To begin with, particles rarely interact with one another. I agree that energy is released, I never disagreed with that. Neutrinos are related because they are considered matter, it isn't off-topic. (Originally they were thought not to have mass, but recently it has been discovered that they do have their own separate masses). They rarely interact with each other and are difficult to observe. The ones of separate mass of course, release energy. But at times when the same mass collide, they disappear. What I'm saying is that their energy is theorized by these scientists to go into another part of the universe.
edit: sorry for not being clear, the theory is real antimatter close to absolute zero, not normal antimatter. My mistake for not clarifying this.
Full Version: What created life as we know it
QUOTE
To begin with, particles rarely interact with one another.
That changes nothing.
QUOTE
I agree that energy is released, I never disagreed with that.
QUOTE
Created was perhaps a bad choice of words, but what I was trying to say was that when matter and antimatter of EQUAL mass combine, you don't have to worry about the energy being released. Because it "disappears"
QUOTE
^That is where you got confused, Stellar. That's matter and antimatter of UNEQUAL mass, which does produce a burst of energy. I'm talking about matter and antimatter of EQUAL mass, which "disappears", NOT releasing energy.
Does that help to jog your memory?
QUOTE
Neutrinos are related because they are considered matter, it isn't off-topic.
But it is, because you're talking about Neutrino oscillation, not matter/antimatter reactions.
QUOTE
The ones of separate mass of course, release energy. But at times when the same mass collide, they disappear.
You dont even know what those websites are talking about. They're not talking about when it comes in contact with an anti-neutrino, they're talking about it oscillating and "disappearing" (in more lamens terms) on its own.
QUOTE
the theory is real antimatter below absolute zero, not normal antimatter. My mistake for not clarifying this
Below absolute zero?
What do you think the distinction between normal antimatter and real antimatter is?
That is imperative that the particles rarely interact because they are difficult to observe and come up with something conclusive.
The theory goes that this anti-Matter can be found within the nuclei of the Atom, emitting no form of a wave. Energy used to detect it would be absorbed, and less antimatter would exist afterward, but releasing nothing due to the temperature.
OK GUYS!!!! OMG!!!!
Can't you just kiss and makeup. It is so minute the details you are arguing infinitely.
Can we try to talk about the universal beginnings please??
Can't you just kiss and makeup. It is so minute the details you are arguing infinitely.
Can we try to talk about the universal beginnings please??
Sure, let's discuss quantum foam.
I always thought it would give insight to the origins of the universe since they are what remains of the universe in its early stages. I'll post some links.
QUOTE
That is imperative that the particles rarely interact because they are difficult to observe and come up with something conclusive.
You do realise that scientists can create "artificial environments" (for lack of a better term) In order to increase the interactions?
QUOTE
The theory goes that this anti-Matter can be found within the nuclei of the Atom, emitting no form of a wave. Energy used to detect it would be absorbed, and less antimatter would exist afterward, but releasing nothing due to the temperature.
Show me a website explaining this theory.
Antimatter: Matter which consists of antiparticles, elementary particles of ordinary matter, such as protons and electrons, but have an opposite electrical charge.
Sure but it is no guarantee they react all the time. Antimatter at one point was considered to be a particle traveling backward in time. I'll post a link as an edit.
QUOTE(Yelekiah @ Oct 12 2005, 04:54 AM) [snapback]883146[/snapback]
I always thought it would give insight to the origins of the universe since they are what remains of the universe in its early stages. I'll post some links.
So you are saying that the universe did not start from 'nothing' but rather had some remnant fragments of the old universe, like quantum foam?
What is the point of all this discussion then!!! lol
QUOTE(Rainbow Rowan @ Oct 11 2005, 11:26 AM) [snapback]882904[/snapback]
So energy is consciousness? Therefore what I mentioned about the energy of the universe being conscious could still be a possibility.
YES!!
Why can't every molicule have it's own level of consciousness?
QUOTE(Yelekiah @ Oct 12 2005, 01:33 AM) [snapback]882911[/snapback]
Has anyone heard of the photoelectric effect?
What interferes with a single photon?
It has to be other photons. But where are the interfering photons? The single photon interference implies that they are in other universes that interfere with ours. Neils Bohr once said that, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory does not understand it."
There's a lot more to this universe than we see.
See I wonder, personally, if it is not the 'thought' of the scientist which disturbs the outcome of the single photon. That is my own opinion only. I beleive that energy/matter are all linked and can be affected by intention. Therefore thoughts can manipulate matter, proving, in my opinion, that concsciousness can reside within a single photon...
recommended reading: "the medium, the mystic and the physicist", "the roots of coincidence", "the Tao of physics", "Tao Teh Ching" and "Sepher Yetzirah".
QUOTE(GIDEON MAGE @ Oct 15 2005, 10:40 PM) [snapback]888796[/snapback]
recommended reading: "the medium, the mystic and the physicist", "the roots of coincidence", "the Tao of physics", "Tao Teh Ching" and "Sepher Yetzirah".
Actually I have the Roots of Coincidence but I haven't read it yet. Cool, thanks.
When I look at the title of the thread I wonder why do they put God and Evolution as if they were completely opposed. Frankly, I don't get the fight between Creationism and Evolutionism.
The fact that there is a Creator does not deny the fact that there has been an evolution on living beings
The fact that there is a Creator does not deny the fact that there has been an evolution on living beings
QUOTE(jpalz @ Oct 15 2005, 05:13 PM) [snapback]889338[/snapback]
When I look at the title of the thread I wonder why do they put God and Evolution as if they were completely opposed. Frankly, I don't get the fight between Creationism and Evolutionism.
The fact that there is a Creator does not deny the fact that there has been an evolution on living beings
The monkey myth again????
The fact that we evolved from monkeys?
I'll be honest here: I don't know every nook and cranny from the theory, nor the fact if that "monkey myth" has been refuted or not, I just know the very basics of it, not because of lack of interest, but because I don't have much time at hand (studying things like Calculus, Linear Algebra, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropoly- got a test every week-).
Anyways, if you could give me a link with more in-depth about it, I'd gladly aprecciate it
I'll be honest here: I don't know every nook and cranny from the theory, nor the fact if that "monkey myth" has been refuted or not, I just know the very basics of it, not because of lack of interest, but because I don't have much time at hand (studying things like Calculus, Linear Algebra, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropoly- got a test every week-).
Anyways, if you could give me a link with more in-depth about it, I'd gladly aprecciate it
I don't beleive the monkey Myth myself and I only know the basics myself as you, , Sorry Namaste Sheri
Don't worry Sherri, you don't have to be sorry about anything 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.