05-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Hi,
![Tongue Tongue](https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
--Pete
(05-04-2010, 03:07 PM)Lissa Wrote: Well, in the area of subatomic particles, you really have to use a bigger hammer. . . . So, you really do need to go big to get the energy you need smash atoms and particles.You do need a lot of energy to do the things you mention. I was not denying that. I was saying that the particle accelerator might not be the only way of getting to those energies. And if there is a better way, it will not require machines an AU in diameter. What is that better way? Hell, if I could answer that, I'd be working on my acceptance speech for the Nobel prize.
![Tongue Tongue](https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Quote:edit: Here we go, found the information. It's called TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar) and is based off of Modified Newtonian Dynamics MOND.Thanks for the links. I've heard of both from Science News but haven't looked at them enough to have an opinion.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?