Latest CBS poll on evolution vs. creatio n

“techntrek = einstein the sociologist.

I know what curves I accelerate toward...

BM- Alchemy is not a bunch of crap, I've been stealing Nigals socks and making gold out them.”

“The revolving motion of the cylinder in the dryer coupled with the ambient electromagnetic field and resulting static electricity from the sock, comes into a state of flux hereby causing a brief (all puns intended) disruption in the space time continuum. The sock and the undergarment closest to it falls into the disruption and is transported to the shoulder of a state highway some 345.63 miles eastward from the socks origin where they congregate with other ost articles of clothing. Similar to "the island of lost toys" concept.

So there you have it. Now you know why your left sock is missing and why you always see peoples clothes scattered on rural highways.”

“BM you are so right, just like a fish's movements are influenced by water, a falling rock is being allowed to move thru space. Space, water are meduiums that influence objects.

You dont hike a trail, the hiker is moved by the trail(even bushwacking).”

“...and Bison Gravity is a result not a force....”

“that we know now nimrod, but Newton described it as a force.

did you read my previous posts? that's exactly what I've been saying.
last edited: 11/29/04 12:35:56 PM”

“If Escher can fool me, Einstein can fool you”

“So it's not Underpants Gnomes then?”

“You fools! We dance and now the circle becomes circular!!!!!!!!!!


Traditionally, physicists have counted four interactions : gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. The magnitude and behavior varies greatly as can be seen in the table above. Yet, it is strongly believed that three of them are manifestations of a single, more fundamental, interaction. Electromagnetism and the weak nuclear forces have been shown to be two aspects of a single electroweak force. Somewhat more speculatively, the electroweak force and the strong nuclear interaction have been combined using grand unified theories. How to combine the fourth interaction, gravity, with the other three is still a topic of research into quantum gravity.

They are sometimes called "fundamental forces" although many find this terminology misleading because one of them, gravity, is not explained anymore by a "force" in the Newton sense : no "gravitational force" is acting at a distance to cause a body to accelerate (as it has been falsely assumed a century ago in the Newtonian theory of gravitation). Instead, general relativity explains gravity by the curvatures of spacetime (composed of the gravitational time dilation and the curvature of space).

The modern view of the 3 fundamental forces (i.e. all 4 except gravity) is that objects do not directly interact with each other but rather generate a field which affects the behavior of distant objects. From quantum field theory these fields are associated with one or more particles and are believed to be the result of some fundamental symmetries of nature.

Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify the theory of quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. The ultimate goal is a unified framework for all fundamental forces—a theory of everything.

Much of the difficulty in merging these theories comes from the radically different assumptions that these theories make on how the universe works. Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as mass moves. The most obvious ways of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) run quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. Gravity particles would attract each other and adding together all of the interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be cancelled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.

Another difficulty comes from the success of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both have been highly successful and there are no known phenomena that contradict the two. The energies and conditions at which quantum gravity is likely to be important are inaccessible to laboratory experiments. The result of this is that there are no experimental observations which would provide any hints as to how to combine the two.

The general approach taken in deriving a theory of quantum gravity is to assume that the underlying theory will be simple and elegant and then to look at current theories for symmetries and hints for how to combine them elegantly into an overarching theory. One problem with this approach is that it is not known if quantum gravity will be a simple and elegant theory.

Such a theory is required in order to understand those problems involving the combination of very large mass or energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behaviour of black holes, and the origin of the universe

Now, when they find the "gravitron" particle, will we go back to calling Gravity a force, or will we need to refine "force"?

And every source I look at says Einstein built on Newton. newton wa not incorrect.

Lamark was WRONG.............maybe

Alchemy DOES work - if you bombard platinum with a specific type of radiation you can get it to decay into Gold.

ISN'T SCIENCE FUN???????????????”

“You're now into quantum theory BM, that's a whole other deal...”

“No, the deal is that Gravity is a force and Newton wasn't off his rocker.

Thank you very much.”

“No the deal is that quantum theory describes how things work on the very small scale. Newtons gravity was never intended to do so (of course at the time there was no consideration of such a scale). The only reason the terms gravity and gravitron are used are because they relate in a manner that is theoretically akin to Newton's idea of gravity.

Newton's Gravity and Einstien's General Relativity are not meant to describe how the universe works on the nearly infinitely tiny scale that quantum theory does, it's a whole other discussion.
last edited: 11/29/04 1:09:05 PM”

“Underpants Gnomes are exclusive to underpants.”

“So when did socks not fall in the same category as underpants? I guess the main question would be, Did socks evolve out of the species of underpants or were they created in a completely separate species? And what of bras?”

“Keyword "pants"”

“No, without the tiny stuff you don't have the bigger stuff.

Without quarks & leptons and bosons you have no other forces, etc.

It's all one discussion that will all get Unified some day.

So to recap

Nigals underpants fallow Newtonian physics whereas his socks seem to undergo strong force decay leaving only nasty flavors behind, yes?

It all works together in the
SuperGrand Nigal Unifcation Theory.

QED!”

“Now how about some nekkid women pictures?”

“Flavors?!?

Damn, who would actually TASTE that?
I knew BM was in to kinky stuff but DAMN BOY!

Does Nigal know?”

“I mean Nigals chromodynamics. Don't even ask about his Gluons.
last edited: 11/29/04 1:52:30 PM”

“TMI”

“Sorry HPM but I just don't buy it. Everyone agrees that socks are in the underwear family but yet they can't be in there with underpants. Sounds like your whole theory is simply in a name. Therefor my Underpants Gnome Theory is just as valid as your's.”

“Hmmpphh. Unless you are ALL pro-intelligent-design-theory, I'm gonna leave TT. And don't think I'm keeeeeding either. I'm so gone. I'll give you all 24 hours to decide. Loser-heads. You all are like... people... who... are like... you know... really stupid. Yeah, stupid. TT would be NOTHING without me and you all know it. Don't let this forum crumble into useless obscurity. I'm the TT Huckleberry. Yep. It's pro-intelligent-design-theory or THIS PAGE GOES DOWN! HARD! Choose wisely. See ya.”

“Missing sock theory: One sock was dropped on it's way into the washing machine. On it's way out of the dryer, one sock got dropped, the dog took it, static cling has caused it to take a ride on another piece of clothing or you only own one of a kind socks :)”

“Say hi to Buddha Bear Buck! Seee ya!”

“See ya, Buck. ;)”

“gawddihdit”

“God created maggots, therefore...”

“"Attack of the flesh-eating parasitoid maggots!!"

Too late, they've already taken over Trail Talk.”

“never mind
last edited: 1/15/08 3:01:57 PM”