Mr.X Posted April 26, 2004 Posted April 26, 2004 Maybe I should've put it proven in quotes. But that's their evidence that it is more than a hypothesis (hence being a theory), it's not scientific law, so it could easily be wrong. Yes, there are many hypotheses and theories about the universe, but that at least was the main school of thought. Mr. X, I don't care what you believe, I don't know why I even bothered trying to contradict your beliefs. You're beliefs are your own and I respect that. BTW, the charges do not represent energy. It's just the attractive force. Also, you're thinking of neutrons, not neutrinos. Protrons and electrons aren't subatomic particles, either. Unless I'm mistaken, quarks are subatomic particles.No, it's not an error, I 've taken the example of neutrinos. Neutrons 've no charge too. U're wrong, coz electrons & protons 'R subatomic particles : main constitutives of atoms of matter (electrons'R in orbital & protons make the atomic nuclei [with neutrons, if it's an isotope]). Not all quarks are subatomic particles : quarks can not exist by themselves, they've to be bound to other quarks by the exchange of gluons.
OverlordMondo Posted April 26, 2004 Posted April 26, 2004 Yeah I read this book by Stephen Hawking once, "A Brief History of Time". It was all about this stuff. It had a chapter on time travel, a couple on black/wormholes.It was pretty good, but I don't remember much.
Wizard Posted April 26, 2004 Author Posted April 26, 2004 (edited) It would be easier if everyone typed in "normal" because this thing with 1 letters is confuzing meh. Edited April 26, 2004 by K`dash
OverlordMondo Posted April 26, 2004 Posted April 26, 2004 It would be easier if everyone typed in "normal" because this thing with 1 letters is confuzing meh....dooooooo what now?
StriderSkorpion Posted April 26, 2004 Posted April 26, 2004 Mr. X, I thought you meant neutrons since you were referring to electrons, but that's aside the point. Also, quarks are subatomic particles, so I was mistaken about protons, neutrons, and electrons, but was right about quarks. Subatomic particles are particles that make up an atom or are smaller than an atom. Quarks don't have charges, IIRC, but tastes and colors/smells (not sure which). Also, the existance of gluons, last time I checked, was still pretty hypothetical.
Gryph Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Mr. X, I thought you meant neutrons since you were referring to electrons, but that's aside the point. Also, quarks are subatomic particles, so I was mistaken about protons, neutrons, and electrons, but was right about quarks. Subatomic particles are particles that make up an atom or are smaller than an atom. Quarks don't have charges, IIRC, but tastes and colors/smells (not sure which). Also, the existance of gluons, last time I checked, was still pretty hypothetical.Well neutrinos are also involved with electrons. Whenever something goes through beta decay and an electron is released, an anti-neutrino is shed along with it. And when it releases a positron, a neutrino is released. I have to know this crap for my physics test on Wednesday.
Cominus Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Mr. X, I thought you meant neutrons since you were referring to electrons, but that's aside the point. Also, quarks are subatomic particles, so I was mistaken about protons, neutrons, and electrons, but was right about quarks. Subatomic particles are particles that make up an atom or are smaller than an atom. Quarks don't have charges, IIRC, but tastes and colors/smells (not sure which). Also, the existance of gluons, last time I checked, was still pretty hypothetical.Well neutrinos are also involved with electrons. Whenever something goes through beta decay and an electron is released, an anti-neutrino is shed along with it. And when it releases a positron, a neutrino is released. I have to know this crap for my physics test on Wednesday. Why is it that whenever we talk about something scinetific you always seem to have a test about it the fowllowing week?
Gryph Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Mr. X, I thought you meant neutrons since you were referring to electrons, but that's aside the point. Also, quarks are subatomic particles, so I was mistaken about protons, neutrons, and electrons, but was right about quarks. Subatomic particles are particles that make up an atom or are smaller than an atom. Quarks don't have charges, IIRC, but tastes and colors/smells (not sure which). Also, the existance of gluons, last time I checked, was still pretty hypothetical.Well neutrinos are also involved with electrons. Whenever something goes through beta decay and an electron is released, an anti-neutrino is shed along with it. And when it releases a positron, a neutrino is released. I have to know this crap for my physics test on Wednesday. Why is it that whenever we talk about something scinetific you always seem to have a test about it the fowllowing week? I don't know...quite an odd coinidence. Maybe if don't talk about scientific things, I will never have tests on it.
OverlordMondo Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Mr. X, I thought you meant neutrons since you were referring to electrons, but that's aside the point. Also, quarks are subatomic particles, so I was mistaken about protons, neutrons, and electrons, but was right about quarks. Subatomic particles are particles that make up an atom or are smaller than an atom. Quarks don't have charges, IIRC, but tastes and colors/smells (not sure which). Also, the existance of gluons, last time I checked, was still pretty hypothetical.Well neutrinos are also involved with electrons. Whenever something goes through beta decay and an electron is released, an anti-neutrino is shed along with it. And when it releases a positron, a neutrino is released. I have to know this crap for my physics test on Wednesday. Why is it that whenever we talk about something scinetific you always seem to have a test about it the fowllowing week? I don't know...quite an odd coinidence. Maybe if don't talk about scientific things, I will never have tests on it. Words to live by, G. Words to live by.
Wizard Posted April 27, 2004 Author Posted April 27, 2004 I Find this picture in my thread totally irrelevent.
OverlordMondo Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 He does indeed. Even with the theoretical power to just erase our memories, eliminate evil, and live in peace forever. He'd rather sit back and watch us kill each other. And had I been in his position...I would too. I leave you tonight with this thought... GOD IS A FASCIST DICTATOR Power tends to corrupt...And absolute power, corrupts absolutely...- A poster in my US history class.
Gryph Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Power tends to corrupt...And absolute power, corrupts absolutely...- A poster in my US history class.You know it's sad that people don't actually know the person who said that. And for you information, its Lord Acton.
OverlordMondo Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 Power tends to corrupt...And absolute power, corrupts absolutely...- A poster in my US history class.You know it's sad that people don't actually know the person who said that. And for you information, its Lord Acton. Yeah, his name was written after the quote.I just don't remember that part.
Agozer Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 What's the point in discussing religion and particles and whatnot since we're all going to die at some point anyway?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now