame avatar for one week. I just can't stay away from you crazy bastids. St. Teabag, if you are a member of the group that realized a 4.5E4-fold increase in sensitivity, my hat is off to you (bow). BTW, I appreciate your caution with the positron source, that was pretty damn hot (based on my experience with nuclear materials in the Navy). Also, a real thesis title made a huge difference...I was thinking teenage boy watching Star Trek when I read "antimatter beams". I have known enough physics groupies. But now I know better. I read the whole thesis (don't know if it was yours or not), but do not pretend to understand it all the first time through. Since you are actually a grown-up, I am sure I can expect only a little heckling when I misspeak, and not a loco following me around the site, flaming me further, yes?

Peace?:D

ps I worked on separating U-235 from natural U in the early '80s at a company whose name I better not mention, but we beat out two national labs with our process, with an efficiency that I may not divulge. At least you get to talk about your work.....
That is so cool. :D Another hallmark of a good person. They admit when they're wrong. I'm looking forward to learning from both you guys. Wanna start a physics thread? You still haven't comment on tachyon condensation and the Higgs sea. :)

[Tenspace]

Yeah, I know. I am looking forward to the day when I don't know anything, and I have to burn it BEFORE I read it.
You don't have to wait! Just get a bible. :)

[Tenspace]

I am proud of teabag and logarithm.

One question, can anyone recall EVER seeing a theist post the words "I was wrong"?
Yeah, once I saw, "I was wrong to think you atheists are good people."

[Choobus]

Theist: I was wrong once
Atheist: Really? How?
Theist: Well, I thought I'd made a mistake, but I hadn't.