—

Elongated spellings (”soooooooo”), multiple exclamation marks (!!!) suggest a teenage female. The blogger is probably a teenage boy if a posting is rife with hip-hop terminology such as “aight” (translation: “all right”) and “true dat” (”I agree!”).

The twenty- and thirty-somethings are more likely to use complete sentences. These men tend to favor vivid adjectives such as “sordid” and “hilarious,” while the women favor elaborately emotive turns of phrase, such as “wishing I could just crawl out of my skin” (a real example). Male baby-boomers, on the other hand, tend to favor stale hip-hop-isms such as “jiggy” and “bling.” They also pepper their blogs with terms such as “prostate” and “IRA.”

—

So, if you are using the term “bling”, be aware that you are looking like a stale, male baby-boomer trying to seem younger than you are. No names mentioned, you know who you are.

You say: “..if all one heard is the same rant over and over again?”

You are too cruel to yourself. It is not he who listens not, or is in the habit of repeating himself. It is rather the ignorant, who do not listen. The rants come from those who wear not a fig leaf of experimental data.

I’m glad to learn that you’re a “very serious” physicist interested in “ultimate cosmology” (who will assuredly continue to contribute to the “great academic discourse as it continues from here to eternity”). If I may so much as “opine”, however, I believe in sooth that the “eggplant” expanded in exponential, rather than “geometric” or “logarthmic ratio”. But whatever the “mathematical equation”, may your multifarious, multidimensional, and multiversal claims continue to “radiate around the blogosphere”.

-Sam

P.S. There was some interesting discussion, but I would never have made it through it without our comedic genius of a host

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don’t make a “real” black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase’s point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a “dual” black hole. But what does “dual” mean in this context? It’s not “two-ness” in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

Some are better astute and linking to the origins of learning, then others, and more sensitive, yet very demanding for what is real.

Because you have a personal opinion about atheistic revelations I won’t hold it against you:) You learn to filter personal bias about things from those superbloggers, and discern personal opinion from actual fact?

I mean because you might hum in accordance as a opinion, does not mean it might be the right road to luminosity? It required a more detailed look. Thank’s a Krug.

So you look for the Distlers, and those who were very staunch “against supporting” to see why? Peter might have serve his use, but as time marches on, the tempered views needed to console the peering minds who view reasonable and effctive talk, to bring them into the questions of science and not stop the from wondering why.

Sorry to those who hold Peter on such a pesdestal, but at times who shall stand there and guide us in our thinking, if all one heard is the same rant over and over again?

Blogging is easier, but learning about relativity is always a struggle even for the best of minds? Non!