h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Caramelized whey cheese is a north countries specialty, very heating, so it helps to keep ones' core temperature high against a prospect of hypothermia.

Its caramel brown in color, slightly crunchy, about like a sugar cube, but with a different texture and I've made my remarks on flavor above.

Something I'd definitely want to include my snow country food supplies.

http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/10/whey-cheese.html

Its also great in coffee, dissolves readily only in boiling water, otherwise it dissolves slowly.

Another and somewhat cheesier formulation with milk added as well as a little cream;

http://www.whatsforlunchhoney.net/2011/01/brunost-cheese-norwegian-delicacy.html

MMMmmm

I feel a black hole developing in my tummy!

go careful Jabs, I've got one of them in my headeverything goes in, but nowt comes out

I read with interest , recent findings, seems that finding the answer to there goal seems to require more and more additional particles to make there model / models work.. It is a bit of a race for the competing parties given that there collective data to date as so little statistical weight keeping it well beyond the reach of publishable fact.

http://www.fnal.gov/

they're all at it

"I've got one of them [black holes] in my head everything goes in, but nowt comes out" [Prof Animal Chaos]

I have one, too. I forget names right and left these days. Somehow I don't think CERN is going to be able to help me with this problem.

I figured that CERN would need to keep adding particles and variables. The universe's complexity seems to increase the more we know about it.

a jigsaw where the pieces constantly change shapetherefore, it can never be completed

I doubt that even the most optimistic scientists believe in completion. They just want to move one more step toward it.

but they ARE only scientists PaulWE know better mateco's we are ace!

I'm not sure a comparison can be made. Scientists put aside their common sense in order to do their jobs. You and I don't have the same job to do. We're free to use common sense. Many of the things that scientists have discovered over the centuries flew in tyhe face of what was common sense at the time. Later generations of scientists repudiated some of what the earlier scientists had discovered. The final, ultimate, totally-true truth will never fall into our grasp. It doesn'tmatter, though. We will live out our lives making whatever we can of life, the universe, and everything.

BUT! we can say "I knew that ages ago"

just because we don't have letters behind our name and write in science journals etc (or are based in uni's)don't mean we know less than them

It's true that we don't know less than the scientists, but they know more than we do when they talk about their specialties. It'sjust that their specialties are not all there is to know.

maybe, but your/our/my theories are just as good as theirsI would say better, because we are not clouded by "typical" physics logic

I believe that there are constraints within a medium of expression,and its processes hinder its creativity.
As with mathematics, it is a form of applied expression that try’s to capture an event,through its interpretation, relays this information to others and is rule governed by logic, and where a valid interface is one in which the conclusion must be true.

What it does not do is think.

Thinking is not a sport for kings but a playground in where anyone can contribute, some are more philosophical ,some less so but free radicals of thought come about by association and are not governed by disciplined rules.

The vast difference between scientific theories and hypothetical theories is the matter of evidence.

There is much evidence for the Theories of Einstein and for the Theory of Evolution, for instance.

In fact, the philosopher Karl Popper proposed that an accurate formulation of the process of theory (or knowledge) progresses as follows, (slightly adapted):

Observation - then speculative Hypothesis (no evidence) - then evidence to test the hypothesis through more observation = theory. Theories without this examination by evidence are not established theories, in fact are not theories at all, but speculations, mere hypotheses.

Paul's view of commonsense views is a powerful and suggestive one. Commonsense has a bad track record, usually involving obsolete scientific findings. First it was commonsense that the Earth was flat, then that the sun circled the earth, and only later (in spite of the Greeks knowing this), that the Earth orbited the Sun.

Prof, where is the evidence for your theories, supposed to be just as good if not better than scientific ones?

Jabs (S.O.D)

Evidence is that which is given for the purpose of establishing the truth, to get to that point one has to one has to gain knowledge and this process inevitably will involve thinking, assuming and weighing up probabilities.

Only when a model is sufficiently tested and stands investigation can it be considered scientific. We start with theories and end with fact, we cannot state fact or give evidence without this process.

We actually start with speculation, then end up with theories. As in Popper's model, widely, (but not universally it must be conceded), held by today's scientists as an accurate account of the Scientific Method and how it progresses from unestablished speculation to established theories. The theories aren't facts, but the evidence is.

Popper , liken to all Philosophers are reflective on what is deemed human experience, they employ rational, methodical and systematic considerations on such topics that are of importance to mankind.
Critical examination of our most fundamental beliefs and then applying logical analysis on concepts.

Poppers rejection of the traditional conception of induction is a process that is actively demonstrated to day .
There are too many so called scientists that would if only they could , dismiss and disprove of Einstein’s work which the scientific fraternity had upon till to date considered as been fact.

Fact remains fact until it can be disproved and in most cases that is as a result of new thinking and theories which are created as a result of new information and findings such as those from Cern

no evidence, so I reckon I might come under this bit then Jabs "speculative Hypothesis" ?