timo

As far as I know, the c++ keyword "private" has nothing to do with preventing your code from reverse engineering. It is a keyword realizing an object oriented programming paradigm (encapsulation) that marks certain parts of the respective object (more precisely: class) to be accessible only by other parts of the object, but not from the outside (more precisely: not from outside the same class).

Could you give a small summary of what you are proposing me to read? I find it somewhat alien to be given a link that "I might be interested in" from a person that neither knows me nor tells me why I might be interested. EDIT: your reply below is perhaps a bit shorter than the average summary I am used to, but still "thank you".

Someone should ask kaptial where exactly he thinks the problem is!

How about bothering to write it down here explicitly and explain in detail where you see problems with it?

I suspect that if e.g. dark matter turns out to be Neutralinos, then the term "Neutralinos" will at least compete with "dark matter", if not mostly replace it.

From F=ma and a²+b²=c² we unambigiously conclude that [math] F = m \sqrt{b^2 - c^2} [/math]. Since we are in a relativistic framework, we know that E=mc². Therefore, [math] F^2 = m^2 b^2 - mE [/math].

I find it somewhat odd when people with obvious difficulties to write texts in their home country's official language complain about the education level being too high.

The equation relating the structure of spacetime to its content (matter) is called Einstein equations.

Nope. I'm not much into the history of experimental physics. Currently running experiments would be ATLAS/CMS and ALICE at the LHC. The former (ATLAS and CMS) try (amongst other things) to get a more precise measurement of the top-quark mass, the latter (ALICE) is concerned with creating quark-gluon plasma (that in its theoretical description presumably foots on the existence of quarks). Technically, both experiments would qualify as being different from "electrons were fired at protons", since it's proton-proton and lead-lead that is shot onto each other. But at least the proton-proton case is admittedly quite similar to electron-proton.

Pretty much nothing I guess, assuming you keep the same math. To understand what I mean by that, you don't need to go to quantum mechanics. Take the concept of "force" in classical physics. Whether you treat it as something that physically exists or as a purely made-up concept created for performing calculations does not effect the outcome of a calculation or the actual process. Only the rather inconsequential interpretation ("see a force of work" vs. "see an effect that is commonly modelled via the concept of force").

I think the people mainly interested in such a list are people not active in the respective fields of research, who happen not to be the target audience for research journals.

I think the two statements of mine are very explicit. No idea what "elliptical" is supposed to mean (googling for it I found the explanation "characterized by extreme economy of expression or omission of superfluous elements" - is that what you meant?).

I do not understand what you are trying to say/ask here. There is no minimum amount of transferable energy. A photon is a physical object, not a unit of energy. Not sure what you are saying there. Certainly, there is no smallest real number greater than zero.

It doesn't even have the units of an energy.

One might be tempted to believe it actually should be an electrodynamics or particle physics discussion.

The universe is, I believe, usually defined as the space and time and its matter content. In other words, you are asking about the looks of the universe in the absence of the universe. Note that asking about the universe in the absence of space and time (as you just did) is different from asking about the universe in the absence of matter (which you actually seem to mean). The question how the universe looks like in the absence of any form of matter (or radiation) content is a different one. First of all, the complete absence of content raises the question how you could sensibly define anything (like location, temperature, ...). If you ignore the question and simply put zeroes for all matter contributions in our current model for the universe, then I believe you were to end up with a static universe, i.e. just empty space that doesn't do anything (neither shrink nor expand). I have, however, not explicitly performed this calculation. So take that answer with a grain of salt.

Absolutely. It's genetic. All people genetically inheriting from the medieval Europeans are pedophiles. There's nothing you can do about it.

That happens not to be the point here. Electrons do not have a 3D shape. As a consequence of that, they do not have a volume (I find not having a 3D shape the more relevant property, but I acknowledge that people think "zero volume" or "no volume" sounds more scientific). That they can exist within some volume ("occupy it") is neither relevant for the question whether they can touch (in the most natural interpretation of "touch", at least), nor particularly interesting or surprising.

I've experienced an interest and talent for music in mathematicians, mostly. I was under the impression that this correlation between math and music is well known. Myself, I mostly hear Punk (for its simplicity that makes it suitable as background noise) and a wide variety of Techno: mostly Ambient and Drum'n'Bass, but sometimes also the stereotypical Techno with a straight hard baseline (when writing code or doing similar brainless but work-intensive jobs on the computer). Classical music bores me to death, which is a bit unfortunate since some of my European colleagues play in an orchestra (it bores me so much I don't even come to their concerts despite the social aspect of it).

Electrons do not have a 3D shape. Hence, it's not clear what it means for electrons to "physically touch".

I would have googled for the groups that DH mentioned and looked at their homepages and publications.

I think MacSwell asked for actually performed experiments, not for an explanation of school physics. From theory, you would btw. not only expect a breakdown at small distances, but also at large massed. Iow, if you were define a cut-off distance d in some way, it would probably not be a constant but a function of the masses involved.

What is the product of two representations?

I would have considered 27^2 = 9^3 a proof for the claim, already. Or [math](x^3)^2 = (x^2)^3[/math] (in conjunction with the claim that there exists an x for which x^2 and x^3 exist). What's that fuzz about?

So? "Accelerated expansion of the universe" would be a good choice in the case that you speak about the accelerated expansion of the universe (it is not exactly easy to figure out what you are talking about). At least when it comes to the time behavior of length scales in an Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe and the idea that gravity must cause the universe to contract. That's never been questioned in this thread. That statement which is often attributed to Einstein does not imply that the usage of pseudo-analogies equates with an understanding. Neither does appealing to quotes of Einstein itself. You know yourself that you never took a proper course in general relativity (or at least cosmology). Why would it need me to explicitly tell you how you are doing? I've not bothered thinking through your spring example for reasons given below. You are correct that GR does not necessarily conserve energy: Given a suitable mapping between volumes at different times it constantly increases due to the constant positive energy density contribution of dark energy. I've mentioned that the energy contribution of dark energy is positive multiple times in this thread, I have given a link to a NASA page, I have even tried explained it to you on your beloved lecture notes (on "merely the acceleration in terms of the equation of state", which happens to be one of the fundamental relations in cosmology). We've just met the point where I am annoyed with this discussion (bordering to "sick of it"). Above may be a bit harsh. No offense meant, though. But this thread appears to become a huge waste of time for me. Maybe next time we meet on this forum will turn out better.