You already go wrong here. For example virtual particles just "happen", without anything in particular making them appear at this particular moment.

These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.

Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.

Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.

No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.

The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.

After the announcement, Nokia stock price has gone down 15 % from yesterday's closing value at OMX Helsinki. So, not the kind of announcement the market was expecting, it seems.

It's still irrelevant in the context of the prize criteria. If the prize would have been given for creating Linux as an operating system, the GGP would have some point, but TFA explicitly says that creating the *kernel* was the achievement that was found laudable.

No, because the prize was awarded for developing just the kernel.

I agree with your assessment of TFA. I even went further after reading the fine article: There were 4 commenters, all basically scared of nuclear power, and showing their ignorance in their comments. I wrote a reply to address all of them, but unfortunately I'm not socially networked, so I couldn't actually post it. Sucks to live outside Google, Facebook, Disqus, and so on, I guess. Well, at least I can rant here.

"Quantum levitation" is just trying to make old superconductivity effects somehow sound even more cool. Try Meissner effect and flux pinning instead.

"Hello,
This is Anonymous Finland messaging you once again (actually not, the earlier messages were not written nor released by us.)

We have no opinions on any politicians all.
We have not hacked any Finnish websites.
We find antisec childish, among with lulzsec that was nothing but a bunch of bought exploits."

http://pastebin.com/X98zQ4Ea

Klaus Fuchs and Vladimir Fock welcome the news, though they still hope a deeper penetration into the data.

The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.

Technetium-99 has a half-life of over 200k years. Of course, it's still days, just a lot of them.

Chernobyl was caused partly by operator error. The expert here has clearly an agenda of his own, if he denies that the testing that caused the accident was made outside the original test specs, ie. the power levels when the test was started were way too low, and the operators responding to the unstable conditions caused by the initial power levels were incorrect and ultimately caused the secondary explosion, which was the main cause for the release of the radioactive materials.

The conjecture about overfilled cooling pools is also totally unconfirmed by any other source, as is the claim that the pools drained after the quake. As far as the official story goes, the pools started draining as there was no active cooling (pumps died, like in the reactors) so the stagnating water evaporated by the heat produced by the spent rods, which makes sense as pools drained by the quake would have caused problems immediately, not after a few days.

March 26, if the info here is correct: http://www.icjt.org/npp/podrobnosti.php?drzava=14&lokacija=818