Antineutrinos: Fact, or a Myth Perpetrated by the Right?

[barfle]

I suppose we disagree over gay marriage because you see it as a 'right' whereas I do not.

What I feel it is a right for people to declare themselves a family, and to have that declaration recognized. The way that declaration is usually made is through a ceremony such as marriage.

I believe the State became involved because they wanted to encourage marriage among opposite-sex couples, so they granted certain legal benefits to those who marry.

According to About.com,

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says this about marriage:

It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union.

Clearly, marriage has evolved (oooh, there's that word again) into an expression of love and a committed relationship. Which, I believe you'll agree, is better than the arranged marriages of earlier days.

In my own opinion, I see nothing gained by the State encouraging same-sex marriage, and thus no reason to promote it.

How about if I give you a few things to be gained by same-sex marriages? Less promiscuity and therefore lower transmission of STDs. More stable and happier relationships. The ability for a designated partner to speak for his or her family member, instead of an appointed person who has no insight into the wishes of the family member.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

However, you did say that it was a fantasy if a gay couple declared themselves to be a family. I agee, you don't have a dog in the fight, but you certainly have a position on which side you prefer.

[Shapley]

I said "If that is their fantasy", using the oft-repeated quote from Ricardo Montalban on the TV series Fantasy Island. I use that quote a lot. It carries no implication except to lighten the mood of the conversation (or, rather, I had hoped it would. It seems to have had the opposite effect ).

As a Catholic, I think gay marriage is wrong, but only because gay sex is wrong, and the consummation of marriage is recognized to require sex. But, as I said, I don't see it as a legal issue. Were I invited to a gay wedding, I would probably send a gift of a couple of handbaskets and leave it at that (thank you, Selma). I don't believe the Catholic church should establish governmental law, so it would be up to the States to say 'yes' or 'no' to the legality of granting license for such civil unions. Apparently, right now, the majority of States are opposed to the granting of such license.

What I feel it is a right for people to declare themselves a family, and to have that declaration recognized.

As I've said, they have the right to declare themselves a family, but I don't think they have the 'right' to have that declaration recognized. Such a 'right' requires that I honour that which I consider dishonourable. I don't think anyone has the 'right' to do so. If the majority of the people of the State believe that such statement should be legally recognized, so be it, but that recognition carries a very limited responsibility on my part.

Clearly, marriage has evolved into an expression of love and a committed relationship. Which, I believe you'll agree, is better than the arranged marriages of earlier days.

If that were true, then there would be much less divorce. The fact remains there are many loveless marriages out there, and it probably carries no more commitment today than it did in the days of arranged marriages (which are still common in some parts of the world). Also, civil unions carry no implication of love or commitment. They are merely a legal joining of two persons. I attended one once, and the judge pointed this out at the beginning. The terms "Love, Honour, and Cherish" are absent from the ceremony. It was strictly a legal matter. What the State has joined together...

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Barfle,

As a post script:

Don't get me wrong. I believe that all of the things you ascribe to marriage are true: Less promiscuity; Lower incidence of STD's; Happier, Healthier Relationships; Love, Honour, and Commitment. However, I think these things do not happen because of marriage. I think marriage happens because of these things.

Marriage has evolved as a bonding of heterosexual couples who wish to show outwardly the commitment they have made already. If one is willing to stand at the altar and swear to 'forsake all others', the forsaking had best already begun. In the case of most religious ceremonies, a couple makes their vows promising to live their joined lives as practicing members of the faith. I believe that faith plays a great part in the benefits that marriage bestows.

I fail to see why non-heterosexual couples feel the need to consecrate a non-heterosexual union with a heterosexual ceremony. There is a reason, IMHO, that marriage has evolved as it has, and I don't believe a legal sanction expanding it will do anything to help either the sanctity of the ceremony or the sanctity of the unions that have been legally encompassed within the expanded defintion. If gay couples wish to consecrate their unions, they can do so through uniquely gay ceremony, and need not infringe upon the traditions of other more, well... traditional, unions.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Sorry, I missed that "fantasy" point. Although I did watch the show some, it's been a long, long time, and about all I recall from it is "A plane! A plane!"

I do believe a public declaration of family is something that would compel many couples to try to work through their difficult times (and we all know difficult times happen to all couples). That would reinforce the commitment points I made. Yes, divorce happens (remarkably so in my mother's Catholic family) and breakups between homosexual couples won't be any less frequent than between heterosexual couples as far as I can tell.

As I've said, they have the right to declare themselves a family, but I don't think they have the 'right' to have that declaration recognized. Such a 'right' requires that I honour that which I consider dishonourable.

I asked before, and although you answered in the negative, it seems like you feel that something is required of you to "honor" a marriage you don't feel is honorable. What is that? That you won't sell your house to them as a married couple? Seriously, that's the only time I recall having the official relationship of a couple entering into anything I've ever done outside of my own marriage (having sold one property to "a single man" and "a single woman," and another to "a married couple.").

I believe that faith plays a great part in the benefits that marriage bestows.

Me, too. I have faith in my wife that she won't abandon me for a better offer, and I have faith that I won't abandon her, either.

I fail to see why non-heterosexual couples feel the need to consecrate a non-heterosexual union with a heterosexual ceremony.

I'm confused. Who said anything about a heterosexual ceremony? The ONLY issue I'm making is the legal recognition of a declared family.

There is a reason, IMHO, that marriage has evolved as it has, and I don't believe a legal sanction expanding it will do anything to help either the sanctity of the ceremony or the sanctity of the unions that have been legally encompassed within the expanded defintion.

It's not going to do anything to hurt them, either.

[Shapley]

I asked before, and although you answered in the negative, it seems like you feel that something is required of you to "honor" a marriage you don't feel is honorable. What is that? That you won't sell your house to them as a married couple?

As an employer, such a recognition would require me to provide financial sanction to the union, in essence requiring that I honour that relationship.

Civil Unions Don't Ensure Benefits

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

The antineutrino is a curious critter
it doesn't taste sweet, it doesn't taste bitter
it cannot be seen, it cannot be felt
it cannot be heard, nor can it be smelt

E, it seems, equals MC squared
Or so we are taught, and in Chicago dared
Fermi and company to prove Einstein right
so under the squash courts, quite out of sight

they builded a reactor, a nuclear pile
with axe in hand, Dr. Hilberry did smile
and watched as from matter, energy was derived
and they measured the output and the matter that survived

and Lo! It seemed that MC squared did not
equal all the energy that from the pile was wrought
and with pen and paper, Enrico did decide
That it was all there, just some of it did hide

"But how was it hidden?" was the answer they sought
and the struggled, and struggled, 'til an answer was wrought
a baby neutron, a neutron bambino
or as it was called, an antineutrino

that was the answer, the solution, they figured
it made it all balance, if the figures were jiggered
an antineutrino here, another one there
and E could equal MC square!

And so with a little particle arithmetic
Einstein was proven to be quite prophetic
Matter to energy, the famous equation carries
if you believe in antineutrinos, or perhaps in faeries!

[Marye]

Totally enjoying this debate. Can't agree with you Shap, but you knew I wouldn't. I come from Canada.

It should come as no surprise that I have married gay friends. But here is the fun bit. They are married and go to church. Whereas, I do not go to church and am not married to the man I live with. Turns out they are the traditional couple. The irony, hey?

[jamiebk]

It should come as no surprise that I have married gay friends. But here is the fun bit. They are married and go to church. Whereas, I do not go to church and am not married to the man I live with. Turns out they are the traditional couple. The irony, hey?

I totally enjoyed that! You are too funny Marye

[Shapley]

I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

[Shapley]

Totally enjoying this debate. Can't agree with you Shap, but you knew I wouldn't. I come from Canada.

Always happy when I can provide some lighthearted enlightenment. Always a pleasure to hear from you, as well!

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

It should come as no surprise that I have married gay friends.

Does that make you a gay polygamist?

[Shapley]

The antineutrino has set me to thinking
the kind of questions that lead one to drinking.
Every second a billion reactions take place
scattering antineutrinos all over the place.
Each reaction produces at least one or two
sent into the universe, all matter to eschew.
If we measure the result at the reactions finish
the total of matter and energy diminish.
Time and again, for billions of years
we should be in antineutrinos up to our ears!
Energy to matter, and to energy returned.
Antineutrinos reducing that mass we have learned.
A bit of mass lost after each nuclear reaction
taken like taxes from a monetary transaction.
A little mass for so much energy, so little cost,
but never to interact, to us it is lost.
Through billions of miles of infinite space
the antineutrinos continue to race
never stopping nor slowing, they do not interact
with matter nor energy, their speed to subtract.
Matter to energy, a small amount dissipated.
energy to matter, an antineutrino radiated.
Another and another, and a dozen more
so many antineutrinos who can keep score?
Nor do they return to energy or matter
they just pass through our mass and continue to scatter.
Everywhere they are, though they cannot be seen
To our left, to our right, and all in between.
Like angels, or devils, on the head of pin
billions can dance, or one, or ten.
Though energy nor matter can e'er go away
once an antineutrino, an antineutrino you'll stay.
And yet, through billions and billions of year
of antineutrino creation, there's plenty still here
of matter, of energy, of universe expanding
an explanation of this science should be demanding.
How can it be, after so many a reaction
our universe hasn't diminished to merely a fraction
of her original self? Losing mass every parsec
By now we should be little more than a speck.
And yet the Universe expands, or so we are told.
How can this be? If I may be so bold
as to ask this question of physics and science.
With physical law it seem not in compliance.
And science did ponder the question and did sigh,
and turned to physics, who looked me in the eye,
and spoke with a voice so calm and so sweet,
and said these words which I now repeat:
"Kind sir, please understand, our knowledge has expanded
into all the areas that mankind has demanded.
From giant suns to particles small,
we've found them, we've studied them, we know them all.
We know their composition, their character, their charge.
We know them all, no matter how small or how large.
We know the size of Universe, to the angstrom rounded.
We've probed the heavens and the oceans we've sounded.
The smallest particle, with camera and lens
as been photographed, we've seen how it spins.
We know the composition of the most distant star.
They can't hide from us, no matter how far.
Of the antineutrino, 'tis difficult to explain,
for the concept causes my head a great pain.
Do not let your confidence in physics be shaken
but some things simply on faith must be taken!"
And thus from the company of physics I departed
with no more understanding than when first I started
to query this point, so now I thought
'twas time to visit the tavern for a drought.
And there, at the bar, with tankard firmly in hand
a revelation came forth, an understanding so grand!
A voice it did speak to me on the stool by the bar
though it spake to me clearly, it seemed from afar
"Worry not your head with thoughts such as these,
The antineutrinos can interact, if they please.
They are used to construct memories, and ideas, and dreams.
They build the calmness one feels when wading in streams.
I use them to construct happiness, which science can't measure,
and peace and contentment, those things that we treasure.
They can be bound together into the soul of a man,
or used to build angels. Oh, yes, they can!
They ferry your thoughts, lest they be lost to the tomb,
and are given to babies when they're formed in the womb.
Science and physics will ne'er understand them complete
for they deal only with the real, the solid, the concrete.
Antineutrinos are spiritual, like faeries and elves,
they can't be bottle or canned or placed onto shelves.
I use them to construct those things we hold dear,
so worry no more, and finish your beer."
And thus, though so many of you think I am odd,
I know the antineutrino is the building block of God!

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Is that your original work? Astounding!

[Shapley]

Yes, it's original. I had some time on my hands this weekend. A beer, some Peter Schickele on the stereo, it's amazing what one can produce.

Besides, it was a quiet bulletin board.

[piqaboo]

Another fun read!

[Shapley]

Thanks.

[BigJon@Work]

BTW, you do know they have some evidence for antinewts, don't you?

[Marye]

It should come as no surprise that I have married gay friends.

Does that make you a gay polygamist?

[Shapley]

BTW, you do know they have some evidence for antinewts, don't you?

Yes. I read an article on it a while back. Although, if my memory is correct, the article said they did not actually detect the antineutrinos, but rather that they witnessed the result of antineutrino interaction, IOW, they saw something else they couldn't explain, so they figured antineutrinos were involved. It really doesn't make the case any stronger. Whether you call them antineutrinos, magic dust, or angels, they still have to be taken on faith.

[Shapley]

Hello, Mary.

It should come as no surprise that I have married gay friends.

Is that to say that you performed the ceremony?

V/R
Shapley