Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- From: "BobW" <nimby_NEEDSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:51:07 -0800
<bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5308c416-ed76-46d1-ad2e-f6a249fab480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 15, 4:40 pm, Martin Griffith <mart_in_medina@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
fromhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
figure 2 on page 18 is very pretty, didn't understand anything else
and 42 does not appear in the doc :-(
I didn't understand it either, but I did recognise a couple of the
names acknowledged - if it's for real I'll be disappointed. I'd been
hoping for an even simpler theory of everything - something I'd have
some hope of understanding.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
It's impressive to listen to people that are versed in this level of
physics. It's like a foreign language. Even the math involved in the
solutions for the Einstein field equations is unfathomable to people not
familiar with tensor calculus or differential geometry (that would be me).
I hope, someday, to understand this stuff. However, even if I don't do it
now, I can always wait for my next life cycle. :-|
Bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- From: Tim Williams
- Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- References:
- OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- From: Martin Griffith
- Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- From: bill . sloman
- OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- Next by Date: Re: Light bulb power control/dimmer
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- Next by thread: Re: OT: new theory, it's not 42 either
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
