November 24, Shout!
Although no longer employed in academia, he regularly attends conferences and writes book reviews for The Observatory, as well as the occasional journal paper. Phillip is a regular commenter on this blog. One could also think that Sabine is a native speaker or, rather, a native writer of English.
The style is breezy without rambling, Die hard 4 reaction direct quotations make it clear what the illustrious interviewees actually said, without any filter of interpretation but see below for a caveat.
Sabine's own position is very clear; this is almost an op-ed. Whether or not one agrees with her, this approach is preferable to introducing one's own biases into what might appear to the uninitiated as an objective description.
Enough praise; now for the critique. Let me emphasize, though, that I agree with everything which I don't discuss here, which is most of the book. In the interest of stimulating discussion, I'll concentrate on those few areas where I see things differently.
It is not always clear what needs to be explained.
In discussions of fine-tuning and so on, one often reads about numerical coincidences, which imply that two numbers are roughly the same, but also about small or large numbers, which allegedly also need an explanation.
Since the inverse of a large ratio is a small ratio, I will speak only of small numbers in what follows. It needs to be clear what is even potentially puzzling: In other words, if the smallness of some quantity is the result of a near cancellation, then that implies a ratio near 1 of the quantities which almost cancel; if the number is just small in relation to some other quantity because it has nothing to do with that other quantity, then it certainly needs no explanation.
Another aspect of the presentation I disagree with is the claim that the standard model has been "souped up" with dark matter and dark energy, as if these were some sort of epicycles, fudge factors brought in so that theory and observations match. On her blog, Sabine has often pointed out that general relativity says nothing about the sources of gravitation, so while dark matter might be interesting or even mysterious because we don't know what it is, it is not some sort of addition to general relativity.
The same goes for the cosmological constant. Yes, Einstein initially introduced it as a fudge factor, and later abandoned it, but the universe is independent of the contingent history via which we have learned about it.
From a mathematical point of view, one could just have easily included the cosmological constant from the beginning. Indeed, in other areas of physics, what is not forbidden actually happens, and if someone claims that something doesn't happen, that some quantity is 0, etc, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Actually, what is interesting is that no fudge factors have had to be introduced. Despite a huge amount of cosmological data, a model with just a few parametersall of which were known even back when there was almost no datawhich was derived when there were some data but considerably less than now still fits the observations.
I have tremendous respect for George Ellis. However, I don't always agree with him, even on matters of science. I think that Sabine lets him too easily off the hook because they seem to agree on many issues. Ellis dismisses the idea that we could be living in a simulation, but is careful to point out that science cannot disprove the existence of God.
One could just as well say that we cannot disprove that we are living in a simulation and dismiss the idea of God. Strictly speaking, one can disprove neither, but can use various arguments to discuss the probabilities of both.
Also, after criticizing certain ideas as being non-scientific, Ellis says of one of his own ideas, that nothing is physically infinite: But we should use it as a principle. I think that this is a good example of confirmation bias.
Interestingly, Tegmark is also critical of the idea of physical infinity but, in contrast to Ellis, is a strong proponent of the multiverse. My main disagreement with Sabine concerns fine-tuning. I think that this is due to an unnecessary attachment to probability.
Many normally think that fine-tuning and low probability go hand in hand. As Sabine points out, though, without knowledge of the underlying probability distribution, one cannot say whether an anthropic explanation involving the multiverse leads to likely values.
But is that even necessary? One can discuss fine-tuning for life, in the sense that slight changes of various parameters within the otherwise allowed range would lead to a universe incompatible with life.
There can be absolutely no debate that the universe is fine-tuned in this sense.DIE HARD 4 REACTION There were really a certain person ought to have their will and wants to do things that make the entire state break down. This certain people do jobs through a high technology in order to do evil deeds not imagining the result of it as they want it to be -- to be a miserable nation.
Die Hard with a Vengeance is a American action thriller film and the third in the Die Hard film rutadeltambor.com was co-produced and directed by John McTiernan (who directed Die Hard), written by Jonathan Hensleigh, and stars Bruce Willis as New York City Police Department Lieutenant John McClane, Samuel L.
Jackson as McClane's reluctant partner Zeus Carver, and Jeremy Irons as Simon Gruber. Jan 17, · Eric Calvin and Aaron react to and discuss screenjunkies honest trailer for die hard watch the trailer here: rutadeltambor.com?v=4kXMaToMQTE Visi. On average, 1 in 4 hospitalisations of people happen because of alcohol.
Drinking to intoxication can put you into situations that might be dangerous, embarrassing, or which you may later regret. Listen to the best 80s Hard Rock, Hair Metal & Hair Bands online radio station. We play the perfect mix of hits and deep cuts. Tune in now and crank it up! In , Willis donated the blood-soaked tank top he wore in Die Hard to the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian..
“YIPPEE-KI-YAY” STOLE THE MOVIE. It was a simple line.