velo

Well i am using English, and i do intend to question all the theories put forward

to explain the universe, no disrespectful intent, i tend to withdraw from discussions if they get heated, but the question stands.

And by the way, the word (stupid) is inflammatory, i suggest you restrict it to the ones that have been proven so.

Made my night reading this it should become a classic.

Wow KLB you are a good un, i have felt guilty for using plastic shopping bags when i go to the super market, so i have switched to home shopping, everything comes in reusable boxes, and it voids the use of my car, my car is one of the most fuel efficient i could find within my price range, it is a 1400cc

diesel 60+ mpg driven with care.

Can any one name one thing that has increased our knowledge of how the

universe began or how it came into existence?

When i say (KNOWLEDGE), i mean anything that has a 99% CL. or may be

we can go in decending order of CL but, nothing below 95%.

Martin, Thanks for the reply, it must have took some effort

Yes i am aware of the many approaches to QL, it seems there is a new one

every month, it still has a lot of catching up with the string vacua's in number

however.

I am also aware of the difficulty of getting grant money for anything other

than loop or string.

And i am aware of the lack of tests for these conjectures, even if a test is

put forward some one will right a paper on how to get around a null

result.

Martin, what will it take to kill, and put these conjectures out of their misery

once and for all?

It is a matter of belief in one theory or the other, maybe you think string theory is right, maybe you think quatum loop gravity is right, the test of these theories are all ways open to dispute, when will we have tests that

show these conjectures are just so right or wrong?

I dare say that the grant system will suppress any new thinking progress

in the understanding of our universe.

Laptops are great if you travel except I can't stand the touchpads (too much time lost). I keep meaning to pop down and get a bluetooth mouse. Laptops will be using cellular networks more and more too, so you won't have to keep a map of wi-fi friendly coffee shops and libraries.

 

I'll be outside on the back porch this summer making money with my cordless VOIP phone and my laptop while soaking up some rays. Sometimes the portability makes it tough to step away from the computer and realize the house needs a good clean or the body needs more exercise. Laptops make it easy to be a comp potato.

 

Nothing beats a desktop computer for thrifty power computing though. The only thing that will make them obsolete for me is when the whole house is one big computer and I can access my files and programs from anywhere. Try to steal my comp then!

Hey, come on now, you will soon be able to wear your puter, or not in the far future have it implanted in your brain (shudder), the only prob is where to

put the scanner printer.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/files/ElectrograviticsElectrokineticsValone.pdf

Thought it would be interesting to make a lifter there are guided flight ones

on the net.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

ha! shows how much YOU Know!

 

I upgraded last year and mine is Electronic Now! so Ner Ner

 

although sourcing out replacement vacuum tubes is a little slow:rolleyes:

You acctually mean you dont use jell packs????????

 

It is clear from the beginning that the old concept of a point is a mathematical abstraction and idealisation due to limited resolution and simplified theories. In reality we could probably not distinguish a point from a neighbouring point anyway. And I am not sure I find the string much more sensible. From a philosophical point of view I see similar problems as with points.

 

I'd like to see a logical prescription on howto identify a string (in principle), as opposed to identify the fuzzball that could be a string to only a low level of confidence, but could also be something else within a reasonable level of confidence. Unless the string can be identified, string theory seems to me to be some sort of "hidden variable" approach, that uses some unobservable constructed objects to come up with a mathematical model of what we see. I for one will not accept such a fundamental solution. I'll keep looking because I am convinced that there is something much better that describes the nature of reality in a context of observations.

 

Instead of starting from a ad hoc starting point and hope to reproduce what we know, and then suggest that as a fundamental explanation, would it not be more natural to start from what we know, and prescribe how to move forward by analyzing real data and allow the data to suggest what new constructs that we need?

 

Anyway, I think the most important thing is for everyone to try to think for themselves. The one reason why I feel motivated to express my opinion (which is no more valid than anyonese else) is to counterbalance what in my personal experience has been dominating beyond motivation.

 

/Fredrik

I am sure others are with you on this

well, if you need raw processing power at a reasonable price with room for expandability a desktop is a much better choice than a laptop.

 

gaming is another reason, you try finding a laptop under a £2000 that can run halflife at decent settings. i've got a desktop that i made for under £800 that can do it.

 

Laptops are for when you're on the move, nothing more.

I did mean for (work) I would have thought the novelty of playing

games on a puter had died off by now, surly the time is better spent

with a game of footie or cricket.

I used to do all my work on a desk top, but now i think the DT is obsolete,

why be tied to a desk?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/714

And this one.

Supersymmetry is a theory that predicts a 'super' partner for every known particle (and antiparticle). While supersymmetry is a well-founded theory, the exact mathematical details are disputed among the scientific community.

The more popular models of supersymmetry predict a much higher transition rate than three trillion times per second. This is a serious blow to particle physicists, as these popular models will now have to be reconsidered.

And it's hard to challenge these new findings: the physicists are 99.99999992 per cent sure that they're right.

http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/6/node1.html

This page will show why the chance of finding WIMPs is remote.

I dare say some will keep on flogging the dead horse.

I admit i have reached a dead end in my search for a Dark Matter candidate,

is there some one who has a deeper understanding of the topic ,and is

willing to enlighten me with his/her knowledge as to what Dark Matter is?

Foodchain, this is what Wikipedia has under Dark Matter

The Concordance Model requires that, to explain structure in the universe, it is necessary to invoke cold (non-relativistic) dark matter. Large masses, like galaxy-sized black holes can be ruled out on the basis of gravitational lensing data. Possibilities involving normal baryonic matter include brown dwarfs or perhaps small, dense chunks of heavy elements; such objects are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". However, studies of big bang nucleosynthesis have convinced most scientists that baryonic matter such as MACHOs cannot be more than a small fraction of the total dark matter.

-------------------------------------------------------

To date i think it is (accepted) that 95% of all matter is Dark Matter.

How far do you go to limit your impact on the environment ?

As i am only a watcher/reader of cosmology and something of a realist,

i find it difficult to get excited about a theory, ad hoc or whatever, that

has a 95% unexplained component, maybe in the years to come DE, DM

will be found, but it seems to me constraints are ever tighter ,with to date

no detection, by the way i would be one of first jumping with joy if there

was.

As for quantum gravity, i have followed string and quantum loop for some

time, maybe it is time for another book to revive interest, the way

string has survived 30yrs with no testable predictions has all ways

struck me as unique.

Because we are still in our infancy yet we have come a long way since the telescope.

 

Bettina

Bettina, i would agree if only we had a standard ruler.

Martin, i do agree that cosmology is at an exiting age, with some tests

narrowing the options to a (standard model) LCDM, my problem is, if the

foundation for this model, if the predicted particles ,are not found, then

what is the construct to this model? one could just say, this is what we

see so it must be so.

Maybe one can accept that our galaxies spin to fast without dark matter?

Or the expansion of the universe is accelerated without dark energy?

That GR works without gravitational radiation ?

Martin there is more, and i am an awkward so and so who questions almost

everything, and to my mind cosmology has a heck of a lot of things to

answer

Who would clean the toilets, wash the dishes everything to keep the

scientists clean and healthy?

Machines/robots, who would keep them in good repair, maybe AIs?

but maybe they would evolve and get rid of the humans

Wikipedia is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Hi everyone.

My interest is mainly cosmology and i would love your views on its

progress/lack of.

From what i can discover string theory and quantum loop gravity do

not as yet work.

Dark matter and Dark energy are yet to be discovered, (reading between

the lines) Dark energy seems to be an unwelcome addition to cosmology.

The Higgs boson, the graviton ,predicted by some theories remain

undiscovered, (but are ever more constrained). the same with gravitational radiation.

In short it seems every way we try to explain our universe comes up

against obstacles that are as yet uncrossable.