Tres Juicy

Fair point

Because it's counter intuitive Common sense suggests that it's either a wave or a particle QM says both at the same time is fine

Sufficiently strong magnets can just be held in place by their own field as long as you are using metal How big is it going to be? How much movement do you want?

you can make ferrofluid from washing up liquid and oil http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2009-09/making-ferrofluids-work-you I'll see if I can find a better link As for the colour, I think black is the only option

In simulations I hope

This is a much better question which deserves its own thread really

Why did you choose it? Now you've intigued me...

It is what it is mate

Yes, I should have provided a link rather than just tried to type it! My spoken French is of course flawless

Fair enough. From the artice: ... A hypothetical device he calls a time crystal could power a computer that would keep on running long after everything else has succumbed to the pull of entropy."It's not the most immediate problem in the world, but the point is, we don't have to take the heat death of the universe lying down," Wilczek says. "We can put up a pretty good fight for a very long time." Such a device might even be able to simulate someone's brain - giving a form of life extension. Wilczek came up with this bizarre idea while studying solid crystals, three-dimensional structures in which the atoms are arranged in regular, repeating patterns. These patterns arise because they cost atoms the least energy to maintain, and so are most comfortable. If you add more energy, the crystal might disappear - ice crystals will melt to liquid water, for instance. Eventually, though, the heat will dissipate and the ice will refreeze in the same pattern. Thanks to Einstein's special theory of relativity, physicists are used to thinking of time as a dimension, a simple extension to the three dimensions of space. So if you can have crystals in three dimensions, Wilczek wondered, why not in four? He reasoned that the periodic rows of atoms in an ordinary crystal could translate to periodic motion in a time crystal (see diagram). Any object that moves in a circle and returns to the same spot at regular intervals, like a planet orbiting a star, has the same sort of symmetry in time that crystals have in space. But to truly count as a time crystal, that orbit would have to represent the object's lowest energy state - just as the periodic arrangement of atoms in a crystal is their lowest energy state. In other words, the crystal would be able to keep on orbiting forever without needing any extra energy. That makes it look "perilously close to a perpetual motion machine", Wilczek says. Normally forbidden by thermodynamics, there is at least one instance of perpetual motion that is allowed: the electrons flowing in a superconductor. Unlike electrons travelling through an ordinary conductive wire, where resistance erodes their flow, those in superconductors have normally been cooled close to absolute zero, share the same quantum state and so flow without resistance. This makes superconductors very efficient at producing huge currents. Wilczek points out that superconductors' lack of resistance also means that their electrons could, in theory, flow forever without any energy input - just what is needed to create a time crystal. "A superconductor is close [to a time crystal], in the sense that it has currents that flow forever, even in its lowest energy state," he says. "If you add more energy, it'll eventually shed that energy and go back to doing what it wants to do." In a time crystal, electrons will have to flow in a loop not a line as they do in an ordinary superconductor. What's more, they will have to bunch up rather than flowing as a smooth stream. This is to ensure that the charge repeats periodically over time, echoing the way that atoms repeat in space in an ordinary crystal.

The church in general tends to provide education with an agenda that is geared toward religion and not impartial While it is a good thing to educate people, I would would not say that it advances science On the other hand, an example of religion holding back science: John Donne's (1572-1631) poem "Upon the Translations of the Psalms by Sir Philip Sidney, and the Countess of Pembroke, His Sister" condemns attempts to find an exact value of pi, or to "square a circle," which Donne views as an attempt to rationalize God: "Eternal God—for whom who ever dare Seek new expressions, do the circle square, And thrust into straight corners of poor wit Thee, who art cornerless and infinite" There are many examples: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5 This bible verse shackled the minds of men for thousands of years, and held back the advancement of science. It was this verse that was used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called to Rome in 1633, and tried for the crime of heresy.

Hi all, Just wondering about peoples names here: How you came about them? How you pronounce them? What they mean? Mine is Tres Juicy: Tres from the French "Trés" (pronounced "trey or tray" - meaning "very") And Juicy Stemming from the fact that we used to call anything good/cool "juicy" which evolved over time to "trés juicy" due to working with a French guy. Eg: "Bob's got some trés juicy kit in his house" or "Pete just landed a trés juicy deal" I stole it for my online alias about 9 years ago and have used it ever since. What about you guys?

Something as big as a city would fall apart if you lifted it off the ground

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328484.000-deathdefying-time-crystal-could-outlast-the-universe.html

I disagree. In a democracy the government ultimately answers to the people. Again, we have the crusades, Hitler and the Jews... etc... - Justification in the name of god can skew the boundries of reason beyond the ridiculous The study of nature is called science and what it tells us is contrary to what religion tells us, they can't both be right and if religion is right why would god lead us down the garden path with science? Why would he give us huge intellect and an enquiring nature only to build a world around us that points us constantly in the wrong direction with science? Why would he tell us one thing and then stack all the evidence against it?

Just to be clear on this: Imeant that what You said was spot on, not the video. It's very frustrating to discuss something that has no rules and can seemingly be backed up with "what the bible says" or "what I believe" or even "magic". In these cases, in order to draw attention to and highlight the holes in these arguments it is sometimes necessary to use extreme examples (Hyperbole that some would call strawmanning), like iNow said it can't be the basis of your argument but it can help in getting your point accross. In response to Zapatos' earlier post: Admitedly this is a bold statement, but on the other hand, can anyone think of an example of religion furthering the advancement of science? I see your point, but I am open to new ideas and will not deny the evidence of observed reallity. Show me evidence for god and I will give it due consideration, something that the crackpots will not do, even for things as fundamental as gravity in some cases. In my opinion you have highlighted the wrong part of the statement, my point was that they force their views on others, which is wrong. You don't see any of us posting on religious forums or standing in the street trying to convert people (science doesn't try to convert people it lets the evidence speak for itself). However, if someone comes here and wants to preach to the scientific comunity, then I believe their arguments should be disputed with science. Again, I will always dispute what I believe to be wrong and I do not pull any punches. People think it's rude to tell someone that their religion is ridiculous, and it would be if I was standing outside a church harassing old ladies with my views on science, but when they come here and try to force it on me it becomes fair game. Not only that, who can resist an argument?

Not at all, I'm saying sometimes in order to point out a flaw in someones logic it is easier to demonstrate with a strawman

You are probably right, people do let their arguments slip a little, and I think it's a combination of all of the above and the fact that they know that the other person will want to preach not listen

How do you counter an argument that can answer anything with "magic" logically? Sometimes you resort to a strawman to point out the ridiculousness of the other persons argument

And there is the point. To quote you "there is no reason to believe" Why would my magical fairy be any less likely than god?

Argue logically that I don't have a magical fairy in my pocket that only I can perceive in any way

more importantly - why would we try?

I'm not even sure what this means... You are not saying anything anymore - just complaining that your material is being attacked. You have been asked several questions which you are ignoring (Post #43 in particular) - which is not acceptable If you do not answer the questions you've been asked, this thread (as ridiculous as it has become) will be closed like the others

I see nothing wrong with what Ophiolite said. He is criticising you post/material not you yourself Your complaint is baseless and you're are still ignoring questions asked of you