http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825293.200 :

We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David
Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the
quantum structure of space and time (see "Baffled in Brussels").

Pentcho Valev

Pancho Villa wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825293.200 :

We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David
Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the
quantum structure of space and time (see "Baffled in Brussels").

Pentcho Valev

I don't bet on the "theory" that we enter a new age of science on the
turn of every century as true.

It WAS for 1900; but not for 1800, 1700, etc.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825293.200 :

We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David
Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the
quantum structure of space and time (see "Baffled in Brussels").

Understandable since the only thing Quantum Mechanics
seems to tell us about space and tiine is that is has no
structure other than balloon analagies and Hawkieg radiation
from evaporating black holes.

Which is not really a structure, since they're infiinite boundary
conditions.


Pentcho Valev

The universe is made of tiny pyramids built by invisible space monkeys.

Pentcho Valev, sells out and quotes a string theorist:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825293.200 :

We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David
Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the
quantum structure of space and time (see "Baffled in Brussels").


I always knew you were a closet cheerleader for string theory.

Bilge wrote:

Pentcho Valev, sells out and quotes a string theorist:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18825293.200 :

We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David
Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the
quantum structure of space and time (see "Baffled in Brussels").


I always knew you were a closet cheerleader for string theory.

The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

wrote in message
oups.com...
It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

[hanson]
..... ahahaha... of course it is and self evidently so in its manifest
self-similarity. A few brave souls have dared to speak about it,
but got drowned out by the loud and shrill noises that still do
come out the cul de sac of relativity dead end. It appears that
the paradigm may begin to change as was indicated by Gross
at this 2005 Solvay conference... ...bye, bye Albert... ahahaha..
ahaha... ahahanson

wrote in message
oups.com...
The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.


It's not whether we win or lose but how we play the game. In the game of
life
we all lose in the end. Do we want to snip and snipe our way through it in
arrogant ignorance and dishonest cowardice as the relativists do, or make
a small contribution to general knowledge that only a minority will
appreciate?
Galileo made his choice, I follow his lead. It is men that stand out from
the crowd
that make the discoveries. There is a large planet in orbit about Algol.
I may not know much, but that I know and nobody can take it from me.
Whether they listen or not matters only to them.
Androcles.

tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Why did Einstein say
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to change direction?

wrote:

The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

This is basically true.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Absolutely- that's what great science is all about; finding new
questions to ask. Then we get to work and find answers to the
questions. Hopefully, the answers point the way to more questions. And
I disagree that sequencing the genome has given us no answers. We have
learned all kinds of things: most of our DNA is non-coding, for example.
Some genes are spliced in different ways to make different proteins. We
know for sure that a defect in the CFTR protein causes cystic fibrosis,
and have identified the specific mutations in the gene that result in a
defective protein. We know lots of new things, but it is still true that
we don't know even more.

Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

You are assuming that there is "one thing... that makes it all work".
What is your reasoning or justification for making this assumption?
Macroscopic laws do not apply to microscopic phenomena, for example.
And I would argue that going from microstructure to macrostructure is
not so simple, either. Let's just put in the column of "things not
currently understood" for now.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

I hope so, how dull otherwise.



--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University