ydoaPs

He was quite clearly told how mass distorts spacetime. "Why does an apple fall?" gets the same answer I gave earlier. Where is this causal agent capable of intent? I'll wait while you find it. Nice red herring, though. What a wonderful straw man you have there, friend.

Poor quality implies that it was incorrect.

How, was my analysis incorrect? Demski got destoryed. After that, Prestonwood Baptist Church filed false DCMA claims to remove all traces of the debate. There are a few vids here and there, though. It's not the whole thing, but it's enough to see that Demski was the clear loser.

Hey, cypress, I saw that you disliked the OP. Is there reasoning behind it? Did you find the analysis given by the video to be inaccurate, or what?

Dembski got pwned so hard the host of the debate filed DCMA claims against every trace of it on youtube. Here is a vid describing the opening statement. It too was filed against and deleted, so it has been mirrored by several people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir7B4xM75I8

Analysis of the microwave background radiation conclusively shows large scale euclidean geometry; our universe is flat. For the universe to be closed, it must have positive curvature.

If you click on the philosophy forum, you should see an announcement showing the restrictions we have in place to filter out potential trolls.

It has been experimentally confirmed.

A superheated steam leak can cut you to pieces; it's dangerous stuff.

Someone I know only over the internet came up with the following argument: It seems like a fairly decent argument against omnipotence. Thoughts? Rebuttals?

No, and no. Water hammer is a bitch. Most coal plants use superheated steam. In this case, what you put into it would be waste heat anyway. I don't see the point of running the pumps from mains power. If you can make the plant self-sustaining, it'd be great, if not, I don't really see why you'd do it. The nuke plants I worked only used mains power while offline or starting up.

Actually, I'm not sure this idea is feasible. I forgot about pumps. I don't think you could extract enough waste energy to make a self-sustaining steam plant.

With the charges needed to accelerate the particles, I thought that superconductors would be needed to make it anywhere near efficient. Is that wrong? What could be used as a viable power source? All fission reactors that I've worked with require gravity to operate properly. Are there any gravity independent designs for fission reactors?

Go to 30min in. NASA has a little blurb about it for the general public.

Darn.

It depends how hot the water can get. At atmospheric pressure, 100C would produce a very wet vapor(even after moisture separation) which would cause damage to the pipes and turbines. This vapor would get wetter as it goes through the pipes as well. Most steam turbines use WAY higher pressure than that, so the water needs to be far higher temperature to even make steam.

It's still flat. Analysis of the background radiation reveals large scale euclidean geometry, ie a flat universe.

The present is no more real than the past, just as your spacial position is no more real than 4 feet left of it. All states exist equally. Time travel is all about geometry of spacetime as a whole. Where there is a closed timelike curve(a time machine), there is a closed timelike curve; where there isn't a closed timelike curve, there isn't a closed timelike curve.

Since the universe is flat, this must either be the last cycle or the only universe.

I was thinking at least one dedicated fission reactor.

This may end up being a potential help to creating a good Ion drive. What causes the low thrust? Is it that the power sources weren't sufficient to accelerate the ions enough?

It's in the maths of General Relativity. It's also from basic philosophy. Four-dimensionalist B-theory of time(A theory has been effectively destroyed by physics) shows that I am correct. Any basic pop-sci book containing General relativity would give you the spacetime raisin-bread illustration and a similar discussion to the one I provided, but it would probably not be in the context of time travel. So, no, it's not arrogant to explain modern physics in a way that people can understand it. edit: Even if there wasn't a commonly accepted theory, my explanation would be vastly superior since mine removes the paradoxes that yours creates.

So, the answer to 'Can we never[sic] make below 0K?' is still that you cannot reach 0K much less get colder?

You all have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. There is, in fact, no paradox. Distance(space) is the separation between objects within a state. Similarly, Duration(time) is the separation between states. Think of a state as a snapshot of the universe. We're going to take that snapshot and all others and place them on a movie reel. The thing you guys don't understand, is that you're following the actor in the movie rather than the timeline of the movie itself. If you travel into the past, you were there the one and only time it happened. While you experience it twice, the event only happened once. The present and the future are the result of any future time travel; you cannot change the past. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/

So, -1K is nowhere near 0K?