Posted on 04/03/2009 8:50:10 AM PDT by Clint Williams
I wonder if we allowed nuclear reprocessing of fuel if this would be true.
“I wouldn’t hang my hat on some higher level of meaning coming from them.”
I know, it is just another raionalization to help keep my inner wolves at bay. When I think I am going crazy, it helps to believe that maybe I am just “touched.”
If it helps, crazy people don’t think they are crazy. It takes a level of sanity to worry about going crazy.
Let's get this straight.
You're claiming that the Bible, which we both know was written by men, translated by men, printed by men and distributed by men, is EXACTLY what God has to say ?
If it's EXACTLY what God has to say, why are there so many versions which say different things ? Like the one that says Mary is a "good woman", as opposed to the one that says she's a "virgin" ?
Which one do you pick as the "Word of God" ?
And once you've chosen, what about the others ? They all claim to be the "Word of God" as well.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you are the sole arbiter and judge of "God's Word" for others. For yourself, sure. For others, no. Including scientists.
; D
It belongs to the technician in the orange jumpsuit................
>> While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer, 1926. <<
Television remained financially and commercially unfeasible for another generation, far longer than any investment horizon.
- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer, 1926.
That was an ironic statement to make, considering the year 1926, the year that Robert Goddard flew the first liquid-fueled rocket!
No kidding. Faster-than-light travel produces causality violations and nature just isn’t going to let you do that.
However, the possibility of causality violations has all but convinced me (note: 100% layman) that warp travel a la Star Trek isn't the key to the universe. Instead, I've hung my hopes on the possibility of galactic travel via wormholes -- either natural (e.g. MACHOs) or artificial (e.g. Visser type) non-local connections.
The big advantage of wormhole travel is that special relativity is not violated when you go "from" Mouth O (for Origin) to Mouth D (for Destination). Since Mouth O and Mouth D aren't really two separate objects (they're two sides of the same object!), clocks at Mouth O must agree with clocks at Mouth D. And since clocks on either end of a all wormholes would always agree, the existence of wormholes would create a "privileged" frame of reference -- a sort of Galactic Standard Time -- that would preclude any causality violation. Assuming a zero-length wormhole, any two locations on "opposite ends" of a wormhole are occupying the same frame of reference and are thus essentially "at" the same place at the same time!
As for causality violations, the only way to create one using wormholes would be to accelerate Mouth D to relativistic speeds in a direction away from Mouth O, then reverse course until the two mouth are "together" in space. Since Mouth D has been accelerated to relativistic speeds, it has been time-dilated and is "younger" than Mouth O, thus separating the two in time.
Fortunately, it appears that this is impossible -- a energy feedback effect between two wormhole mouths apparently exists such that any attempt to create a time machine (and thus a causality violation) by bringing one mouth of the wormhole away from and back to the other using relativistic space travel would fail. Once Mouth D has been time-dilated, any attempt to bring it back within a certain radius of Mouth O (the "Cauchy horizon"), will collapse the wormhole completely.
I have a hunch that a lot of the "missing mass" of the universe is hiding in wormholes, and that the links between these naturally-occurring "space subways" for a sort of framework or skeleton for the spacetime in which we are embedded.
But then again, what do I know? I'm a comic book artist.
Assuming the theory is correct, it's still not likely in the foreseeable future.
The amount of power required is huge. Unless we find a way to harness zero-point energy or some equally implausible source, keeping a wormhole open long enough for traversal will be impossible.
I believe so, especially if we were to use breeder reactors.
The problem is there is more to nuclear waste than just spent fuel. There is a lot of non-fuel infrastructure, coolant, etc. that is irradiated and must be disposed of.
I suspect the penalty for using a worm hole for traveling is that when you step out the other side, the outside timeframe will be that it took as long as the speed of light to get there, thus a 40 light year round trip will put you 80 years in the future, just as if you traveled at relativistic speed the whole way.
coolant is disposed of?
The circulating water is changed out each time?
Thanks, how much do I owe you?
No, not each time. But, nuclear power plants have a finite lifetime. When they are decommissioned, the infrastructure (which include coolant and all the other irradiated materials) must be safely disposed. You can't just drain the water into the sewer and toss the rest into the trash.
The spent fuel is obviously the most radioactive. And it poses other risks if it can be reprocessed to recover the plutonium. But, it's only a small part (in volume) of the radioactive waste stream.
You said — “You’re claiming that the Bible, which we both know was written by men, translated by men, printed by men and distributed by men, is EXACTLY what God has to say ?”
—
The doctrine on Biblical Inerrancy is pretty well spelled out by the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” along with the statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which pertains, too...
And yes, it is *exactly* what God has to say, totally inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches and says and speaks about.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
And you’ll notice that it applies to the original languages (Greek and Hebrew, with a very small section in one part in Aramaic).
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you asked — Which one do you pick as the “Word of God” ?
—
You take the original language as the authoritative source. That’s what the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy applies to.
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly you said — And once you’ve chosen, what about the others ? They all claim to be the “Word of God” as well.
You’re not familiar with the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, then, if you ask that. We do have the original language.
Nothing, but when you quit worrying, lookout.;)
Buckaroo Banzai(I think)
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.