100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > redonkulous
|
|
|
A passion for discovery will take you all kinds of places, books are just a place to keep notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Sun 09/19/10 08:01 PM
|
|
A synthesized drug is not different then a natural drug it is replacing. One is created by a plant, one by a scientist THAT'S IT. However, its typical for an herbal remedy to not have tight control on dosage, or to even be sure to not have quantities of other compounds, not specified, and not regulated. No regulation . . . no way to know.
Homeopathy is a word that gets co-opted into many products that are NOT actually homeopathic. Why becuase stupid cannot tell the difference and will buy it making a profit for sleazy smart a-holes. The name homeopathy earned wide acceptance as being "good", thus being a powerful marketing tool. If a pill has active ingredients in it then its not homeopathic people! If a pill is a plant extract such as cynarin a drug commonly found in artichoke plants then it is by definition NOT homeopathic. There is no such thing as dosage levels in truly homeopathic "remedies" that is becuase if done right the original compound has been so ultra diluted as to be statistically impossible to get any from a single pill. In fact to be sure you actually got a single molecule of say caffeine from a homeopathic sleep "remedy" you would need to consume 16 average swimming pools of pills to be sure you got a single molecule . . . no really. The late mathematician Martin Gardener did that particular calculation based on Avogadro formula. http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/intro/MOL.html Homeopathy is magic water, or magic pills. End of story. Now none of this is to say that the FDA is handling herbal remedies in a highly professional and complete way. They are not. We need to regulate the herbal remedy market to protect consumers. If an herbal remedy has active ingredients it needs to be studied. If it does not have active ingredients, then it should not be sold under the guise of having any potential to effect the human body. acupuncture is well established and I can explain the physiology as well. homeopathic medicine appears to me to be placebo. but this is no greater offender than pharma and statins and whatnot. I studied under a Japanese doctor who also studied western medicine. there are many good areas to look at for health, but this does not seem like a very strong one. Look here. Here is a proper scientific critique of a recent study that claims positive results. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/another_acupuncture_study_misinterpreted.php Click through the links he provides and you will see the breadth of research done that shows conclusively that its nothing more then placebo. I would enjoy for you to try to explain the physiology as you claim to be able to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Sun 09/19/10 07:30 PM
|
|
I have three ideas so far developed that are green. Very green. I'm going to publish them here, so you guys can use them if you want to. They are not patentable. To patent an idea the idea must need to meet some certain conditions, and these ideas don't meet those conditions. ------------- 1. Hot water savings on washing dishes. I have arranged 4 buckets in my room: One full of soapy water, one full of air, one full of clean water, one full of air. You put your dirty dishes in the soapy water. My dirty dishes have no scraps of food on them. Let them sit in the highly soapy water (ratio of about 150 mL of liquid dish detergent soap to 3 litres of water - Amys, I don't know Imperial units, sorry) for a few hours. If longer, great, no problem. Take them out, put them in the second bucket and let them drip the soapy water off. In few hours rinse them by hand in the clean water, then let them drip and dry in the fourth bucket. I change the water in the buckets once a month. I am a single guy, and I cook, but don't cook much. I eat cooked food and cold cuts, etc. Also I cook quite a bit in the micro, incl. eggs and sausages, potatoes, beans, corn, everything. I live in a rented single room upstairs. My method saves tons of energy by not using hot water every day to wash dishes. It also saves chores -- you just put your dishes from one bucket to another, no need to wipe and stuff. Also the timing is relaxed. You don't have the nagging worry of a sinkful of dirty dishes after each meal, and if you leave things in the buckets for longer, even for weeks (if you travel away) no harm done. I use a small bucket for the cutlery. ------------------- 2. Washing the body. I got into a tiffy with my landlady, and now I don't have bathtub or shower privileges. So I learned how to clean myself without water. I bought a squeegee, and encase it each time in a white absorbent cloth. Cheap dollar store towels, or handtowels. I pour rubbing alcohol on the cloth and wash my body. The poo hole sometimes stings when I wash there, but I take it like a man. Washing and drying takes 3 minutes, opposed to the 5-20 minutes in the shower, and the 5 minutes drying, balancing on one foot, etc. I wash my hair in alcohol, too. I bought one of those tic-combs. I wet my hair with alcohol, then comb it out. I can do it once or many times. Then I wet my hair with rubbing alcohol again, and rub it with a white towel. To see that it works. It gives me nice feeling to see brown and shiiit on the white towel, it shows that a cleaning has been done. Since I comb with the tic-comb, the towel shows very little discoloration after the rubbing, sometimes none. Oh, you need to keep wiping the tic-comb after each few passes through your hair. I use one bottle of rubbing alcohol a week for this. I pay $1 for this alcohol at a dollar store. I don't know what the daily showering cost my landlady, in terms of hot water, back in the days when I used to be allowed in the washroom. ------------------- 3. Bicycle lights. I bicycle, I gave up my car two years ago. If the distance is far, I take a bus with the bicycle, but I live now in a smaller town, of about 400,000 people, nobody knows for sure how many, we lost count. But I bicycle, and at night I am worried about cars. I used to be a semi-professional bicycle racer back 40 years ago, and I know how dangerous it is when a vehicle moving at high speed hits a bicyclist because the stupid cyclists has no light and can't be seen until it's too late. So for five years I've been experimenting. I won't write down the entire process, but the goal has always been to be visible, and not worry about the lights going out, which meant to have the batteries be always full of power. So. I got them garden-lights at a WalMart. You stick them in the ground, as is the intentional use for the product, and it absorbs sunlight during the day, and gives it out as weak light at night. I bought two of these, lined the large bulbous see-though casing of one with regular white printer paper, cut to size, and did the the same to the other light, with red paper. Then I affixed them to the bike. White light at front, red light at the back. You see, the paper lining is good, because for city bicyclists the important thing is to be seen, not to throw light on the road. In almost all cities almost all parts of almost all streets are almost well lit. Now my bicycle lights light up by themselves when it gets dark, and I never have to worry about forgetting to turn them on or changing the battery. ------------- Isopropyl Alcohol strips bacteria of the lipid outerlayers, very effectively killing them. As well as most fungus/spores, mold/spores ect. I think for myself I would not use isopropyl alcohol to bathe myself, a bit too harsh for my pretty fair skin, and perhaps overkill after all. I do understand the advantage in water usage however and tip my hat to you sir, regardless of your motives. If your dishes are not saturated with food particles then its unlikely much food will be left for bacteria to grow on, also and in fact more importantly if his first bucket is of soapy water, the detergents in the soap ALSO strip the lipid outer layer from the bacteria killing it. Also if the dishes are placed within the soapy water bucket and not left out with food particles then its a very thorough process IMHO. So once the plates dry and have no more food particles they would not harbor anymore bacteria then anything else in anyone environment. 90& of molds, bacteria, fungal spores, dirt particulates exist within 30 inches of the ground, as long as his buckets are not on the ground its unlikely they would have anymore bacteria then your sink*, or dishwasher, and would be vastly more cost effective and energy efficient as well. The only way someone is going to do much better at killing off bacteria, molds, fungus ect would be to autoclave all of there eating accessories and keep them in the autoclave until usage. Personally I do not think you are qualified to have an opinion. I myself enjoy growing quality shatake mushrooms and have as a byproduct of being successful acquired much knowledge of many common pathogens that will typically grow on a wide variety of substrate including human food. So not to be a troll, id suggests you take some time to evaluate your own understanding before passing judgment on others. Cheers! 
PS if you did not understand any of the words used google is your friend. Dont be lazy. * I think some very strong arguments can be backed up with solid statistics to show that average households sinks have a much higher concentration of bacteria then many other things usually thought to be "filthy" I believe also a sponge only used a few times was one of the items harboring the most bacterial spores/cells. I am too lazy to find the study if you wish to, have fun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
If you believe in karma....
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Fri 09/03/10 06:26 PM
|
|
So I guess some say spiritual some say not. I just see it as the universal flow of energy, we put out a certain kind, hateful or loving and it will return to us someday. So the more positive and good we are the more of that energy we will have returned to us. It is a continuous transfer of energy from all living things. So there is no "force" of judgment, it is just the ebb and flow of what we ourselves emit and receive. That is how I feel it is. Some poeple think it just means that society is for the most part self regulating, and that people who exploit, hurt, and betray end up getting justice served. Some poeple think that there exist some kind of medium where a given set of ideas, or actions get labeled good or bad based on some set of ideals, and that when someone does something bad they get a spiritual demotion and have bad stuff coming there way as punishment, and if people do good things they earn credits either for stuff now or if they believe in an afterlife then reward/punishment in that afterlife. These are loose and you can add all kinds of beliefs in or remove them. The main thing that separates being spiritual from not being spiritual in these two very different set of ideas, is the border between philosophical naturalism, and magic AKA spiritualism. If you believe in magic, afterlives, idealistic mediums of spirit juice that judges actions and changes the course of events to favor do good'ers then you are definitely spiritual. If you do not believe (which includes those that are unsure) that such a medium exists, that objective Morales exist, or that some transcendent tally system is in place, then you are probably not spiritual. (There are a lot of ideas that would fall into the spiritual category that I will not list, thanks) I am most certainly NOT spiritual. I am a pragmatic naturalist, and see no reason to conjure up some kind of transcendent tally system to make myself feel better that ********, murderers, and truly terrible poeple will get what is coming to them without my direct intervention. I feel that as a do gooder, its my responsibility to makre sure these ********, murderers, and truly terrible poeple get what is coming to them NOW. You ever watch that Telly program, "What would you do". Do you like myself wonder why so many people do nothing when clearly something most would agree is wrong is taking place . . . ? My opinion, magic thinking is not helping. Its my opinion that most people believe in some kind of cosmic justice and use that as an excuse to just not get involved. Personally I think believing in spiritual Karma is bad natural Karma. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might be a wackadoodle.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/list01.htm TM -Wackadoodle is a trademarked and copyrighted skeptical phrase used to label a peddler of psudeoscience as the crank they truly are . . . 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6115
The wit and intelligence of this blog post steal my breath! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 07/28/10 01:20 PM
|
|
Does anyone here know what we are talking about here? I don't know string theory, and I don't know the people mentioned as quoted. But I know that other conversationalists on this thread talk about the M theory as an object with no outstanding issues, something that everyone is assumed to know what it is. I would like to claim that those who take this assumption for granted, have no idea what the string theory or the M theory states. I will not make this claim, but I insist that the opposite claim can also not be made. The arguments in this thread about the theories consist of quoting people who are not on this website, and saying that one is more trustworthy for his or her opinion than the other. But people very carefully steer away from the theories, or what people criticise the theories for. I hear a lot of people quote other people who are not on the site with attributing them general moral- and emotion-laden statements, which the quoted people have said about the opinions of still other people who are also not participating in this thread, and the participants of this thread feel very strongly about these moral-value statements, which reveal nothing about M theory or the String theory. But nobody mentions anything actual. This is a bit tiresome for me, but then again, you are not me, so please, don't listen to me. (I said "please" because I am Canadian. Culture issue, not a racial issue.) I disagreed, however I gave specific problems with the theories, please read my last two large posts which state specific major problems, I even provided the lame excuses provided by professionals working on this topic. The three major problems with Strings are as follows. -The landscape problem. -The vacuum energy problem. -The higgs supper symmetric particles problem. (Needing 124+ new particles) The thing here is really about how a untested, unfalsifiable set of ideas are being used to prop up a even more untestable philosophy of spiritual dualism that is the heart of the JZ Knight cult. ____ Edit: Good article that explains these problems in the proper context: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2002/3/is-string-theory-even-wrong/2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JZ Knight has bilked many many poeple out of their money, this movie was nothing but an advertisement for her cult, it uses popular science to try to add credibility. Sadly many people fail to realize the ploy until they have given all their money to her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Thu 07/22/10 05:02 PM
|
|
Weird ... I just had a similar conversation with a friend who teaches and conducts research in nanotechnology in Montreal. 
We got into the "What is really provable?" question Mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions". and Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." In the end ... if mathematics is suspect ... then using mathematics to prove or disprove something is suspect also. Doesn't that make it all philosophy?
Ultimately I just like the questions, the exploration and the possibilities so I'm with you Lori ... I found it interesting food for pondering. What is further interesting is that mathematicians will turn pale in the face and get very angry when people like me call string theory just mathematics, they will say, NO its not even mathematics. I myself have a masters in computer science and my professor once told me that computer science is as much about computers as a toaster is about the culinary arts. With my research into this topic it came to mind that physics makes use of mathematics much like a chef uses a toaster. Rigorous, proven, methodological . . . emm perhaps not, but man that toaster is good when it works. How do we know it works: Experiment. So I have looked all over the internet for clear falsifiable experiments for string theory and found NONE, I have found many if's ands, and many many buts. Modern physics call it a cloudy prediction, they call it murky proof, they call it one step closer to understanding what M-theory really is. Ed Witten said:
So when you ask me how string theory might be tested, I can tell you what's likely to happen at accelerators or some parts of the theory that are likely to be tested. This is a recent quote that shows how the lead physicists of strings and branes thinks about testing the theory. He finds its "likely" that some parts of the theory may be testable, what is "likely" to be found at accelerators. Thats becuase even if the tests reveal what he wants them to reveal is will not be a falsifiable test, nor conclusive. String theory looks hopeless to me. The landscape problem: You have an perhaps an infinity of possible Calabi–Yau manifold's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold which are posited to be the containers of strings which dictate how the string vibrates which dictates what particle the strings represent/create ect. If you are trying to find a particular set of these shapes that match our reality and you have NO working theory to eliminate, or to restrict the set of possible shapes, then it is FAR FAR worse then a needle in a haystack. It becomes a hopeless cause. This plus the vacuum energy problem should be damning in themselves, but that is not all that is wrong with strings. As mentioned before the only way to excuse these problems is to invoke the anthropic principle which is extremely lame, not an answer, and not science. Another problem with strings is how to explain a broken symmetry for the vacuum, strings allow for a higgs particle, but require some 124 other particles to make it work. Ockham is rolling in his grave! None of these particles have been observed and this so called theory says nothing about why. David Woit in, "Not even wrong" even goes on to trash the idea of elegance in the theory, he shows that its anything but elegant, the only thing elegant about string theory is the metaphorical idea that links this concept to music. Its also unprecedented in all of physics that a field of research has been on going with as much support as strings has had for going on 30 years with not a single falsifiable prediction. Even if the concept of point like particles really being strings is correct it may very well be impossible to glean a working theoretical approach that will answer questions, solve problems, and advance human knowledge (things theories are all about). A bottom up approach of a subject like physics where to get here from there you must traverse the infinite does not seem hopeless it is hopeless, the way forward for physics has always been a surprising turn of experimental research. We will dig down from the observable to reach firm ground LONG before we build the house of reality from our imaginations alone. String theory starts with the possibly wrong headed idea that a unified theory of everything can be achieved, and has for 30 sum odd years essentially done little but give some good ideas to mathematics departments interested in topology. (yet no rigorous proofs and thus still not science . . . yet) Yet what works, works. These ideas in topology have been shown to work (actually what they do is simply the problems in donaldson theory), so some truth IS likely, not to diminish the work of the brilliant Ed Witten, but I think the hype of strings has lived a long time on that mans brilliance alone, and time after time examples of brilliance have been shown to not be immune from wishful thinking, and wasteful dogmatic reluctance to let go of a second kind of cool idea. Oh BTW, perhaps Metalwing can show me where Ed was awarded the nobel, I find he won a fields medal in mathematics (albeit hotly contested, the actual equations had been around for quite some time, but had not been linked to Donaldson theory which he did not work out, others did, he just gave the insight to get the work started) but no Nobel in physics. His teacher David Gross won a Nobel in 2004 with Wilczek and Politzer. Masagetrade posted this link on another thread but it applies here. An interview with Michio Kaku explains M theory (he co wrote the Nobel Prize winning string field theory). Where is this prize that Kaku supposedly won?
Here is a list of all such awards, search for yourself. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/ I think metal wing its time for some honesty, how much do YOU really know about this subject? Do you want to start taking back some of what you said? You know what, even if a committee does award prizes for strings, if strings are falsified what does that say about prizes and humans awarding them for physics that turns out to not be physics? Lots of fallacy in this here thread folks. Lots of argument from authority, from ignorance, and more than a pinch of ad hominum. Fun stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 07/21/10 05:03 PM
|
|
Metaphysics has nothing to do with dark energy, yet dark energy cannot be directly observed but is now widely accepted.
Its interesting you use dark energy as an example. String/ M-theory has a problem with the vacuum energy. It predicts that the vacuum energy should be MUCH MUCH higher than it is, and the only excuses presented from string theorists is that if we live in a many worlds multiverse then its ok, becuase in an infinite multiverse even a very small probability to reach a low vacuum energy such as the one in our universe is sure to happen. That becuase we humans live here in this universe AND that if many such, if not infinite, universes exists then the probability of us living in a universe with the proper vacuum energy is 1. This is called the anthropic principle and its NOT science, its also divergent from Occums Razor, it postulates more and more complexity to solve issues of lesser complexity. Its an excuse, its funny Richard Feynman prior to his death used to make fun of string theorists, he said, "string theorists do not make predictions, they make excuses." I agree. After finishing up reading the book, "Not even Wrong" I have to say that my impression of this field of research is far more cynical than it was prior to reading this book, its well sourced, well written and very precise and damning, but you do not need the words of an outsider, a detractor to give you that impression. I will post quotes from leading string theorists including Ed Witten that show how weak the "theory" really is in a few days. I am finishing up with a very intense project and just cannot devote much time. Its interesting to me that so many problems exist with strings and yet the general media, and public seem to be completely in the dark about these issues. I would be tickled if anyone could research and discover any information regarding the "landscape problem" or the previously mentioned, "vacuum energy problem", or the supper-symmetrical higgs problem which requires a whole slew of new as yet undiscovered particles, says nothing about there mass, but clearly becuase we have not found them they must be heavier then current accelerators have detected, whats the probability of that you ask . . . . well no one knows becuase string theory is not a theory at all and says nothing about that. So how high do we need to get in the Tev without finding these particles before we start to doubt strings? 14 Tev? 20 Tev? 50 Tev? Well string theorists are hoping its 14 Tev. Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 07/21/10 10:31 AM
|
|
There is a lot of money being spent at the LHC to put M-theory to the test and the people involved are not metaphysicists. So the LHC was built to test string theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was built to move forward particle physics, with or without string theory. Honestly do you think its even a valid argument to state that becuase money is spent on developing a theory there for it must have some truth to it? If so then its clear your logic and reason are flawed.
Hey hey lets get back on topic here, and that is showing how ridiculous this movie is . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo&playnext_from=TL&videos=a9h3aGKyJYc&feature=grec_index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence against evolution.
|
|
and i don't think god will send you to hell for believing in evolution... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 06/29/10 08:13 PM
|
|
Its been on my list to read for a while now, but this conversation has sparked me to pick up the book, "Not even Wrong" By Peter Woit.
Here is his blog. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ I do not have an opinion yet as I am only on page 52. Until it is verified through rigorous independent means of empirical observation... M-theory belongs in the realm of philosophy, specifically metaphysics, as all theoretical physics does. The problem underwriting this discussion is a matter as old as philosophy(epistemology) itself... What constitutes knowledge. CreativeSoul, thank you, I could not agree more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Question about time?
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Sun 06/27/10 11:14 AM
|
|
Muons.
Relativity explains the observed behavior of Muons: Experimentally verifiable. Relativity explains the constant speed of light: Experimentally verifiable. Relativity explains gravitational lensing: Observed. Satellites moving around the world at high speed with atomic clocks are direct evidence of dilation: Experimentally verifiable. Explain these things with another theory and perhaps relativity will start to not make sense of the data. If you are just unaware of the data, then perhaps that explains why it makes no sense. It makes perfect sense to me and many others. This is not to say I would have ever thought of it, Einstein was a genius. However he does not get all the credit, many many physicists (even astronomers and mathematicians) paved the way, and verified these things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Fri 06/18/10 07:58 PM
|
|
A wonderful story, thank you so much for sharing it.
The phase alternative medicine  has such a muddy meaning. In a time when patients feel like the human side of life and death has been corpratized we have this group of poeple claiming to fall under the banner of alternative medicine . Its better to train science based medicine to understand the human life cycle which includes natural healing then to fund non-scientific practices.
CAM and OCCAM really take away from real research that can save lives. The more we spend on really understanding the physiology not just of disease, but of the human system to heal itself the better we will be off, no less against the eventuality of having funded research and medical practices that trick us into a feeling of safety over what is essentially voodoo: Reiki, acupuncture, faith healing.  I do not include nutrition or patience or wisdom or herbs as alternative, which are just natural pharmaceuticals and the understanding of when and how to use them best: this is science based, and so is also not really alternative.
I think that we could fund real learning, over non-evidence based, non-scientific medical "treatments". Also corporation find it challenging to charge you for non-treatment, but feel obliged to charge for "energy healing". Id take non-treatment over energy healing that results in the same outcome any day thanks.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/finding_money_for_biomedical_research_by.php My FAVORITE Blog! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 1980, i was in the end of college times with some of my friends. they were all world class wrestlers, (real wrestling, not the fake sh|t) that loved to discuss theories and issues......we would all sit in a 1972, copper with a peeling white top, vega station wagon and discuss these "issues" as the windows would steam up, as it was below zero outside(tough bastards we were, still are) and some things would come to light, some wouldn't, but it was always a great time, and i always got a headache. much of this discussion was about the cold war as well, and our speculations on what would finally transpire.... but we sure had fun. the car, then dubbed by me as the "issue mobile" brought many a laughs...... i wonder what ever happened to that thing? maybe it went down a rabbit hole.... anyway, when things like this occur, i call it driving the "issue mobile" the 1972 vega station wagon.......humor at it's very best.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 06/16/10 11:28 AM
|
|
Creative Said: Coherentism does not necessarily have a basis in reality. So it seems we agree. A coherent theoretical framework is not necessarily an accurate representation of nature. From wikipedia: A coherentist account might claim that before the Michelson-Morley experiment, physics formed a coherent theory. But then the experiment was performed. These experimental results form a part of the account, yet the results were inconsistent with the expectations of the accepted theory. Thus the account was shown to be less coherent. This inconsistency was resolved by the development of relativistic mechanics. In this case a coherentist would need to explain how special relativity is more coherent than both Newtonian mechanics and the Lorentz ether theory, which explanation would lead us on from simple inconsistency. Any lack of correspondence of the theory with reality may eventually lead to a lack of coherence within the theory, and this leads to a modification of the theory to restore its coherence. There would be little or no practical difference between a coherentist account and a correspondence account of theory change. Very interesting example used here, what is further interesting is that string theory has gone through many such revisions. In fact I used this example earlier when trying to make my point. Metalwing said:
I'm getting tired of quoting the above false statement. Im getting tired of trying to raise this conversation above the level of definition, so I will just ignore you. I mean did you watch the LHC convention video of David Gross presentation? He said the exact same thing I did, and did not get boo'd off the stage, I am sorry metalwing that you think I was attacking an idea you hold dear, but get over it . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Begin to Change
|
|
My best friend is a young women from Napal, working on a computer science degree here in North Carolina, no help from the good ole gubmint.
I myself moved from the UK, started up with no help and after a few years earn very good money with no degree. I just think the market is more competitive then ever and skill is more important then gender or race, at least here in urban Raleigh. Take my anecdote for what it is . . . Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 06/15/10 07:05 PM
|
|
Lisa Randall:
Transcript starting at 1 Minute and 20 seconds. . . . which might very well entail notions such as super symmetry, which is an extension of space time symmetry OR even space time itself as we discussed, and IF it turns out these extra dimensional theories are correct there would be new particles . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7XtqH6ETZc Listen to the language Lisa couches her comments in? Its the language of uncertainty, like any good scientist she will remain skeptical until really good evidence comes along. The OR is interesting word usage and quit cogent for the people in the know, metalwing you claim to be so knowledgeable, how is it that we might find super-symmetry and that still not in and of itself be proof of extra dimensions? If you can answer intellectually that question I will be impressed, it will also serve to further the conversation which most of the posts so far have failed to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIz5zrZsiuw&feature=related Another good video by Lisa. I agree she is brilliant, and we should all be so intelligent, to be such good critical thinkers. She speaks with a good level of self doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISrm-qUQ1g&feature=related The next series of questions that have to be asked, are: What experiments are needed to detect these particles? What energies do we expect to find them and why? Is the LHC enough, will Tev be enough? What does the anthropic principle have to do with any of it? Why is the anthropic principle controversial, and why do most scientists think its a messy basis for a theoretical framework? Plenty of hard questions must be answered first. http://zitwebcast1.desy.de/wowza/plhc2010/Gross.htm Minute 34, David Gross says it all. Its common among physicists to agree with this word usage that I tend to share. Its not blasphemy, among groups at the LHC conference you can actually say this . . . Im a big fan of Strings. A skeptic first. No spin needed. After all what is evolution? Is it just a theory or is it a scientific theory which is somehow more then, "just a theory." If we say that M-theory is a scientific theory and it has yet to be proven then what does that mean for any other theoretical framework that has yet to be proven? This is a serious question. Not spin. So when I say M-theory is not a scientific theory what I really mean is that I take that turn of word very seriously and that I must without baggage honestly answer what I mean. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
