No Big Bang

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
I see. So even anti-matter gives off ordinary light and is visible?

Duh.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Really, it is ignorant to claim that physicists are the smartest or even the most useful.

Oerdin, you might note that I'm deliberately being a bit of an *******.

I figured you were taking the piss but on the off chance that you weren't...

[KrazyHorse]

Among educated people doctors and lawyers often do better and with much less experience. MBAs and stock brokers have less education yet still make more money as do huge numbers of small business people. The moral of the story is don't get to cocky because the guy with fewer creditials just might be smarter then you since he works less and makes more.

a) What other people do isn't interesting
b) Why do you think finance firms look for physicists, and not other scientists, to be their quant guys (and make, I might note, far more than anybody in that list)?
c) Money isn't everything, son.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The problem is that regular people will never understand what we do. They don't have the tools to judge for themselves.

Judgment is not required. Judging science is what the scientists do. We just want to know that you all aren't selling us a bill of goods.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Ohh thats cute.

Grammar mistakes and a sexual innuendo in the same comment.

A twofer with the plain idiocy of the intended statement rounding out the hat trick.

DOH!!!



/me fixes mistake

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
I see. So even anti-matter gives off ordinary light and is visible?

You didn't know this?

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Mathematicians are the only ones who stand a chance against us...

You're really asking to get buried in genetics and biochem lingo.

[KrazyHorse]

Knowledge and intelligence are two different things, boyo.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I see. So even anti-matter gives off ordinary light and is visible?

But ofcorse the Anti-particle will be when the normal particle is and visa-versa, havent you watched StarTrek??

Seriously though, from what I've hear no force carrying particles (Photons, Gluons, umm-that-particle-that-carries-the-weak-force, and the as of yet unobserved Graviton) belong to their own group the Bozozs and are destinquished by having zero spin (what ever that is), and their massless too. All the stuff with mass that we would call "matter" is in a group called Lepracons each one of them must have an anti-particle with inverse charge and I think inverse spin.

How close is that KH?

[Jon Miller]

Some think that the neutrino might also be it's own anti-particle. This would only be true if it didn't have Dirac mass.

JM

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Knowledge and intelligence are two different things, boyo.

Gah!! my attempt a a joke fails!!!

Anyway, you're right, it takes intelligence to understand a bit of knowledge and to tie it in with other bits of knowledge and synthesize all that knowledge into hypotheses.

Oh, and please don't call me "boyo."

[Odin]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]

Bozozs ... Lepracons

I think the proper terms are Bosons and Fermions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
and their massless too

Depends at what energy scale you're talking...

[Impaler[WrG]]

Perhaps I should have said Inertia-less, though I have heard references to solar sails using the "inertia of light" I had always though this was some kind of bad analogy and force particles dont have inertia in the same sense matter dose, aka resistence to acceleration. Also the term I was mocking was with Lepracon was the Lepton though that might not have been correct, they are only a sub-set of the Fermions, I remember electrons being in this Lepton group?

[KrazyHorse]

Perhaps I should have said Inertia-less, as they can be converted into a matter proportional to their energy

Uh...no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_boson