Moderator: Community Team
oss spy wrote:For someone so arrogant, I would expect you to understand the basic definition of the term "modern".
You're welcome to keep playing semantics all day, but please do it with someone else.
oss spy wrote:I didn't miss anything. If you don't think the potential interests the military, you don't understand the military. And if they're interested in the potential of the thing, then they are interested in the thing. This is all really very basic.
Good job not responding to the rest of my point and quoting me out of context. I'll repost the whole point for you, since you think ignoring it is the way to go:
oss spy wrote:You cannot create antimatter more than one atom at a time, and therefore you will have to make a bomb one atom at a time. It's also extremely expensive to make...as in "holy fucking shit, that costs a ton" expensive. I'll quote the part of wikipedia that you ignored:
A milligram of antimatter will take 100,000 times the annual production rate to produce.(or 100,000 years)[2] It will take billions of years for the current production rate to make an equivalent of current typical hydrogen bombs.[3] For example, an equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb will take half a gram of antimatter, but will take CERN 2 billion years to produce at the current production rate.
Go ahead and tell me that the military is interested in it. The spokesperson mentioned in the article only talked about its potential, a key part that you must've missed.
oss spy wrote:I would expect someone so arrogant to have the intelligence necessary to properly quote in a forum. Obviously, I overestimated that.
I didn't say anything that required quoting because I didn't quote anything.
oss spy wrote:Also, you must've ignored my point again so I'll put it up again for you so you can respond to it:
[i]The "no u" argument fails here.
oss spy wrote:I'm telling you this now: dark energy and dark matter are not things that can be weaponized. You're going to disagree, so let me explain why you're wrong:
oss spy wrote:Brilliant! I still don't believe you understand a bit of what you're talking about. I think you go to websites, try to read up on them a little bit, and pretend that you understand it.
You're not much of an armchair detective, are you? Allow me to make a claim of the same level as yours: you're a pink unicorn in a closet that leads to Narnia. Don't get my point? Here it is: baseless assumptions meant as insults only make you appear stupid.
oss spy wrote:Those weapons are pretty efficient in their purpose, actually.
I thought it was obvoius that I was talking about industrial usage.
oss spy wrote:Because the United States has never done anything that would be considered illegal under the terms of their treaties in order to gain an upper hand. Just saying.
The past is nonindicative of the present or future. Please stop making arguments based on your ignorance.
oss spy wrote:I'm still waiting for you to sound more intelligent instead of more arrogant. Regardless, I'M not the one that is going to be building it. I am quite certain, however, that the military has the ingenuity to do so if they deem it worthwhile.
I'm waiting on you to prove your point, which you have not done. My point is that it is impossible to create an antimatter bomb, and you just can't fucking see it. The frontier of physics has no practical applications because of the very nature of particle physics and saying otherwise just makes you wrong. You're either stupid, you just can't read, or you're trolling me. Regardless of your issue, I suggest that you do some research into the subjects you're trying to discuss with me.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:What does the media have to do with religion? What incentive does the media have in being anti-religion?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:The media has no incentive to take a staunchy pro or anti religion bias except for reaching out to certain demographics in order to increase ratings. If you're going to insist that "the media" is out to destroy religion, then you've got your head 10 feet in the sand.
Edit: Fox News is very much pro-religion.
Phatscotty wrote:the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Phatscotty wrote:the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.
GreecePwns wrote:Phatscotty wrote:the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.
Destroy was a wrong word, fine. But why would they want to "promote [th]is as a subconscious victory over religion?"
vodean wrote:ok, this is WAAAAAYYY off topic. but oss, seriously. come on.
at current rates, ya, anti-matter is useless for weaponry. not only are we not making any significant amounts of it, but we cannot control it, because when matter comes into contact with antimatter, they are destroyed, releasing energy.
BUT
in the future, we WILL be able to use anti-matter as a weapon. IF
1. we are able to produce it in large amounts. this is the easy part. ya, we will have to make it one particle at a time, but with 1,000 machines making 1,000 particles 1x per second, thats 1,000,000 particles every second. and thats possible, even today. the reason CERN does not make particles that fast is that
we could use other particle collisions at other energies to make more antimatter faster.
2. if we use a fundamental force that impacts all matter the same way, such as gravity (see back on topic ), we could contain the antimatter we create, and use it for controlled explosions and weapons, etc. that might be tough, but its possible.
and actually, almost all media is very anti-religion. fox being the exception, yes. but all the others still promote the god particle as a "HA! Bitches, your politics are wrong because you are religious, see?".
and your wording clearly shows that even if you disagree with woodruff, you appreciate his anti-conservative stance
Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:Phatscotty wrote:the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.
Destroy was a wrong word, fine. But why would they want to "promote [th]is as a subconscious victory over religion?"
because the media is secular, and the media is predominantly liberal. I have never said that it was the primary goal, but I believe there is something to my statement.
There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that. anyone who would not take advantage of the subliminal implication that is available with the "god particle" is wasting an opportunity to push their agenda. I know I am not the only one who thought of this.
Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.
Phatscotty wrote:anyone who would not take advantage of the subliminal implication that is available with the "god particle" is wasting an opportunity to push their agenda. I know I am not the only one who thought of this.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.
I will deny it.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.
I will deny it.
Well, anyone except Woodruff
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Army of GOD wrote:Yea, I would think that scientists themselves are probably the most..."passive"...when it comes to battling religion.
Scientists could care less what everyone believes personally. All they care about is finding the truth of the universe. Or, that's what they should care about, I think.
Phatscotty wrote:Wasn't there something about the world being flat, and not round....something about the sun revolving around the earth, and not the other way around.....something about the earth being 30,000 years old, and not billions of years?
does anyone admit that there was a battle or conflict between religion and science in the past? and when did it end?
Phatscotty wrote:the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.
Maugena wrote:On a side note, I never really thought of this, but... I suppose Minnesota is like the Texas of the north huh? (Politically speaking.)
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.
I will deny it. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Some scientists are religious personally. Some people who are religious have a problem with science, and those few are usually having a problem with it because they believe that science takes away some of their power/influence in using religion.
But there is no battle at all between science and religion, as they are not competing philosophies...they don't intersect. One is based on faith and one is based on verifiability. Any "battle" is taking place only in the mind of the ignorant.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: GaryDenton