ydoaPs

I don't have the equipment as it's rather expensive; Ask Severian. Yes. The energy you use as well as the charge of the matter you use to make the new matter determine the properties of what is made.

What size? Does it have to have the interior as well? Does it need to be to scale?

The energy cooled enough for matter to form. Yes. We know matter exists.

You must not have been paying attention.

Is that "correct" measurement the one from geostationary orbit, the one from the top of Everest, the one from sea level, the one from the bottom of Marianas Trench, or the one from the centre of the core?

I thought that I implied it would take more energy, but upon second reading and viewing the context, I can see how I should have made that more clear. I did know that it would take more energy than would be released, but I didn't know you had to add enough to create a pair. I thought you just had to add enough to make one more quark to pull one out of the proton. Thanks for the clarification. Is there a way to make specific mesons, or is it essentially random?

Matter condensed from energy which was present at time epsilon of the Big Bang. In that sense, matter has always existed as there was no time at which the matter/energy did not exist. Any other questions?

deleted

Yes.

When was the last one?

Can't you pull out one of the quarks if you add enough energy to make it a partner?

I thought some from of loop quantum gravity predicted 4 dimensions, but I may be wrong.

Post of the month contest?

I wonder if there's some sort of index to help us identify crackpots.

So you agree that duration (time) varies based on reference frame. Good. So, now that you accept relativity, what happens to your distorted version of realism?

Bow ties are cool.

Classical string theory? o.O

As the kids these days say, "w00t".

I added a poll to assess interest.

There was talk during the logo contest of winning a shirt with the logo on it. Is there any chance we could get an SFN store carrying logo shirts?

Yes, we do. You, however, refuse to read it. Ok, let's take a time measurement from a frame at rest with the Earth. We will have identical observers with identical equipment at each location. One (A) measurement is taken in geostationary orbit, one (B) on top of Mount Everest, one © in the middle of a field in Iowa, one (D) at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, and one (E) taken in the center of the Earth's core. Which gives the "correct" measurement? Based on owl's level of knowledge of philosophy he's displayed thusfar, that's not implausible.

Why are you applying a formal system designed to describe the operation of something to the operation of nothing? That's like trying to loosen a torqued nut using lime Jello.

This is especially true considering our reference frame is non-inertial (there are experiments that one can do to show that we are accelerating). I noticed that; I wasn't sure if it was an attempt at ridicule, misunderstanding, straw man, or some combination.