Comment

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 3:37pm

And Gary, the difference between mathematics and observable reality is water on the moon, proven via a mathematical formula we, scientists, agree is accurate, not by observable physical reality. So, you said there's water on the moon and I would agree yet you're arguing against mathematical reality and it makes it appear as though you understand neither and support either, or both, based on momentary need.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 3:34pm

Rules for commentary are nice but they don't always work if one has something to say. Sometimes they do, sometime not.

Gary, they may not currently have tangible reality but that's precisely why CERN was built at a collective cost of billions footed by several different countries. Because the mathematical hypotheses that make up string theory and advanced physics can be proven and that's exactly what's happening now and again exactly why there's so much excitement attached to the success of the collision the other day. The particles created yesterday, or the day before I think, for that hundredth of a second after the collision are particles we don't see every day, they aren't ordinary, they're extraordinary and over the coming years there are scientists hoping to prove the existence of tachyons as well as other hypothetical particles. CERN was built not primarily but certainly in large part for just what you and I are discussing here. If the God particle exists given time CERN should prove it so.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 2:13pm

Gary, you can use semantics any way you'd like.

You know as well as I do that your belief is that god might exist and god might not exist, we do not know since there's no proof either way.

Tachyons might also exist and they might also not exist since there's no proof either way.

The difference is that there's more proof that Tachyons exist then there is that god exists.

Play it any way you'd like. We know there's water on the moon too, but we also have no absolute proof that might pass in a court of law because semantics could also be used to prove that there is no water on the moon.

We both know it, you're too smart not to.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 3:59am

Wild conspiracy theory is anathema to intellect. One usually finds, quite erroneously, what one is looking for.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 3:05am

When a sophisticated mathematical theory proposes a hypothesis the dynamic or element proposed falls into a new category that people seem unable to reference. That's the category of not proven to be and not proven not to be. Very much like the basis for Agnosticism, meaning you should understand and perhaps rephrase your own statements.

There is as much evidence to prove Tachyons exist, maybe even slightly more, as there is to prove they don't exist.

If it's a self-contradicting statement so is your chosen Agnosticism.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 2:37am

And of course they did find water on the moon, a lot of it.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 2:32am

To claim Tachyons don't exist is the same as claiming they do exist. Tachyons are hypothetical particles (allowed by relativity theory) that go faster than light, but can't attain the speed of light for the same reason that ordinary stuff can't (Imagine v>c in the Lorentz transformation). However, there is no evidence that they exist. They are hypothesized in string theory and mathematics that none of us understand because we aren't physics majors. Whether they exist or not is hypothesized but remains unproven which means they might very well exist, which is what CERN is all about.

Comment by Jeff on April 1, 2010 at 1:40am

The last words I had for Jen were, "we all made mistakes, you NO LESS then anyone else."

Her last words to me were, "maybe you should look at yourself more than you do everyone else... I understand there are conditions that make us argumentative... and I say us loosely... "

You decide.

Notice she failed to accept the cue and admit that yeah, we all made mistakes.

People here don't like me because I'm an Atheist, because my frequently stated position is that religion has no place here because it's a political, social and economic war that we're fighting, and because I believe we hire police from the bottom of the barrel, and the people here are petty and religiously intolerant and vindictive. Say you're an agnostic one too many times or question the reality that believing in Jesus is necessary to being saved or try to tell them the Constitution is flawed and you're met with name calling, and a general character slaughter and if you state clearly, we ALL made mistakes just like I did, they continue on and carry petty grudges.

That's factual data for ya.

Comment by Jeff on March 31, 2010 at 7:49pm

Jen, you're a petty little girl, no better then anyone else and that's just the sad fact. No better then me and no better then Greg and no better then anyone else. If you're going to post essays you need to understand you'll get comments and you'll look pretty silly posting an essay about the Police State and then defending the police because a comment, based on facts, hurt your feelings.

Someone called me an asshole and that's whose name calling is way outta line.

Grow up.

Comment by Jeff on March 31, 2010 at 7:43pm

Maybe YOU should look at everyone else more then you look at me. I was posting comments about a subject I was right about and everyone else with the exception of Gary and one other person was wrong and that's apparent from the conversations here. When I'm wrong I'm the first to admit it. I'm not. You're petty.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page