"the search for dark energy"

mickeyl · Oct 11, 2008

<p><font size="2">Physicist Patricia Burchat, has a very good video of her lecture on "the search for dark energy and dark matter", at her youtube site:<br /> <br /></font><font size="2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxxj3hQWZA&feature=related</font></p><p><font size="2">After watching the video, check out my website at: </font><font size="2">www.dark-energyuniverse.com</font></p><p><font size="2">She discusses dark energy and dark matter.  However, when we view an object of mass (as viewing our television from across a room), we've been conditioned from birth to believe there is something called "space", between our eyes and the television.  We never stop to ask, what is "space", what are it's properties.  Our concept of "space" is totally primitive; because a created entity called "space" does not exist.  "Space" (the lack of atoms of mass) between the television and our eyes, is in fact a form of massless energy; dark-energy-radiation.  In our universe, there are two principal components; atoms of mass, and massless dark-energy-radiation.  In her video physicist Patricia Borchat refers to dark-energy-radiation that is engaging massive objects, and thus creating a gravitational field, as being dark matter.  And she refers to dark-energy-radiation in the absence of mass as being dark energy.  She says about 5% of the universe is made up of "ordinary matter", about 15% is dark matter, and about 80% is dark energy.  She states science can't explain what dark matter is, that they're trying to detect particles of it, and that it's passing through her body at that specific time.  But, her body is not surrounded by "space" at this time; it's surrounded by dark-energy-radiation.  The last three minutes can be omitted because she discusses particle accelerators.  Thanks.</font>  </p>

DrRocket · Oct 11, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physicist Patricia Burchat, has a very good video of her lecture on "the search for dark energy and dark matter", at her youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxxj3hQWZA&feature=relatedAfter watching the video, check out my website at: www.dark-energyuniverse.comShe discusses dark energy and dark matter.  However, when we view an object of mass (as viewing our television from across a room), we've been conditioned from birth to believe there is something called "space", between our eyes and the television.  We never stop to ask, what is "space", what are it's properties.  Our concept of "space" is totally primitive; because a created entity called "space" does not exist.  "Space" (the lack of atoms of mass) between the television and our eyes, is in fact a form of massless energy; dark-energy-radiation.  In our universe, there are two principal components; atoms of mass, and massless dark-energy-radiation.  In her video physicist Patricia Borchat refers to dark-energy-radiation that is engaging massive objects, and thus creating a gravitational field, as being dark matter.  And she refers to dark-energy-radiation in the absence of mass as being dark energy.  She says about 5% of the universe is made up of "ordinary matter", about 15% is dark matter, and about 80% is dark energy.  She states science can't explain what dark matter is, that they're trying to detect particles of it, and that it's passing through her body at that specific time.  But, her body is not surrounded by "space" at this time; it's surrounded by dark-energy-radiation.  The last three minutes can be omitted because she discusses particle accelerators.  Thanks.  <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>The video is well done and interesting.  As expected it focuses on the questions posed by the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy and provides few answers -- because little is known for certain about these active research topics.  That is as it should be.</p><p>Your recap of the talk is rather inaccurate.  Participants in this thread would be advised to watch Dr. Borchat's talk rather to rely on your summary.</p><p>Your web site is utter nonsense.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dabiznuss · Oct 15, 2008

<p>I also read your website, and after the first 3 lines i realized that you have no idea, what you, yourself, is even talking about b/c its plagued with logical contradictions, and facts that don't even exist in physics. I mean its great to have your own idea's about physics and to hold your own theory up high, but honestly man you should read little more about physics all together. What are you trying to say here:  "<font size="4">Gravity is the force of dark-</font><font size="4">energy-radiation, that surrounds any massive object in the univer</font><font size="4">se;"</font></p><p><font size="4">and here:  </font></p><p><font size="4">"This collection of dark-energy-radiation is in fact, gravity-waves." </font></p><p><font size="2">Is your "dark-energy-radiation" something like the Zero point field?</font></p><p><font size="2">How does this radiation collectively surround mass and cause "gravity waves" ?</font></p><p><font size="2">Do these "gravity waves" supply any kind of shearing motion or portray a quadrupole moment?</font></p><p><font size="2">These are things people who just took physics 101, might ask you and you would have to be ready to answer them!</font></p><p><font size="2">Now, YOU SHOULD SAY IN YOUR POST SEVERAL TIMES where you got this information and if it is physical fact or not, B/C if someone is looking for information on dark energy stumbles upon your website and reads this mislead information, he will also be mislead. "THE BLIND WILL THAN BE LEADING, THE BLIND." This is why Wikitpedia an other website's hurt society as a whole!!!!!!</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Meric · Oct 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The video is well done and interesting.  As expected it focuses on the questions posed by the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy and provides few answers -- because little is known for certain about these active research topics.  That is as it should be.Your recap of the talk is rather inaccurate.  Participants in this thread would be advised to watch Dr. Borchat's talk rather to rely on your summary.Your web site is utter nonsense. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I did not watch his recap, as suggested by you.  I did watch the video and thought it was very interesting, some things I had knowledge of from previous shows/readings, while other tidbits were new.</p><p> If dark matter as she says encompasses Galaxies, clusters, and I assume superclusters? (forgive me if I'm wrong on that last assumption) then how big is a dark matter bubble?  I mean it would seem that Dark Matter would in-shrine the whole universe, but if that was the case I don't see how Dark Energy could speed the rate of expansion.  That 16 minute clip brought up more questions then answers, which is good, but now my brain is befuddled

 </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#993300"><font size="2"><font color="#000000"> </font><em><font color="#000000">Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.</font></em></font></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did not watch his recap, as suggested by you.  I did watch the video and thought it was very interesting, some things I had knowledge of from previous shows/readings, while other tidbits were new. If dark matter as she says encompasses Galaxies, clusters, and I assume superclusters? (forgive me if I'm wrong on that last assumption) then how big is a dark matter bubble?  I mean it would seem that Dark Matter would in-shrine the whole universe, but if that was the case I don't see how Dark Energy could speed the rate of expansion.  That 16 minute clip brought up more questions then answers, which is good, but now my brain is befuddled

  <br />Posted by Meric</DIV></p><p>Join the crowd.   As far as I know everyone is befuddled.  Dark matter, if it exists is not uniformly distributed in the universe.  If it were it would have no effect on the gravitational field, just as there is no gravitational field on the inside of a spherical shell (the verious tugs of gravity cancel one another).  But if dark energy exists, it is still the case that we don't know precisely how it is distributed, although there are some models.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physicist Patricia Burchat, has a very good video of her lecture on "the search for dark energy and dark matter", at her youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxxj3hQWZA&feature=relatedAfter watching the video, check out my website at: www.dark-energyuniverse.comShe discusses dark energy and dark matter.  However, when we view an object of mass (as viewing our television from across a room), we've been conditioned from birth to believe there is something called "space", between our eyes and the television.  We never stop to ask, what is "space", what are it's properties.  Our concept of "space" is totally primitive; because a created entity called "space" does not exist.  "Space" (the lack of atoms of mass) between the television and our eyes, is in fact a form of massless energy; dark-energy-radiation.  In our universe, there are two principal components; atoms of mass, and massless dark-energy-radiation.  In her video physicist Patricia Borchat refers to dark-energy-radiation that is engaging massive objects, and thus creating a gravitational field, as being dark matter.  And she refers to dark-energy-radiation in the absence of mass as being dark energy.  She says about 5% of the universe is made up of "ordinary matter", about 15% is dark matter, and about 80% is dark energy.  She states science can't explain what dark matter is, that they're trying to detect particles of it, and that it's passing through her body at that specific time.  But, her body is not surrounded by "space" at this time; it's surrounded by dark-energy-radiation.  The last three minutes can be omitted because she discusses particle accelerators.  Thanks.</DIV></p><p><strong>When we detect other dimensions, we will find the "Dark Energy" there.  It's as simple as that.  There is nothing more "in space".  All other energy forms have been detected (Casimir, etc.)  A hidden dimension, can act as dark energy</strong> <strong>in our universe, IMO.</strong></p><p><strong><font size="4">***CASE-CLOSED***</font></strong> <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When we detect other dimensions, we will find the "Dark Energy" there.  It's as simple as that.  There is nothing more "in space".  All other energy forms have been detected (Casimir, etc.)  A hidden dimension, can act as dark energy in our universe, IMO.***CASE-CLOSED***  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>This is simply ridiculous.  It is not even cogent enough to be wrong.  It is just gibberish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is simply ridiculous.  It is not even cogent enough to be wrong.  It is just gibberish. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong><font size="4">ROFLMAO!  </font><font size="1">Hey Dr. Rocket, why don't you tell us what you really think.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />  I'll back up my opinion with these links:</font></strong></p><p>http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12261-is-dark-energy-lurking-in-hidden-spatial-dimensions.html</p><p>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/02/hubble.images/index.html</p><p>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/051130.cosmopanel.shtml<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ROFLMAO!  Hey Dr. Rocket, why don't you tell us what you really think.    I'll back up my opinion with these links:http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12261-is-dark-energy-lurking-in-hidden-spatial-dimensions.htmlhttp://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/02/hubble.images/index.htmlhttp://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/051130.cosmopanel.shtml <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>You have apparently negelected to read the material at the sites that you referenced.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have apparently negelected to read the material at the sites that you referenced.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Since you refused to read the 1st link, I'll paraphrase it (spoon feed it) to you:</strong></p><p>http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12261-is-dark-energy-lurking-in-hidden-spatial-dimensions.html</p><p>The mysterious cosmic presence called <font color="#000000">dark energy</font>, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, might be lurking in hidden dimensions of space. The idea would explain how these dimensions remain stable – a big problem for the unified scheme of physics called <font color="#000000">string theory</font>.</p><p>Even though the vibration is imprisoned in these other dimensions, it can extend its gravitational influence into our space. Its gravity is also repulsive in our space, just like the "ordinary" cosmological constant, so it would cause cosmic acceleration. To get the same amount of acceleration seen by astronomers, Greene and Levin calculate that the extra dimensions should have a scale of about 0.01 millimetre. Dark energy would be hiding less than a hair's breadth away.</p><p>In the new theory, these extra dimensions can be forced to behave. The right balance of quantum force fields would act like a stiff spring within the extra dimensions, fixing them at a certain size.</p><p>So if the dimensions are indeed 10 microns across, why can't we see them? At the moment, Greene and Levin's theory only works within the "<font color="#000000">braneworld</font>" picture of cosmology, which descibes our 3D universe as a membrane floating in higher-dimensional space. Most particles and fields are firmly fixed to the brane, which is why we can't see the extra dimensions or step sideways into them.</p><p>Greene and Levin's theory implies that gravity should become stronger on short ranges, around the scale of the extra dimensions. Eric Adelberger and his team at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, have run a series of experiments using a twisting pendulum to <font color="#000000">measure the short-range strength of gravity</font>, and they have already ruled out extra dimensions larger than a 0.1 millimetre. They are planning a new experiment to probe shorter distances still.</p><p>If Adelberger's pendulum does start to see gravity grow below 0.01 millimetre, it could be a sign that Greene and Levin are right, and the force that's tearing our universe apart really is an invader from another dimension.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you refused to read the 1st link, I'll paraphrase it (spoon feed it) to you:http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12261-is-dark-energy-lurking-in-hidden-spatial-dimensions.htmlThe mysterious cosmic presence called dark energy, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, might be lurking in hidden dimensions of space. The idea would explain how these dimensions remain stable – a big problem for the unified scheme of physics called string theory.Even though the vibration is imprisoned in these other dimensions, it can extend its gravitational influence into our space. Its gravity is also repulsive in our space, just like the "ordinary" cosmological constant, so it would cause cosmic acceleration. To get the same amount of acceleration seen by astronomers, Greene and Levin calculate that the extra dimensions should have a scale of about 0.01 millimetre. Dark energy would be hiding less than a hair's breadth away.In the new theory, these extra dimensions can be forced to behave. The right balance of quantum force fields would act like a stiff spring within the extra dimensions, fixing them at a certain size.So if the dimensions are indeed 10 microns across, why can't we see them? At the moment, Greene and Levin's theory only works within the "braneworld" picture of cosmology, which descibes our 3D universe as a membrane floating in higher-dimensional space. Most particles and fields are firmly fixed to the brane, which is why we can't see the extra dimensions or step sideways into them.Greene and Levin's theory implies that gravity should become stronger on short ranges, around the scale of the extra dimensions. Eric Adelberger and his team at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, have run a series of experiments using a twisting pendulum to measure the short-range strength of gravity, and they have already ruled out extra dimensions larger than a 0.1 millimetre. They are planning a new experiment to probe shorter distances still.If Adelberger's pendulum does start to see gravity grow below 0.01 millimetre, it could be a sign that Greene and Levin are right, and the force that's tearing our universe apart really is an invader from another dimension.  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Sorry Kyle, but I can read.  You are not paraphrasing, you are quoting.  There is a difference.  It actually takes some understanding to paraphrase.  It takes none to quote.  Unfortunately you are quoting an article written by a reporter, not a physicist or mathematician.  The reporter also lacks understanding, and he is taking some liberties that do not appear to be justified.  The terminology for instance is a bit twisted -- dimensions per se do not have a size.  You might be able to talk about distances in a particular direction (i.e. along a line in a local coordinate patch in a direction provided by a dimension) but the dimension itself is a rather abstract entity and doesn't have a size.  For instance you cannot talk about the length of width.  You can only talk about how wide an object, a chair for instance, is in a particular direction (dimension) but you cannot sensibly talk about the size of the dimension itself.  You can also talk about the maximum distance in a particular direction if the manifold is compact, but you are really talking about the notion of metric and the length of geodesic.  You can't hide in a dimension, and a dimension is not stable or unstable. In fact anything that does not fill out all available dimensions will be of measure zero -- a dimension is not some little room in which things can be stashed away.   </p><p>You might review the part in which the model appears to be implausible to other physicists.  You seem to have missed that part.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 6, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry Kyle, but I can read.  You are not paraphrasing, you are quoting.  There is a difference.  It actually takes some understanding to paraphrase.  It takes none to quote.</DIV></p><p><strong>Yes, you are correct here.  I stand corrected.</strong> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Unfortunately you are quoting an article written by a reporter, not a physicist or mathematician.  The reporter also lacks understanding, and he is taking some liberties that do not appear to be justified.</DIV></p><p><strong>He is talking about Briane Greene, who is a well known physicist.</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  The terminology for instance is a bit twisted -- dimensions per se do not have a size.</DIV></p><p><strong>He's talking about the minimum length to detect the hidden dimensions, using our dimension as a reference point.</strong></p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  You can't hide in a dimension, and a dimension is not stable or unstable. In fact anything that does not fill out all available dimensions will be of measure zero -- a dimension is not some little room in which things can be stashed away.   You might review the part in which the model appears to be implausible to other physicists.  You seem to have missed that part. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>When I read the article, it's talking about hidden dimensions (plural) not a dimension (singular).  The article also goes on to talk about 3-D Branes, which has plenty of room, to stash things away.  Why don't you explain the part in which the model appears to be implausible to physicists.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 6, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, you are correct here.  I stand corrected. He is talking about Briane Greene, who is a well known physicist.He's talking about the minimum length to detect the hidden dimensions, using our dimension as a reference point. When I read the article, it's talking about hidden dimensions (plural) not a dimension (singular).  The article also goes on to talk about 3-D Branes, which has plenty of room, to stash things away.  Why don't you explain the part in which the model appears to be implausible to physicists. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Go back and read the introductory posts that explain what a dimension is.  You have clearly failed to grasp the concept.  As usual you don't know what you are talking about.  You are in fact so far off base that it is impossible to even begin to address your comments.  Do you have any idea what a manifold is ?  Ans.  Not a clue.  Until you begin  to grasp that concept there is no basis for any further discussion.</p><p>BTW he is not talking about Briane Greene, but rather about some speculative physical theories that have been advanced by Briane Greene and others.  If he were talking about the person then he would be addressing a topic that he might understand.  But he is talking about a relatively sophisticated theory involving some mathematics that he clearly does not understand at all.  It is that lack of understanding, which rivals your own, that gets in the way of meaningful discourse.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Go back and read the introductory posts that explain what a dimension is.  You have clearly failed to grasp the concept.  As usual you don't know what you are talking about.  You are in fact so far off base that it is impossible to even begin to address your comments.  Do you have any idea what a manifold is ?  Ans.  Not a clue.  Until you begin  to grasp that concept there is no basis for any further discussion.BTW he is not talking about Briane Greene, but rather about some speculative physical theories that have been advanced by Briane Greene and others.  If he were talking about the person then he would be addressing a topic that he might understand.  But he is talking about a relatively sophisticated theory involving some mathematics that he clearly does not understand at all.  It is that lack of understanding, which rivals your own, that gets in the way of meaningful discourse. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>A perfect example of your unimaginative and narrow minded mathematical point of view.  The article was written for the layman.  Because it does not contain any mathematical equations, you be-little the article, author, and myself.  I agree with you, no point in discussing this any further.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />  I stand by my original opinion.</strong></p><p><font size="5"><strong>***CASE CLOSED***</strong></font></p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A perfect example of your unimaginative and narrow minded mathematical point of view.  The article was written for the layman.  Because it does not contain any mathematical equations, you be-little the article, author, and myself.  I agree with you, no point in discussing this any further.    I stand by my original opinion.***CASE CLOSED*** <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>As is common with your opinions, it is an opinion based on no science and apparently no intelligence whatever.  </p><p>The only thing that is closed is your mind, closed to science, closed to logic and incapable of being open to either one.  You can stand by your opinion or you can stand on your head.  It makes no difference.</p><p>You fail to understand mathematics.  You fail to understand physics.  But most of all you fail to understand what imagination means in a scientific context.  Imagination is not fantasy.  In this case it is the application of solid physical and mathematical reasoning in a novel, but rigorous, manner to a significant problem in physics.</p><p>You need to learn the difference between imagination and fantasy, between vision and hallucination.  But most of all you need to get a decent education in basic physics and mathematics.  Without a foundation you have a tendancy to take off on whimsical tangents of no intellectual content.  Basically you need to get smarter.  You might start by reading the start of the thread on dimension and trying to understand what is meant by the term "dimension".  </p><p>I don't belittle you because the article contained no mathematics.  That is not your problem.  Your problem is a lack of understanding of basic science, and unwillingness to learn, and a rather ridiculous pride in not knowing what you are talking about -- but a determination to prattle on anyway.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is common with your opinions, it is an opinion based on no science and apparently no intelligence whatever.  The only thing that is closed is your mind, closed to science, closed to logic and incapable of being open to either one.  You can stand by your opinion or you can stand on your head.  It makes no difference.You fail to understand mathematics.  You fail to understand physics.  But most of all you fail to understand what imagination means in a scientific context.  Imagination is not fantasy.  In this case it is the application of solid physical and mathematical reasoning in a novel, but rigorous, manner to a significant problem in physics.You need to learn the difference between imagination and fantasy, between vision and hallucination.  But most of all you need to get a decent education in basic physics and mathematics.  Without a foundation you have a tendancy to take off on whimsical tangents of no intellectual content.  Basically you need to get smarter.  You might start by reading the start of the thread on dimension and trying to understand what is meant by the term "dimension".  I don't belittle you because the article contained no mathematics.  That is not your problem.  Your problem is a lack of understanding of basic science, and unwillingness to learn, and a rather ridiculous pride in not knowing what you are talking about -- but a determination to prattle on anyway. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p><font size="2">Actually, there's <strong>Juan Maldacena's </strong> "holographic spacetime" concept that portrays 4D spacetime as a the membrane of a 5D sphere.  "Hidden" is a question of perspective.  Not my favourite but interesting.</font><br /></p>

DrRocket · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Actually, there's Juan Maldacena's  "holographic spacetime" concept that portrays 4D spacetime as a the membrane of a 5D sphere.  "Hidden" is a question of perspective.  Not my favourite but interesting. <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p>Is this the article to which you are referring?  http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/nature6-12-03.pdf</p><p>Or this? <br />http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf</p><p>And to add to the confusion we have this. http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/Dimensions.pdf</p><p>This seems to be the paper that covers the concept in detail but I do not have access to the full text.  Do you have a way to gain access to it ?  http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/423695a</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is common with your opinions, it is an opinion based on no science and apparently no intelligence whatever.  The only thing that is closed is your mind, closed to science, closed to logic and incapable of being open to either one.  You can stand by your opinion or you can stand on your head.  It makes no difference.You fail to understand mathematics.  You fail to understand physics.  But most of all you fail to understand what imagination means in a scientific context.  Imagination is not fantasy.  In this case it is the application of solid physical and mathematical reasoning in a novel, but rigorous, manner to a significant problem in physics.You need to learn the difference between imagination and fantasy, between vision and hallucination.  But most of all you need to get a decent education in basic physics and mathematics.  Without a foundation you have a tendancy to take off on whimsical tangents of no intellectual content.  Basically you need to get smarter.  You might start by reading the start of the thread on dimension and trying to understand what is meant by the term "dimension".  I don't belittle you because the article contained no mathematics.  That is not your problem.  Your problem is a lack of understanding of basic science, and unwillingness to learn, and a rather ridiculous pride in not knowing what you are talking about -- but a determination to prattle on anyway. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Oh my, what arrogance, what shall I do?  I know....<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

SHU · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this the article to which you are referring?  http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/nature6-12-03.pdfOr this? http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdfAnd to add to the confusion we have this. http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/Dimensions.pdfThis seems to be the paper that covers the concept in detail but I do not have access to the full text.  Do you have a way to gain access to it ?  http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/423695a <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>As a mathemetician, you might prefer:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0009/0009139v2.pdf</p><p>There are some different interpretations involving AdS space but Maldacena tied a few things together.</p>

DrRocket · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a mathemetician, you might prefer:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0009/0009139v2.pdfThere are some different interpretations involving AdS space but Maldacena tied a few things together. <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p>Thanks<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh my, what arrogance, what shall I do?  I know.... <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>It is good to do what one can.  I guess that you did that.  An intelligent person might try to learn something.  Others would do less.  A man ought to know his limits.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

"the search for dark energy"

mickeyl

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

Meric

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

SHU

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

SHU

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page