Nothing. And as soon as Brown counter-sues for having to answer a frivolous lawsuit, the courts will have the responsibility of determining what apology is appropriate and ensuring that it is implemented.
So you're answer is "You're wrong - this highly theoretical, unverified, counter-intuitive solution which relies upon an unknown and undetectable quantity is right, 'cuz we all think so".
Yes, these theories explain the observed phenomena - but so does "G*d did it!". Theories are great - but a little more suporting evidence would be in order, I think.
into M/String theory, when particles and wavicles fell out of favor in place of open- or closed-loops on the brane?
Never mind - the presence of empirical data which tends to place supersymmetry in doubt is enough to convince me that either we need a better theory, or the existing theory needs a major overhaul.
It's a neutrino that we've never detected. Okay, I'll bite. How do we detect/identify a sterile neutrino? For bonus points - we've been looking for neutrinos as a species for a little while now, if there is a way to detect and identify a sterile neutrino, why haven't we seen these yet? This kind of assertion requires more than three sigma confidence with noted exceptions. Just sayin'.
Giving credit while asking the question, is all. Yes, I understand that initially the Higgs Boson was nothing more than an intellectual fantasy, until proper experiments were devised with agreed-on criteria. A prediction was made and then supported.
Dark matter and dark energy (as I understand the ideas) both preclude this - the first thing I"ve learned about either of these two theoretical quantities is that they're defined as not interacting with normal matter and energy. At this point, we're talking about Wilson's Teapot here - except that even Wilson's Teapot will surrender someday to better observational techniques and better experiments which show that such a teapot is really pouring rain down on us (or not).
I don't mind the part where we're told we haven't detected it yet. I do mind the part where we're told they're undetectable, we can only see the secondary effects of their existence. That's exactly what ghost hunters keep telling the rest of us, and I really mislike the similarity there. If proponents of dark matter and dark energy theories would at least assert a testable prediction (even if it's not testable right now), it would help; but saying that it explains the observation correctly (gravitic lensing, cosmic expansion) is one hell of a long way from providing evidence that the theory is correct, or even meaningful.
Three sigma. As in.001 probability that the null hypothesis is true despite our sample observation.
Not even significant enough to justify a paper. Enough to justify further experimentation, but not even nearly strong enough to even suggest a correlation yet.
That's the problem with real science - the paperwork's a bitch.
Thank you! Please stop inventing luminiferous aethers unless you can come up with something like evidence that one exists. Unexplained phenomena (e.g., "cosmic expansion") are not evidence.
Has anybody noticed a trend among cosmologists and sub-atomic physicists to invent new, undetectable stuff (dark matter, dark energy) when they encounter phenomena they can't otherwise explain?
Yes, they (nuclear physicists) predicted the existence of and found a particle at around 1.27GEv. Might even be Higgs they said they were looking for. But they've outright defined dark matter and dark energy like Wilson's teapot - we can never see 'em directly, only their effects. Well, if these quantities can affect our physical universe, then there's a way for our universe to affect these quantities which means they do interact with normal matter and energy, and that means they should not be undetectable like Wilson's teapot.
Next thing you know, cosmologists will be telling us that G*D did it. I'm okay with that . . . but only if you come up with some kind of evidence, not merely "well, we can't find anything else to explain it...".
Yup. Tell your friends. That's where you don't wanna send yer kids - they don't have any truly experienced personnel there (or so I've heard)...
Gulliver Preparatory School wins. They don't have to pay anything...but then again, they don't have any right to suppress the truth which a court of law has declared (now that the judgement is apparently void), that they're (in my opinion) just one big waste of air space and semi-human skin wrapped in a warm moist layer of fecal matter. Spread the word! Gulliver Preparatory School is the sort of learning establishment that seemingly fires all their most experienced personnel when their age becomes worrisome - why would you want a bunch of ignorant young trolls educating your kids?
But it is. Remember - manual processes which often took days and could be messed up by one human error anywhere along the way can now be messed up in milliseconds with the click of a mouse. That's progress!
Y'know, the US and the USSR both had similar problems back in the fifties and sixties - not as severe, but definitely the same - but Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin both made it into orbit. Apollo circled the moon and later landed there. We still have people living in poverty and so does the current Russia - but I don't think too many citizens of either nation regret exploring space.
Just a note - last time I checked, circling the equator on any (roughly) spherical object in space will put half your path in sunlight and half in the dark (assuming there's a sun close enough to light yon globe). Spinning or not (which our moon definitely does) makes no difference, except for how long and how often a specified piece of the construct is in sunlight.
Well, to quote a famous fictional hero, "I got bits falling off my ship, I got a crew ain't been paid and, oh yeah, a powerful need to eat sometime this month".
Somehow, I don't think giving the NSA the middle finger they so richly deserve is going to make that any easier.
...and then you defend it. Whaddya mean, "if the Quebec based store is maintaining a website, it needs to have a french translation"? So . . . if I create a website which I intend to be read in Berlin, or Pamplona, or Rome . . . it still has to be in French?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing. And as soon as Brown counter-sues for having to answer a frivolous lawsuit, the courts will have the responsibility of determining what apology is appropriate and ensuring that it is implemented.
Yes, these theories explain the observed phenomena - but so does "G*d did it!". Theories are great - but a little more suporting evidence would be in order, I think.
Never mind - the presence of empirical data which tends to place supersymmetry in doubt is enough to convince me that either we need a better theory, or the existing theory needs a major overhaul.
Y'know, depending who you listen to the internet was either invented by the Department of Defense (DARPA) or Al Gore.
It's a neutrino that we've never detected. Okay, I'll bite. How do we detect/identify a sterile neutrino? For bonus points - we've been looking for neutrinos as a species for a little while now, if there is a way to detect and identify a sterile neutrino, why haven't we seen these yet? This kind of assertion requires more than three sigma confidence with noted exceptions. Just sayin'.
Dark matter and dark energy (as I understand the ideas) both preclude this - the first thing I"ve learned about either of these two theoretical quantities is that they're defined as not interacting with normal matter and energy. At this point, we're talking about Wilson's Teapot here - except that even Wilson's Teapot will surrender someday to better observational techniques and better experiments which show that such a teapot is really pouring rain down on us (or not).
I don't mind the part where we're told we haven't detected it yet. I do mind the part where we're told they're undetectable, we can only see the secondary effects of their existence. That's exactly what ghost hunters keep telling the rest of us, and I really mislike the similarity there. If proponents of dark matter and dark energy theories would at least assert a testable prediction (even if it's not testable right now), it would help; but saying that it explains the observation correctly (gravitic lensing, cosmic expansion) is one hell of a long way from providing evidence that the theory is correct, or even meaningful.
If you don't like it, why do you keep coming here?
Sleep, little anonymous one. Sleep forever . . .
I know that we know better now, but weren't neutrinos supposed to be massless when their existence was first proposed?
Not even significant enough to justify a paper. Enough to justify further experimentation, but not even nearly strong enough to even suggest a correlation yet.
That's the problem with real science - the paperwork's a bitch.
Thank you! Please stop inventing luminiferous aethers unless you can come up with something like evidence that one exists. Unexplained phenomena (e.g., "cosmic expansion") are not evidence.
Yes, they (nuclear physicists) predicted the existence of and found a particle at around 1.27GEv. Might even be Higgs they said they were looking for. But they've outright defined dark matter and dark energy like Wilson's teapot - we can never see 'em directly, only their effects. Well, if these quantities can affect our physical universe, then there's a way for our universe to affect these quantities which means they do interact with normal matter and energy, and that means they should not be undetectable like Wilson's teapot.
Next thing you know, cosmologists will be telling us that G*D did it. I'm okay with that . . . but only if you come up with some kind of evidence, not merely "well, we can't find anything else to explain it...".
Gulliver Preparatory School wins. They don't have to pay anything...but then again, they don't have any right to suppress the truth which a court of law has declared (now that the judgement is apparently void), that they're (in my opinion) just one big waste of air space and semi-human skin wrapped in a warm moist layer of fecal matter. Spread the word! Gulliver Preparatory School is the sort of learning establishment that seemingly fires all their most experienced personnel when their age becomes worrisome - why would you want a bunch of ignorant young trolls educating your kids?
"Oh, you screwed up. Your daughter didn't play by our rules. We take it all back...for teh win!"
Who's the batch of asshats who are reaming her dad out like this anyway? Sounds like it's time to shine a Slash dotlight on 'em.
But it is. Remember - manual processes which often took days and could be messed up by one human error anywhere along the way can now be messed up in milliseconds with the click of a mouse. That's progress!
Y'know, the US and the USSR both had similar problems back in the fifties and sixties - not as severe, but definitely the same - but Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin both made it into orbit. Apollo circled the moon and later landed there. We still have people living in poverty and so does the current Russia - but I don't think too many citizens of either nation regret exploring space.
Just a note - last time I checked, circling the equator on any (roughly) spherical object in space will put half your path in sunlight and half in the dark (assuming there's a sun close enough to light yon globe). Spinning or not (which our moon definitely does) makes no difference, except for how long and how often a specified piece of the construct is in sunlight.
O...M...G...thank you! Hilarious and true!
Can't use incense to mask odors up there, you know.
*Sheesh!*
Somehow, I don't think giving the NSA the middle finger they so richly deserve is going to make that any easier.
Never mind the argument . . . I give up.
Fixed the title for ya!
You've been watching Star Trek (TOS) again, haven't you?
Yeah, but we're talking about Sandra Bullock here.