Superstring theory clubbed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

Now where are they going to find the constituent of dark matter?

On Nov 12, 8:58*pm, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

Now where are they going to find the constituent of dark matter?

You mustn't have received the memo -

When you point in the direction of Ra/Dec as a means to 'predict' that
the behavior of objects at a human level is one and the same as
orbital dynamics and solar system structure (Isaac's gravitation
theory),you end up with nothing - not even the cause of a 24 hour AM/
PM cycle.

Congratulations guys,if it could be any worse I wouldn't know how and
the most dismaying part is not that people didn't spot the original
mistake which derives from Flamsteed unfortunate conclusion using
right ascension,it is that now that it is obvious there is nobody
around with the type of intelligence needed to deal with it.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:58:29 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

Now where are they going to find the constituent of dark matter?

The issue is about supersymmetry, not any sort of string theory. And
understanding the nature of dark matter does not hang on
supersymmetry, which is merely one possible way to adjust the standard
model to allow for one or more new nonbaryonic particles making up
dark matter.

On 11/12/12 2:58 PM, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

Now where are they going to find the constituent of dark matter?


Rare particle decay challenges supersymmetry theories
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...etry-theories/

The result is otherwise completely in line with standard model predictions. The signal itself is not yet at the confidence level that is considered conclusive proof for the decay pattern. However, even if the muon–muon decay hasn’t been detected, it still occurs so infrequently that supersymmetry has been dealt a strong blow. Some theorists are already looking for alternatives to the standard model, which doesn’t explain the existence of dark matter. Other theorists believe that other forms of supersymmetry may still be correct.

On 13 Nov., 16:36, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:58:29 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

Now where are they going to find the constituent of dark matter?

The issue is about supersymmetry, not any sort of string theory.

It's all hanging by a thread..

Why can't you accept that dark matter is just weak gravitational
leakage across an infinity of multi-verse membranes?

Squirrel can do the maths. While Andrex fiddles with his toilet
roll. ;-)

NERØ!

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:14:53 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Why can't you accept that dark matter is just weak gravitational
leakage across an infinity of multi-verse membranes?

Because I'm a scientist. And I'm rational.

On 13 Nov., 19:43, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Because I'm a scientist. And I'm rational.

Ahah! You weren't the same scientist who said that man would never be
able to travel faster than a galloping horse? Or that man would never
be able to fly?

Besides, gravity leakage seems so much more plausible than a bunch of
incomplete, antagonistic theories. :-)

It might be fun to suggest that life is a constantly progressing test
of mankind's cognitive ability. Each new discovery merely forces a
step-up in difficulty as the next problem is revealed by the last
solution. The universe set out like a board game of endlessly
increasing difficulty and complexity but of perfectly logical
arrangement. Astronomical distance is illogical if it cannot be
solved, tamed and travelled satisfactorily. This time the barrier is
set too high unless it can be forced to submit to mankind's
intellectual will. Where is the new Einstein when you most need them?

Cue assorted trolls:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:26:57 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Ahah! You weren't the same scientist who said that man would never be
able to travel faster than a galloping horse? Or that man would never
be able to fly?

Nope. Of course, there were never any scientists who said that. The
story is as much an urban legend as the one that says scientists once
thought the world was flat.

On Nov 13, 12:37*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:26:57 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:
Ahah! You weren't the same scientist who said that man would never be
able to travel faster than a galloping horse? Or that man would never
be able to fly?

Nope. Of course, there were never any scientists who said that. The
story is as much an urban legend as the one that says scientists once
thought the world was flat.

It's true that no "scientists" in the Middle Ages thought the world
was flat, but in Babylonia it was different.

On the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight... I had thought there
were claims of that, despite the existence of birds serving as a
refutation. But then, we currently have no flying birds large enough
to carry a man.

And I can't even Google the claims that people wouldn't be able to
breathe on a train going a mile a minute.

John Savard

On Nov 13, 10:32*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:37*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:26:57 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:
Ahah! You weren't the same scientist who said that man would never be
able to travel faster than a galloping horse? Or that man would never
be able to fly?

Nope. Of course, there were never any scientists who said that. The
story is as much an urban legend as the one that says scientists once
thought the world was flat.

It's true that no "scientists" in the Middle Ages thought the world
was flat, but in Babylonia it was different.

On the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight... I had thought there
were claims of that, despite the existence of birds serving as a
refutation. But then, we currently have no flying birds large enough
to carry a man.

And I can't even Google the claims that people wouldn't be able to
breathe on a train going a mile a minute.

I had heard that one.

There were enough doubts about a human's ability to function or
survive in space that monkeys and chimps were sent up first. There
were flights as early as the forties to test the effects of space
flight on fruit flies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space