In addition to the Obama-vote inquiry ("Stuck on Obama?", directly below), the question has also been e-raised as to whether I'm a closet atheist.
The short answer is no, I remain an agnostic.
The long answer is no, I remain an agnostic, but one who is definitely sympathetic with the growing atheistic movement being spearheaded by the likes of such serious thinkers as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Most specifically, I'm an agnostic who sees absolutely zero *convincing* evidence of G-d's existence. Alas.
I'm also a putative Jew, having converted through the Society of Humanistic Judaism in 1999, but SHJ definitely *is* an atheist-dominated movement. If one equates simple non-belief with atheism, then I'd be an atheist by that elastic definition, for I see faith as being in direct conflict and mutually-exclusive with reason.
For those who are still unclear on what exactly agnosticism is, and most important, why it's not synonymous with or simply a euphemism for non-belief, this is a good definition: a stance that argues that the way nature seems to be structured, it is impossible to rule out or in the existence of a natural intelligence or consciousness that we normally refer to as G-d. As you know, the true atheist avers the *impossibility* of G-d's existence. But even I must grant the possibility of some intelligent force making itself undetectable by us, hence my nominal agnosticism. And yeah, I know, even that's a stretch. So I remain thoroughly dubious as to the likelihood *any* religion got correct what Michael Kinsley (and I) call "the central question of the universe".
But I could be wrong, and am always willing to be persuaded.
BRYAN STYBLE/Seattle
The question has been raised in the *Radioactive* e-mailbag as to whether I yet regret my vote in November for Barack Hussein Obama.The answer is: Nope, not yet.BRYAN STYBLE/Seattle
My long-suffering readers might be justifiably concerned that the *Radioactive* brand is proliferating out of control. If so, rest assured, this third blog *RadioactiveUniverse* is my absolute final one. And I can even prove it mathematically.

Speaking of math class, as I often did to those suffering in the audience of my newstalk radio broadcasts, algebra was repository of many of my favorite scholastic memories. Perhaps my most inspiring moment ever in my mathematical education came, as they so often did, courtesy my all-time fave teacher in *any* subject, Mr. J. Harold Vaughn.

Now mind you, only about half of my math education ever took place in class; the rest came on my own via lay books which popularized the concepts which animate advanced realms like topology, nonEuclidian geometry, number theory, set theory and the calculus. But it was in Algebra II when I learned that—just as you above were surely relieved to find will be no more additional *Radioactive* blogs—there would be never be a need for more types of numbers beyond the so-called complex numbers.

You see, as Mr. Vaughn explained, primitive man needed only the positive integers to count his livestock, or wives, or enemies. Then commerce created a need for negative numbers—in the red to a patient neighbor for a certain number of whatever the barter currency of the day was. So they *invented* negative integers.
And by that point, the divvying up of certain commodities necessitated the *invention* of fractions. And eventually, problems like the length of diagonals of geometric figures mandated the *invention* of irrationals. And many of us also know of the centuries-long struggle to *invent* zero. And thus we had *invented* all the real numbers. And then when the need came along during The Enlightenment to solve equations like *x* times *x* = -1, my hero Euler *invented* the imaginary numbers, but, like so many 21st Century software engineers, failed to dub them with an intuitive name. So math students to this day are confused by these nominally "imaginary" numbers, when in fact they are no more or less imaginary than any of those invented prior to them.

But this process was starting to scare me. What if the further I went in math, the more types of exotic number systems they'd keep inventing and for me to increasingly struggle to understand? How could I ever sort it all out?
But as he so often did, Mr. Vaughn set my mathematical mind at permanent ease. For it turns out the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, proved by Euler himself and many others, forever limits the need to invent new systems! This, on top of my favorite theorem's most elegant charm—that any* n*th degree equation has precisely *n* complex roots—meant the complex numbers limits forever the array of fields mathematicians must till. That is, no matter how exotic a mathematical realm you dream up, the complex numbers will be able to computationally describe it.

Likewise, my initial blog (*RadioactiveSeattle*, regarding the commercial newstalk radio biz) in 2007, my second blog (*Radioactive* *Dylan*, regarding Dylanology, an utterly fascinating and esoteric realm, but *not* for the faint-of-heart) earlier this year, and now *RadioactiveUniverse*, whose domain is *everything else.* So this third blog is, for better or for worse, *it*. And I intend to make it for better.

And of course, you can make it better too, with your constructive—or just vindictive—posted comments hereto. Feel free to point out typos even, if you like.
BRYAN STYBLE/Seattle
A verbose guy shall be succinct:This *RadioactiveUniverse* blog is being established for essays, brief or lengthy, by Bryan Styble on any matters *un*related to the respective realms of its two sister blogs, newstalk radio (sister blog *RadioactiveSeattle*) and Dylanology (sister blog *Radioactive Dylan* ).BRYAN STYBLE/Seattle