swansont

"half a gram converted to energy" is a different calculation than "half a gram of U-235 undergoing fission." For the latter you still have most of the mass present as the fission fragments.

If they hit something, they might be absorbed, and you'd eventuallyget other photons coming out. But it's a big universe, so it might take a very long time before that happened.

You will need a search engine that is intelligently designed.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used terminology describing a logical fallacy. The "falseness" in this case is in the arbitrary assignment of the probabilities. If I said I was building a machine, and it can either work or not work, does that mean it automatically has a 50% chance of working? (or, better yet, a perpetual motion machine). edit to add: It brings to mind the joke about how there are two types of people: those that divide people into two groups and those that don't. There is nothing inherent in that to suggest that the division is 50-50.

This is nothing but mathematics run amok. There is no physical meaning to the calculations. Unless you present some evidence to back up your story, I will not accept it. I do not believe that Rickover had such a piss-poor grasp of the scientific principles involved, as it runs counter to prior experience (I was an instructor in the navy's nuclear propulsion program for ~five years).

Berylium? Is this the same Berylium that has an attenuation coefficient of about 0.25/cm at 100 keV (as compared to Pb, with a value of 50/cm)?

Yes' date=' and please note where I said the cross-section is probably small, i.e. it is unlikely to interact via these mechanisms. (That would be Nobelist, no?) The electroweak unification energy is hundreds of GeV.

There are several definitions used for species, so it depends on which one you are using, but that's not exactly right. It's true that if two populations can't produce fertile offspring they are different species, but that's a very different statement. What is needed is reproductive isolation, so that they do not normally interbreed, but if they do, you can get fertile offspring. There are some notable examples: wolves, coyotes and dogs. Mules, ligers, tigons, etc. are often infertile, but not always. one reference examples of hybrids

As YT said, the energy matters, but nothing is actually opaque, really; it's a matter of being more or less transparent. In terms of e.g. taking an x-ray picture, you get contrast so the film is more or less exposed, and materials like lead will be better at shielding, but some fraction of x-rays will pass through, depending on the thickness (it's an exponential function, [math]e^{-\lambda L}[/math] ). If you want materials that are good at stopping x-rays, you want a large linear attenuation coefficient, [math]\lambda[/math]

And I suspect they did, and they were not listened to. And even if they went public without being contemptuous (which is a subjective description) they would kill any hopes they had for further advancement.

That's certainly true, and you also have to consider the quantum-mechanical nature of these entities. If there's no interaction they will pass right through each other, because they will act like waves; this is a lot less like pool/billiards/snooker than one might be imagining. With a neutron and electron, there is no electrostatic interaction because the neutron has no charge, but there is a magnetic one, and they can also interact via the weak nuclear force. So you could get scattering, but the cross-section is probably small, and if you did then the comments about the relative masses applies.

That's been my argument. It's not that it's necessarily hard to evolve intelligence, but it won't evolve unless the other traits are present to make it an advantage.

It depends a little on the context. In some simple cases it may just mean that the probabilities of all possible events has to add up to 1. In quantum mechanics you have a probability density when looking at a wave function, and there is a probability operator. Conservation means that the total probability doesn't change over time (it's related to continuity equations). If you have a non-interacting particle, you expect to have that particle some time later — the probability of finding it still has to be one. You have to have written your equations and operators to properly reflect this. Here's some math

But that's gliding, not powered flight, since all you need to do is move a relatively short distance. Unless the fish breathe air, and probably increase their metabolism, you have serious limitations to overcome to get to flight.

Dolphins. They are intelligent, but are probably limited on how they can exploit that intelligence. Larger brains would likely be a burden. Why couldn't similar limitations have existed with dinosaurs?

True; I was assuming the reference would be some competent authority. Anyone who turns to creationists to gain an understanding of biology has a tenacious grip on reality, and is actively lubricating their hands.

And from the other perspective, length contraction. Those in the spaceship don't see the length as being 28 million light-years.

And yet you assume that the current science is flawed and you feel compelled to come up with an alternate explanation that has a little basis in reality, and post it in a science section. You really, really need to learn to start your threads in the speculations section.