Oh, it's a user request.

If you didn't have so many accounts, you wouldn't have that problem.

Always the pros vs. the cons, isn't it?

Are you always willing to accept the end results and findings when it comes to scientific measurements and analysis when it comes to a specific scientific field of interest.

As Bob DeWoody says:

Unfortunately claims like these give ammunition to individuals and organizations that support controversial causes like the anti nuclear movement and bans against scientific medical research.

Do we still have a need for nuclear weapons in this world?

Is there possibly a better alternative or solution to be found?

Regarding the recent breakthrough discovery.

There is no secret that the subject of gravity and time does not go home with everyone.

A difference in time by means of measuring two different atomic clocks placed on each separate journey around the earth does not give any explanation or proof that gravity is involved or is a factor.

Supposedly the Universe came into existence and then started growing from either nothing or at least something less than an atom in size. Is it supposed to be having its known or current physical properties all the time? In the very young Universe, light would only take a couple of seconds or possibly minutes in order to traverse from one end to another and not too much would be happening during that time except for the continuous expansion (or inflation) taking place.

Light is supposed to be particles. Photons supposedly are having mass while neutrinos are thought to be massless.

In order to understand the creation of the Universe by means of the Big Bang, an understanding of black holes and their properties is also needed.

Gravity is supposed to be present by means of fields (gravitational fields showing up through the presence of the bending of light from massive galaxies and galaxy clusters is just one such example).

By means of being just mass, gravity is supposed to be non-flexible in nature.

When being associated with energy, it rather becomes part of a fourth-dimensional space time. We are supposed to be able to possibly observe such a four dimensional space when observing objects that actually are present in space, like galaxies, neutron stars and black holes - but not inside such particular objects themselves, even when they are supposed to be black holes.

Photons don't have a rest mass, neutrinos may have a very small one.
Tullio

---

My best assumption is that Mark never is cheating us and the fact that I received a small enveloped letter from Berkeley today (with many local pictures printed on the outside) which has yet to be opened.

Thanks, by the way. Nice to have friends!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8f4GRV26w&list=PLLc5UmAUON-X6pJssPwnBbac-bMWT8woW

Where does this start and where does it end?

Sigh.

Yes.

Take an hour of your time to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu8GewiW_6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu8GewiW_6E&list=RDTu8GewiW_6E#t=4438

Tunk tunk - test your sound.

17my13aa.21855.23891.438086664197.12.6 (CPU task).

Not reported yet and I only got a blank line in SMV.

But if you bring up the graphics from the start, you have something there.

Apparently there is now a new turn to an old twist.

There was an article on news.yahoo.com a couple of days ago.

The following is the sentence in a nutshell, quoted, since it is from the article.

Together, the two frameworks cover the four fundamental forces in the universe; general relativity deals with gravity, while quantum mechanics focuses on the weak force, the strong force and electromagnetism".

I have not read anything more yet since then, so this is my first, initial response.

The article is able to put into one single sentence an explanation of the difference between the theory of gravity and what is known as quantum mechanics. According to this article which I have yet to find once again, the theory of gravity is about forces in space while quantum mechanics is covering weak and strong nuclear forces and electromagnetism, but not gravity.

So why was this kept a secret for so long? If you are able to find that specific article or have the knowledge otherwise, you have it all there in a nutshell and it looks quite plausible, even logical to me.

One small thing to mention here though. I really should say "special" theory of gravity. This theory of gravity is in two parts, the first part, dealing with special relativity, was presented in 1905 and is dealing with gravity. The second part was presented in 1915 or 1916 is dealing with the subject of time.

Only dealing with the first part right now, this now means that the theory of gravity is supposed to be one subject and the theory of quantum mechanics is yet another subject.

For now these two theories have not been joined or merged into one single theory.

So what is the next step here?

First, are special and general theory of relativity still two different subjects and secondly, is it possible to merge quantum theory into either special theory or possibly general theory of relativity (or maybe the opposite way around)?

Again, general theory of relatvity is supposed to be dealing with time and may not be directly related to the subject of quantum mechanics.

Again, these are my initial thoughts about this subject here. Please use the search engines of both Google as well as Yahoo! and also the Wikipedia in order to find out more about these things. Also YouTube should be a source for inspiration and thoughts.

Substitute small caps with large caps where appropriate.

Special relativity does not deal with gravity. General relativity does it. The recent discoveries of Bicep-2 at the South Pole seem to indicate that gravitation is also quantized, that is it obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, but nobody so far has been able to quantize the gravitational field, possibly because it is highly non-linear.
Tullio

---

Thanks for that reply, tullio.

Anyway, what a magnificent universe we are living in.

We are supposed to be exploring its secrets, aren't we?

Read Batter Up's post in Science (non-SETI), message 1494326.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=73805&postid=1494326

But at times it all becomes a question of money. Are we able to afford all these things?

There are scientists who want to explore the moon and other planets, especially the planet Mars.

The Jupiter moon Europa may be having a stable, although cold environment for scientists to possible explore by means of a future expedition to this place.

Life as we know it may be readily found in a swamp. It could also be floating around in space for that matter.

We are looking for intelligence in the search for E.T. Not everything thought of as being intelligent is based on biology.

For our own purposes we have now been able to create robots which are close to be able to carry out their duties on their own without a constant intervention by us. One such example are cleaning robots being used at hospitals.

Also science fiction movies and maybe even music as well are factors when it comes to development which means that technology and intelligence are running hand in hand with each other in a constantly evolving fashion.

I don't believe much in Artificial Intelligence. We are not even able to find a big plane full of people. Sigh.
Tullio

---