What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">actually it is definable<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We will disagree here till the sun don't shine (likely).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">nothing is the complete opposite to substance<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And where is this nothing that opposes substance?

Tom

while watching Discovery Channel last night they were saying that a new way to detect supernova BEFORE we SEE it is by looking for an increase in neutrios but the problem is that neutrinos only go the speed of light themselves so how would they get here before the LIGHT of the supernova!! are they somehow produced BEFORE the explosion!?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />how would they get here before the LIGHT of the supernova!! are they somehow produced BEFORE the explosion!?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The neutrinos are produced at the instant of collapse of the star, which occurs in less than a millisecond. At that moment, the collapsed star becomes invisible. Then, as it explodes, there is a period of rapid brightening over the next few hours and days as the blast wave expands very rapidly. That light gets here hours to days after the neutrinos. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />how would they get here before the LIGHT of the supernova!! are they somehow produced BEFORE the explosion!?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The neutrinos are produced at the instant of collapse of the star, which occurs in less than a millisecond. At that moment, the collapsed star becomes invisible. Then, as it explodes, there is a period of rapid brightening over the next few hours and days as the blast wave expands very rapidly. That light gets here hours to days after the neutrinos. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, the neutrino does not have mass?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />So, the neutrino does not have mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Waves are confined to the wave speed of the medium they travel in. Particles can have any speed. To me, it appears certain that neutrinos are not particles because their speeds appear to be confined to a narrow window near the speed of light.

As for having "mass", that is a trickier question. Even waves have energy and momentum, and therefore act as if they have mass. (If you doubt it, try surfing sometime.) However, it is impossible to define mass for a wave because they have may have virtually unlimited extent. So we can only measure how massive an arbitrary portion of a wave appears to be when it smacks a particle. That is the kind of iffy "mass" that the non-replicated experiments have so far shown for neutrinos. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">actually it is definable<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We will disagree here till the sun don't shine (likely).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">nothing is the complete opposite to substance<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And where is this nothing that opposes substance?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

in the imagination only(or maybe you have, by now, figured that out)

if not, let me put it another way.but instead of substance i'll use Universe.(same thing really as substance but just a larger scale).

Universe has space,Universe has time(movement),Universe has dimension

therefore since the Universe has <b>ALL</b> that is the complete and absolute opposite to "nothing".nothing is absolutely nowhere.

the next question could nothing be outside the Universe,no because there is space at least(actually i think that space,time,dimension can't be seperated,they all need each other for existence,can't have one without the other,making 3 a magic number of sorts)

so i looked at your question above as impossible.also not only is it impossible it will be absolutely for infinity.