Sign Guestbook Back to The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory
| Date | 2011-05-17 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Dear Dr. Musser, An email was written to Dr. Tegmark on his Scientific American article, "Parallel Universes." Since your name was mentioned in his article, the Tegmark email will be sent to you if you respond to this email. |
Private Message added 2011-05-04 |
| Date | 2011-04-29 |
| Location | |
| Message | George, I attended a few events at the World Science Festival last year and plan on returning this year. Had a great time. Do you know at which event you will be announcing winners of the essay contest? I didn't see anything specific in the WSF site or FQXI site. Thanks, Mark |
Private Message added 2011-04-29 |
| Date | 2011-04-29 |
| Location | |
| Message | Have you seen the CNN article that says: "Musser was a high school freshman when the first shuttle mission took place in 1981. He said it fueled his interest in science and astrology." I've read your stuff for awhile, and I'm surprised about your interest in astrology. |
| Date | 2011-03-24 |
| Location | |
| Message | Mr. Musser, As a writer and editor for NBC’s film & TV blog, I regularly bring to movie screenings guests with a specific field of interest or experience that relates directly to a new film, and then shoot a brief interview with them about the movie. I was wondering if you’d be interested in joining me March 29 at 7 pm for a screening of "Source Code," and afterward we could shoot a brief interview about the science of the film. Thank you, Scott Ross |
Private Message added 2011-03-18 |
| Date | 2011-03-15 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hi George, I just read your Feb 7 article on permitting and couldn't agree more that it's so much about behavioral change. It's not that installers are right and governments are creating hurdles, it's that everyone needs a smoother process and the guidance/leadership necessary to make the changes happen. I am the PR Manager for SunRun and we wrote the permitting report you reference. I'm reading an interesting book right now by Atul Gawande that discusses the power of checklists, and I think the concepts he addresses should be applied to permitting. It's called the Checklist Manifesto and you may find it interesting. At any rate, I'd love to connect with you to tell you a bit more about SunRun and also hear more about the types of stories and topics that interest you. I want to be an effective resource if I can. Do you have time for a quick phone call? My email is [email protected] and my number is 415-684-9874. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Best, Susan |
| Date | 2011-01-11 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Hey there! I'm Logan. I'm 16 and halfway through the book (which is due back in two days, uh oh). I just finished the time machines chapter and, disregarding all the other impossibilities of wormholes, I have reason to believe that we wouldn't be able to perceive wormholes without disastrous effects. This is all presuming that we have gathered enough negative energy to create a wormhole, and we have one of six feet in diameter right in front of us, to Maui. 1) The wormhole doesn't stay fixed relative to the earth. It is fixed relative to the "grid" of spacetime. So in one instant, it is to Maui, the next instant, it is however far the earth has moved (which is an incredible amount) and now somewhere in space. 2) That must mean the entrance moves relative to the earth. Unless we can act within microseconds (meaning we must be going close to the speed of light), the entrance will disappear as earth moves away from it, however far the earth has moved. 3) Even if we could manage fixing the entrance for a minute or two, all the air from our atmosphere would be sucked out to fill the vacuum of space where the exit now is, which, as you can imagine is disastrous again. Really enjoying the book, thank you oh so very much! I'd love your thoughts. Cheers! |
| Date | 2010-12-24 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hi George, This is just a quick note to thank you for the shout-out to my book (Being Wrong) in your blog post on scientific error - and to thank you, as well, for your thoughtful commentary on Jonah Lehrer's recent New Yorker article. I read that piece with a distinct if muted discomfort, and you did a nice job of articulating some of the reasons for that feeling. I actually think the question of whether it's possible to refine the scientific method (such as it is) is an interesting and legitimate one - but first you have to understand what that method is and isn't, and his piece didn't seem to me to reflect such an understanding. Nor, as you point out, did it distinguish between the physical and social sciences. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen reasons why social science might be susceptible to "losing its truth" - some intriguing and some damning, but none of them damning *of the scientific method.* Weirdly, the piece itself felt insufficiently scientific to me (a good scientist would have understood what hypothesis this evidence really tests), and indeed teetered uncomfortably close to the kind of anti-science skepticism that pervades today's culture - not Lehrer's goal, I'm sure, but still. Anyway, my $0.02. I appreciated yours. And I appreciated the perfectionist comment as well. Try being a perfectionist while writing a book about being wrong: trust me, the mind boggles. Happy holidays, and all the best -- Kathryn Schulz |
Page 18 of 23 << First < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last >>