Skip to comments.
Is space like a chessboard?
University of California - Los Angeles ^
| March 18, 2011
| Unknown
Posted on 03/18/2011 2:19:39 PM PDT by decimon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: decimon
“Well, Bobby, let’s see if Mr. Science can answer that question for you. ‘Is space like a chess board?’ What you have there is called an analogy. Is something like something else? In this case, I would say ‘no’. Space is more like a tunafish sandwich. Remember, all you members of The Mister Science Physics Forum are welcome to come and see me at the Harrison Avenue Mall this Saturday from noon to four where I’ll be demonstrating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Free hot dogs, too!”
21
posted on
03/18/2011 3:53:34 PM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: SunkenCiv
Thanks for the links.
22
posted on
03/18/2011 4:10:33 PM PDT
by
gorush
(History repeats itself because human nature is static)
To: gorush
I thought life was like a box of chocolates, not a chess board.
To: gorush; Physicist; SunkenCiv
Heisenberg looks uncertain.
To: martin_fierro
Schrödinger is missing his cat.
25
posted on
03/18/2011 4:37:23 PM PDT
by
Moltke
(Always retaliate first.)
To: Moltke
To: decimon
Oh SNAP!
27
posted on
03/18/2011 4:41:51 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
( DBKP ~ Death By 1000 Papercuts)
To: SunkenCiv
Would you please add me to your Sting Theory ping list. Thank you.
28
posted on
03/18/2011 5:04:05 PM PDT
by
Track9
(Make War!!)
To: martin_fierro
By the look on his face I say he is. Or perhaps that’s guilt.
Hehe, great thread.
29
posted on
03/18/2011 5:25:52 PM PDT
by
Moltke
(Always retaliate first.)
To: gorush
At least no one has gone through and added Helen Thomas’ face to each of these.
30
posted on
03/18/2011 7:19:16 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
To: martin_fierro
31
posted on
03/18/2011 7:19:43 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
To: martin_fierro
32
posted on
03/18/2011 7:19:43 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
To: decimon
Graphene would be a lovely name if it’s a girl, and the parents are both Borg.
33
posted on
03/18/2011 7:19:57 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
To: SunkenCiv
Graphene would be a lovely name if its a girl, and the parents are both Borg.
34
posted on
03/18/2011 7:31:49 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: SunkenCiv
35
posted on
03/18/2011 7:32:04 PM PDT
by
gorush
(History repeats itself because human nature is static)
To: decimon
36
posted on
03/18/2011 7:35:08 PM PDT
by
2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
(Welcome to the USA - where every day is Backwards Day!)
To: gorush
Wow, some serious brainpower gathered together there.
To: Yardstick
38
posted on
03/18/2011 7:50:41 PM PDT
by
gorush
(History repeats itself because human nature is static)
To: decimon
. First isolated in 2004 by Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, graphene has a wealth of extraordinary electronic properties, such as high electron mobility and current capacity. In fact, these properties hold such promise for revolutionary advances that Geim and Novoselov were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize a mere six years after their achievement. Big deal! 0bama got his Nobel Prize 2 months into his Presidency, and hadn't (and still hasn't) done anything worthwhile! It still looks like it was for "being elected while black".
(extreme sarcasm)
39
posted on
03/18/2011 7:50:54 PM PDT
by
airborne
(Paratroopers - Good to the last drop!)
To: decimon
And experiments show that the electron does not have a radius; it is thought to be a pure point particle with no surface or substructure that could possibly spin.Interesting. I didn't realize electrons were pure point particles. That means they must be indivisible, which means they must be infinitely dense. But density requires volume, which they lack, so maybe not. And yet they are particles so they must have mass. And if their mass is finite and their volume is zero, then we're back to infinite density. But that's not possible is it? Or is it?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson