If we could communicate with some of the animals, they would have told us long ago that an ultra violet spectrum or above the magnetic energy around the earth because they could perceive them. The point is that just because we don’t perceive something, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Then of course, there is the huge problem of perception itself. Our interpretation of what we do glimpse in the Universe may be very skewed. We make interpretations based on what we experience, believe or imagine. Plus, since the observer cannot observe without producing some effect on what he has observed, how can you know for certain what is there when it isn’t being observed?

Since everything is made of energy, even our thoughts and imaginings, and the smaller the sub atomic particles or proposed particles that compose it, the more unpredictable it becomes, how can you know what affects the particles of energy that our thoughts contain and the particles of other energies zipping around have on each other? I suspect that there may be something even more basic and less tangible than energy. That would take quite an experiment to prove.

Interestingly, some of the imaginings of many of the ancient mystics or elite of some ancient spiritual theories, have much in common with many of the scientific theories being proposed or proven today.

It seems to me that theories of gravity still have some gaps and we thought we had that all sewn up because Newton had proven that it worked and that it could be used to predict how things moved. Then Einstein revised that, and everyone thought it was a done deal again. But then quantum physic came along and some of the newer observation don’t always seem to fit as well as one would like
Why is it so weak compared to the other forces. No one knows.

The point is that is it presumptuous to every assume that we have it figured out. Not that we shouldn’t try. But imagination must come before theories and theories before proof and proof before anyone considers it a fact. But facts also can be presumptuous. Until we have the senses to see everything and the wisdom and awareness to fully and accurately understand what we are seeing, any proven fact is just a highly effective theory.

So quit the back biting. All the disciplines have something to ofter. And people generally believe what they want to believe, “facts” or not. However, I do think anything should be presented accurately, pro and cons, results – one that prove or disprove.

Especially for lay people like me who are fascinated, curious and intrigued by new ideas, information and discoveries but lack the technical education to understand equations.

You may dismiss these observations from a mere lay person if you like. I am still eager for all the new information that I can get as the result of your pioneering research and discoveries. It is exciting, intriguing and fascinating. nd the Universe is amazing.

Thanks,
Lauren

Maybe it’s a little of the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. That it isn’t just the fundamental nature as cause of everything arising from it, but the element of feedback is integral to what the nature of the fundamentals are in the first place? Much more confusing of course, with more of an eternal cycle, than first cause.

Interesting article on E. O. Wilson’s latest doings that brought the observation to mind;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216170149-QwYV7VZa+6I+LmSmo/lSjQ

I was wondering what do you think about CMB-based tests (like Integrated Sachs-Wolfe, Cold Spot) for string theory and braneworld models.

With future gains in the uncertainties and error bars in the correlation between CMB and LSS (as Mark said here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/06/15/evolving-potentials/#comment-318632) we can use evolving potentials to make predictions on f(R) models, and maybe (imho) on braneworld models too.

Thank you very much

Tyler on Jul 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Lawrence wrote:

“Some sort of new physical principle I suspect is required to make better sense of what we are working on.”

Interesting how much more often I see some variety of this sentiment expressed these days compared to, say, 5 years ago. Not counting crackpots.

The reason revolutions do tend to originate on the margins and in the cracks is because growth is bottom up, be it biology, geology, economics, politics, etc. So long as earlier process can contain and define later process, the structure continues to grow, but when top down pressure and bottom up growth create a disconnect, start looking for a new model.

I am posting from the birthplace of Rumi from an internet cafe so don’t mind my language.

Ingilisi-ye-shoma kamil ast. Shoma dar Balkh hastid?

I think questions like this can be divided into cases of various degrees of confidence. I’d bet every cent I own that classical general relativity continues to hold just as well a few metres inside the event horizon of a large black hole as it does outside the hole (and for a large enough hole someone could even take me up on this bet; we could jump in side by side, and the loser could hand over a small ingot of gold to the winner before dying).

And I agree when Sean says:

it would not be crazy to take those predictions seriously

Certainly not crazy. Still, when it comes to making claims about a literally infinite unobservable region of the universe, based on our observations of a finite region, I’d certainly be much less confident than I would be about the interior of a black hole.

Whoever you are, I don’t recall you ever making a substantive argument of any kind here.

As for my comment and Sean’s response, I’ll let others judge which was more substantive.

Dear Sean: there is a vast gulf fixed between “reliable” and “endlessly repetitive, with no substantial argument”.

I also strongly disagree with your closing line about
“extremely disproportionate amount of attention”. What’s disproportionate about it? It’s good when interesting things receive more attention than boring things, and this is a canonical example. Examples of things that really *do* receive more attention than they are worth are easy to come by: nano-anything, medical “research”, etc etc etc.