Siphoning

  • 36 Replies
  • 7973 Views
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2009, 09:36:43 AM »
If they discover the Higgs boson, that would be cool as well.

Shouldnt be long now, they just have to rebuild it after one of the scientists spilt beer over the superconductors during the opening ceremony :D

They have to rebuild the Higgs boson? ???

I think he meant rebuilding some parts of the LHC after the crash. ;)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2009, 09:43:26 AM »
I think he meant rebuilding some parts of the LHC after the crash. ;)

The LHC wasn't mentioned in his post, nor in any previous posts in the discussion.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3792
  • +0/-0
  • We are as one.
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2009, 09:47:25 AM »
in the above space-time

What above space-time?

He was referring to the above post you noob!

That's odd, since no post above his directly mentions "space-time."  My inquiry, you bumbling fool, was more to show that he had copy-pasted something rather than come up with a post that was coherent to the discussion.

*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2009, 10:11:02 AM »
I think he meant rebuilding some parts of the LHC after the crash. ;)

The LHC wasn't mentioned in his post, nor in any previous posts in the discussion.

I know, but I still think that is what he meant. It's only speculations until he can confirm it.

*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2009, 10:12:53 AM »
in the above space-time

What above space-time?

He was referring to the above post you noob!

That's odd, since no post above his directly mentions "space-time."  My inquiry, you bumbling fool, was more to show that he had copy-pasted something rather than come up with a post that was coherent to the discussion.

Newtonian gravity models gravity in terms of force fields, General relativity models gravity in terms of space time curvature. Both these models are primarily mathematical rather than ontological in nature.

In special relativity we use flat space time to model the motion of objects, etc. Special relativity is more a kinematical theory that doesn't model gravity. But when we start to use a wider variety of space times (i.e. don't stick to just flat space time) we find we can model gravity too using space time.

What I'm trying to say is general relativity doesn't really try to answer questions like 'what causes gravity?' and 'what ware these warps in the fabric of space time really?', it just provides a mathematical model that makes predictions that can be tested.

Okay that may seem rather dry, but really that's all that general relativity does, any philosophical implications are things that we read into the theory.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +88/-130
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2009, 11:18:55 AM »
I think he meant rebuilding some parts of the LHC after the crash. ;)

The LHC wasn't mentioned in his post, nor in any previous posts in the discussion.

The LHC wasn't mentioned, but it was implied (that is unless you know of another facility searching for the Higgs Boson that is undergoing repair).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Siphoning
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2009, 11:46:02 AM »
Yes I meant the LHC.

Robosteve you are a bit of a moron aren't you.
I wish Tom Bishop were here, he's more fun than you!