I agree. Lambo, is it possible for you to transplant the following posts to a new thread called "Thread for elitist physics plonkers"? 462, 490-492, 497, 501-511, 514-519, 521. Then this thread can stay focused on Trivial Pursuits. Ta.
My response seems to have been sucked into the vortex. One might say "Just like fast Eddy". By the way, invest in a secure VPN provider, plenty out there for around 5 quid per month, that way you'll be able to view the BBC link I posted...plus most UK terrestrial TV stations (BBC 1-4, ITV 1-4, Ch4 & Ch5). Some good stuff (current live streaming & extensive archives) - never watch anything else - except, ironically on N.America cable tv is the football. Mind you, there's also some terrible crap on UK TV too.
Thanks, I'll make a note of that, but (particularly now, during the footie season) we don't even have enough time to watch what we want to watch. We've got a backlog to be watched some time in the future (maybe catch up on some after my surgery on Weds. am). Being retired is brill, but so much to do, and so little time ... [during the day, NOT waiting for the Big Bang (IF there could ever have been one ...)]. If you can reverse your vortex, I would like to see your response. IF (and only if) you're interested, I have an (as yet, unfinished) paper (aimed at the educated layman) expanding on my gravity/spin ideas. I'm currently arguing out some details with an arch-enemy, 't Hooft, but I aim to get it out this year.
I've read a few books on superstring theory and all that noodle soup interesting but filled with theory
In this case, I mean unsupported by observations or by other empirical evidence. I have a strong suspicion you know that!
You've missed out the word "alleged". The TP's are (incorrectly, imo) attributing certain observations of galactic motions to such an object. The 'observations' themselves are questioned by many cosmologists; if the observations are indeed accurate, there are other, far simpler and more plausible explanations. See my post #504 above for one such possible explanation.
Does not "theoretical physics" lead to "real physics" through experimental observation & verification ? With the caveat that future theory and experimental proof may well modify the "laws" of real physics ? Granted, some blind alleys may happen, but they are inherent to the nature of human inquiry for a better understanding of the real world. Note my signature below.
Not wanting to sound rude, however if physics, quantum or otherwise, is of interest to you then please feel free to start your own separate thread on the subject and stop sabotaging this one. Ta.
Some people on here probably think that in comparison to them he indeed was. Whereas some of us know it...
It's an essential part of any research. You have a theory based on what you observe. Then you conduct experiments to validate it. If the results support your theory, great, you have made progress. If they don't, it's still progress. You consider the implications and reformulate the theory as necessary. "Changing your mind" is also known as "learning".
