Nungali

I bet she is one of the few that can do scorpion kick !

In 'nature' my observations have been , regarding 'systems of four' that , the first 3 can be 'unified' but the fourth cannot be unified with the other three - in the same manner - but is either a resultant, a 'pendant to' or form of the 'original impetus' . So it makes me wonder IF the 4 forces can every be 'unified ' , perhaps G standing 'alone' IS the 'natural order' ?

You could climb to the top of Mt Whateverist .... then you could 'rise above it' .

Very 'Neddy '

Whats the other term they use ; naturally balanced .... aesthetics .... 'naturalness' ... or something ? I read a physicist arguing with another about why the Universe should have to comply to our standards and we should throw some concepts out . The rest ^ is rather interesting . Elsewhere I have been unpopular for suggesting that Multiverse . dimension concept is a mathematical exercise to fill in the holes and gaps ( mistakes ? ) that were percieved to have been in the 'Standard Model' ... and some variations that came after it . " I finished high school in 1995. It was the year the top quark was discovered, a prediction dating back to 1973. As I read the articles in the news, I was fascinated by the mathematics that allowed physicists to reconstruct the structure of elementary matter. It wouldn’t have been difficult to predict in 1995 that I’d go on to make a PhD in theoretical high energy physics. Little did I realize that for more than 20 years the so provisional looking standard model would remain undefeated world-champion of accuracy, irritatingly successful in its arbitrariness and yet impossible to surpass. We added neutrino masses in the late 1990s, but this idea dates back to the 1950s. The prediction of the Higgs, discovered 2012, originated in the early 1960s. And while the poor standard model has been discounted as “ugly” by everyone from Stephen Hawking to Michio Kaku to Paul Davies, it’s still the best we can do. Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts. During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973. For the last ten years you’ve been told that the LHC must see some new physics besides the Higgs because otherwise nature isn’t “natural” – a technical term invented to describe the degree of numerical coincidence of a theory. I’ve been laughed at when I explained that I don’t buy into naturalness because it’s a philosophical criterion, not a scientific one. But on that matter I got the last laugh: Nature, it turns out, doesn’t like to be told what’s presumably natural. The idea of naturalness that has been preached for so long is plainly not compatible with the LHC data, regardless of what else will be found in the data yet to come. And now that naturalness is in the way of moving predictions for so-far undiscovered particles – yet again! – to higher energies, particle physicists, opportunistic as always, are suddenly more than willing to discard of naturalness to justify the next larger collider. Now that the diphoton bump is gone, we’ve entered what has become known as the “nightmare scenario” for the LHC: The Higgs and nothing else. Many particle physicists thought of this as the worst possible outcome. It has left them without guidance, lost in a thicket of rapidly multiplying models. Without some new physics, they have nothing to work with that they haven’t already had for 50 years, no new input that can tell them in which direction to look for the ultimate goal of unification and/or quantum gravity. That the LHC hasn’t seen evidence for new physics is to me a clear signal that we’ve been doing something wrong, that our experience from constructing the standard model is no longer a promising direction to continue. We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance to decide which experiments are the most promising. I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism. Things can only get better. " - Matt Strassler.

Overpopulation ? Noooooooo ... I just know I prefer my local beach than the great tourist ones in Brazil

I admit it ... I am an anti- beardy so wrong ..... so very wrong .....

Good God Man ! What on earth goes on at your farm ! No people live like that on my farm, or the ones nearby !

Chill man ..... the dude needs a shave . He doesnt like it ... HE can complain . I been ribbin Lois for yinks, sometimes he pokes back . You dont think this topic is a poke ?????? Its just that I agree with him ! Maybe he look in the mirror and " Hmmmm , Nungers right ... I could do with a shave ... or at least a trim . " Who died and left you as chief mod ?

Where are the 'missing' superpartner particles from the LHC experiments ?

which one is the 'evil twin ' ?

Since 'nothingness' has no location .... Ch 42

Its sad to look at Russians - check this guy out ; get a shave and haircut - fer gawds sakes !

Cat justice ;

Here .... borrow a pair of our glasses then

I'm a Southerner .... I am so far south I am upside down ! " When The Man Went South. " Now there is a great film ! ( sorry , no bang bang or cars or .... ) A pacific Islander decides to go south to see what is there . Everyone thinks he a bit nuts " It's virtually myth ! Not our place ! " He goes ; paddles, island hops, walks along beaches until , he gets to the rumoured south islands . He gets caught up between a fight with the easterners and the westerners there. He eventually gets them to adopt his crazy and strange idea , to try and make peace by delivering fish offerings. But after a few , not to be outdone, each side increases the offering ( What ! They think they can catch more fish than us ! ) until, it is of a ridiculous size, too much to eat and they start to fight again . And he goes back to the north . ( check out at 1:32 ! )

Wait until you settle more , maybe there are some seeds of ideas in there that you can develop better or use later when seen with more clarity ... or chuck them out then . 'Crazy visions' can have some symbolic and analytical value later , as they also hold a little map of whatever journey you went on. Try not to be too attached to them though .

Thanks for your clarifications, I see you pointing out the general mistakes in the article, and I thanked you for and thank you again for that . I was focusing on a specific part , the bit I mentioned and I dont mean to take up your time - you actually didnt need to answer me in the first place and That would have taken up less of your time, because you are explaining things to me that I already know that you seem to think I dont know. In any case , my point was meant to be that water is not the only substance that can float its solid form in its liquid form, as I said, I can do that with a metal . (I even have a thread and posts and pictures of it on here somewhere that I thought you responded to ??? ) . And actually, that is a pretty rare quality for any substance . ... as far as I know, If I am wrong, I am interested to see examples ( Brian ? If you are reading and this isnt taking up all your time , maybe you can clear that up ? ) As far as that statement being 'contradicted ' by " "and in contrast to most other liquids, water unbelievably expands when it is frozen."" I see that as a different quality ; one that is related but here it relates to 'most other liquids' - and not metal . I wasnt working with a liquid. And the metal I work with isnt a liquid at 'room' temperature or anywhere near any temperature in any habitable room . Or again, has no relation to mercury .... more to lead. When its melted and then 'frozen' ( a relative term in this case and NOT related to water freezing temperature) the solidifying metal floats on the liquid 'melted' or molten metal . Then if one knows all the tricks of doing this and extracting the solidified metal from where it is floating on the surface ( just below it .... the surface has a high 'surface tension' ) .... and one is very careful and can lift the floating solid out, you may get something like this

Historical picture analysis Kinderwagen .

I see ... very well then Mr Theleaner .... tell me , what do you see in this ?

< Hits Apec with her handbag >

You made me think of a classic movie scene .... ... but he is using a handbag .