Mating, $ and mass

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6272246.post-62486370059073571332007-02-15T00:35:00.000-08:002007-03-26T23:22:57.479-07:00Mating, $ and mass(Note to those who read me on Bloglines: They're having some sort of problem with my RSS feed, but if you want to be able to read me on a feed reader while they figure it out you can click on the "Add to Any" button in my sidebar and choose from dozens of different ones that CAN get my feed right.) In the February 2007 issue of Discover magazine, there's a blurb in the article "The Big Bang Machine" that says (asterisks are mine): "All matter is made of quarks... Every proton and neutron is made of three quarks. But all three quarks together account for less than 2 percent of the total mass of any proton or neutron. So where does the rest of the mass come from? Physicists ***theorize**** that each quark in every atomic nucleus is surrounded by countless 'virtual particles' that constantly emerge from the vacuum and then almost instantaneously subside into nothingness again. It is these evanescent particles that are ***thought*** to give heft to all we see and feel." Translation: They can't account for ***98%*** of the mass of all matter... or, equally as bad, their ideas about what the various subatomic particles are made of is insanely far off. But wait, it gets BETTER; only 4% of the total mass of the universe is supposed to even BE matter... the rest is allegedly "dark matter" (23%) and "dark energy" (73%), which have never been seen, and about the construction or other properties thereof nothing is known. (cough*phlogiston*cough) This means that, if the eggheads are correct about what the total mass of the universe IS, which is absolutely open to major doubt, all we can account for is 2% of 4%, which is just .08%. SAY WHAT?!! Clearly, something is VERY wrong here; even the man who coined the term "dark energy," professor of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology Michael Turner, has said "Perhaps the most radical idea, and the one I am pursuing now, is that there's no dark energy at all. (Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.) Instead, our incomplete understanding of gravity is at fault, and when we understand it better, we'll no longer need to invoke dark energy." Are there really THREE unknown components of total universal mass, dark matter, dark energy and whatever it is that makes up 98% of normal matter... or is there ONE substance that's responsible for all 3 of the, um, placeholders that have been voodooed into physics to make the equations come out right? What could the substance be made of? Karma's the obvious answer to ME, but you could make a case for whatever YOU believe in, such as spirits, mystical forces or God, being responsible for it; whatever you call it, for all this unknown stuff to be formed from the "forces of the unknown" that almost all humans believe in in one form or another isn't much of a leap. If you're the sort of person who proclaims that things don't exist unless science has verified they do, keep reminding yourself that 99.02% of the universe is purportedly made of stuff they can't do more than guess at... and there's no reason to think that they've pinpointed ALL the "mystery mass" yet, either. In other words, by their own admission the best scientists can describe virtually NONE of what's around us... so what makes you think that YOU'VE got it all nailed down? In the same issue of Discover, in "Peer Review: Outsourced Boredom," I learned about an actual, valid way that anyone can make easy $ online: "the Amazon Turk system parcels out these countless human intelligence tasks, or 'HITs,' to willing laborers for pennies per piece. Got an Internet connection and some extra time? Hire yourself out to one of the many companies whose own computers need your human brain to complete their duties. As I write this, there are HITs available for everything from finding the address numbers in photos of houses (three cents a pop) to matching Web page URLs with the product that is supposed to appear on them (a whopping nickel each)." Wanna give it a shot? Here's the URL: http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome And finally: If my husband dies untimely, and I'm acquitted (lol), the article "Adventures in the Petri Dish of Love" gives information about the site I'll use to find his replacement; its main page says: "W E L C O M E to the web home of Science Connection, the meeting place for single science professionals and others with an interest in science or nature. Why are we here? The world is a crowded Petri dish, and yet for those of an intellectual bent who happen to be single, it's not easy, especially past university age, to find that certain microbe for a great symbiotic relationship. Enter Science Connection. What kinds of people are members? Most members are from the United States and Canada, with small numbers from elsewhere. We have members in the physical, natural, medical and social/behavioral sciences, technology, computers/IT, and various non-sci/tech occupations, including law, teaching, business, music, and the arts. There are about equal numbers of men and women, and the age range is 20s-70s. Many members are into natural history (birding, etc.) and outdoor activities." If you look at the sample photos of members, you'll see some geekish looking folks, yes, but plenty of "normal" ones too... not that it matters, since we're too mature and evolved to put looks over admirable mental qualities, right? If you're single, and want a partner with a brain, here's the URL: http://www.sciconnect.com/<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6272246-6248637005907357133?l=omniverse.blogspot.com'/></div>Omnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01535142570254270177noreply@blogger.com