The math works just fine but this doesn't work in a quantized reality. Why demand that matter exists everywhere anyway? Why not just postulate that the flat universe extends forever in emptiness and that our observable universe is all there is? (this is not necessarily what I think, but I did ask earlier if this was Physically permissible)
The universe is observed to be both homogeneous and isotropic at large scales. I know you're the linguistics mod from those stupid "note from the linguistics mod" posts you like to do, but homogeneous in this context means constant density and isotropic means no preferred direction. It's true that you can do an infinite sum and get a finite answer, but it's also true that an infinite universe still works perfectly well with a constant energy density (and therefore infinite energy.) Instead of talking about energy (infinite) you instead need to talk about energy per unit volume (finite) and everything goes through with no problems. It's when you get an infinite energy density like in classical GR you have a problem.
Fraggle Rocker is one of the most knowledgable and intelligent posters at sciforums. You obviously don't read his many posts. His physics may at times be a little off, but he is definitely not "stupid" nor does he make stupid posts.
I don't personally think Fraggle Rocker is stupid, or anything near it, but your endorsement does him few favors. Aren't you the guy that's suing the government to stop the LHC from engulfing the Earth in a giant wave of unicorns or something?
Very funny, ha ha. It's actually a serious matter that was not resolved, whether or not the LHC lead-lead collisions could make strangelets. CERN argued it could not, but developed and installed a strangelet detector, just in case it made benign ones. The "government" dismissed the US case on the basis that if CERN destroys the planet, it would not be the fault of the "government" which only funded some of it. But there are lots of nuts out there that like to take cheap shots at knowledgable people, which I dislike, hence my comments regarding Fraggle Rocker, a senior engineer with a good knowledge of linguistics (better than mine).
Yeah well I have to admit your response was a bit disarming, as I expected a frothy-mouthed diatribe. My simple world is frequently muddied by reality. Anyway here's to intelligent posters, a flat universe, and the Earth surviving LHC's flirtations with disaster... :cheers:
If true, there is no way to establish standing based on plaintiff's fears of strangelets forming. Indeed, the LHC papers largely address that there is no way, reliably known to the experts from empirically tested methodology, that dangerous objects (be them strangelets or blackholes) could be formed. So plaintiffs must first demonstrate expert status to give opinion testimony, then that experts say objects will be created and then that experts say that the same objects, and not similarly named hypothetical objects, pose a danger, and that they should have done so in March 2008. Even then, plaintiffs should have been denied Article III standing because such claims to damage by anticipated global catatrophe are not particularized to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs alone. Where individuals fail to have standing, organizations might find it, but notable, there is no evidence that the purported 501(c) organization was established. Here the plaintiff confuses part for whole. CERN as a whole has not appeared in court to argue via counsel. Indeed, an appellate panel stated unaminously in a ruling that CERN was not properly served and was therefore not part of the case. "CERN has never been properly served, and is not a party to this case." But CERN delegated authority to a safety panel which commisioned the opinions of scientists (at least some of which were non-employees), who argued in reports, certain of which were eventually published in independent peer-reviewed physics journals of good reputation. The press arm of CERN, which is not legally required to present only the opinion of CERN as a whole, issued press releases announcing this work's completion. Finally, prior to this study an unrelated group of researchers sought to look at the fast-moving parts of collisions based on cosmic ray studies in which some cosmic ray researchers associated some traces tentatively with strangelets and so they named their detector after the purported "stranglets" and other objects called centauros. But even the lead author changed his mind as more data came in. So when plaintiff says "CERN argued ...", I would have respond with that Wikipedia staple: "Citation required." Too many times, the gaps in the plaintiff's knowledge is spanned only by the plaintiff's willingness to interpret words in the the way that the plaintiff wishes was meant. Here "goverment" is in scare quotes, because in the first case it is referring to a US Federal Appellate Court panel for the 9th Circuit, and in the second place it was refering to the DOE and NSF which are not at fault for claims arising by a third party because you cannot trace between the filing or non-filing of paperwork to the actions of a third party. The Appellate Court explained this clearly, which requires the parsing of paragraphs -- not mere sentences, when they wrote: "The European Center [sic] for Nuclear Research (“CERN”) proposed and constructed the Collider, albeit with some U.S. government support. The U.S. government enjoys only observer status on the CERN council, and has no control over CERN or its operations. Accordingly, the alleged injury, destruction of the earth, is in no way attributable to the U.S. government’s failure to draft an environmental impact statement." Nuts who declare with the certain presumption of knowledge that a certain post will be their last ever and then update it ad nauseum? Or nuts who wish to restrict the discussion to only knowledgable physics experts and lawyers, despite having the credentials of neither? I think the anteceedents of your pronouns here are unnesessarily opaque and/or missing. The related oral history of what happened prior to the 2010 Honolulu appeal or whilst it was being argued, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian. -- apologies to Livy and the go-to-guy for MS NBC. The above may look like, but obviously is not since the author is not a lawyer and importantly is not YOUR lawyer, a legal opinion, so you should not rely upon it.
Wow, you really are a lawyer aren't you? I didn't say Fraggle was stupid, I said he occasionally makes stupid posts. The word stupid in this case referred to the logical fallacy he likes to employ when putting "note from the linguistics mod," above a post, argument from authority. In the politest possible way, STFU.
well, not exactly, maybe they meant, it can be curved like if it is flat, while it's not flat, forexample a parallel univerce, or another univerce, doesnt mean to be, on ours, what if it is, in our own univerce, and our univerce, is in a chain of other univerces, and all in one, maybe it's like, each one have it's code, like on tv satellite, the tv channels that are on the same satellite, each one have a frequency, a code, or something, data, or, coordinates,
If the term is meant to mean someone who is licensed to practice law, no he isn't, based on his 1970's legal education and his 2008 answer to a Federal judge. In the US, the individual states have legal associations, or bars, who police themselves. By typical state statue, to represent another in court or to perform professional services, typically one would have to be admitted to this bar by passing its ethical and skill exams and maintain that status by good behavior and paying of dues. By personal communication, the California bar exam may be among the toughest, which implies that in some states the bar exam may be significantly easier. I'm deeply ignorant of the situation in the UK, but the two roles seem to be separated into barristers (who go to court) and solicitors (who perform professional services). // In another difference between the US and the UK, the water that they bring you at many a US restaurant when you order tea is in no way hot enough to brew tea properly. Has this been your experience?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... That's generally true, but solicitors do appear in court as part of the professional services you mention. According to wikipedia, barristers are hired to represent the client by solicitors. Thankfully, I've never needed to know the distinction. Sadly, I've not been to the US for many years. Don't you all drink coffee over there?!
I was just trying to emphasize that in US usage, a lawyer is in the unique position to give legal advice because indemnification insurance is available to those professionals only, and lawyers form a self-governing class of person uniquely privileged in the eyes of the law. I do this because a certain person on this thread wanted me to stop pointing out logical missteps and gave as a reason that I am no lawyer. This is particularly galling if said gentleman is neither lawyer nor expert in the field of science on which he makes pronouncements. No slight was directed at you, prometheus, I was just kvetching. I will drink unadulterated dark-roast coffee with breakfast. My neighbors only tolerate coffee with whipping cream and sweeteners in it. The rise of the other other* "Evil Empire" of Starbucks is driven by the US's willingness to pay for fat, sugar and caffeine. But my modus operandi is to be seen drinking from a 1L or greater container of Diet Coke. Back in college, I developed hypothyroidism and attempted to self-medicate with up to 6L per morning before I began looking for medical reasons for my constant feelings of fatigue. * Rupert Murdoch's media empire and that Redmond, Washington firm that seeks to own the Internet may fall by the wayside, but the empire of six-dollar confectionery stimulants is likely eternal.
No slight was assumed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You carry on calling out Walt as much as humanly possible. Consider it a public service. 6 L !!!11one Holy moley, you must have a bladder of steel! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's what today's recruiters want to see on a résumé. But phrase it as "Exceeds industry-standard targets for retention."
In my book, that's the same as calling someone stupid, notwithstanding your efforts to weasel out of it.
Not sure what you mean by radius of curvature - I don't believe that such a concept makes sense for intrinsic geometric objects, you need your n-dimensional curvy space to be embedded in say R^(n+1) for that to make sense - but the observable universe is ~45 billion light years in radius, so stick a few extra zeros in there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
