Balder Oddson
194 followers -
What are we talking thereof? Why are you burdening more with à category?
What are we talking thereof? Why are you burdening more with à category?
194 followers
Communities and Collections
Posts
Post is pinned.
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
Got a bit of data from social services last week for my GDPR requests.
Only official exchanges in form of letters were given.
Deadline runs out soon, and I'm expecting lots more.
Limits to how far my country has been able to subvert the intent
of the regulation to protect the state from humanity, might get ugly :/
Only official exchanges in form of letters were given.
Deadline runs out soon, and I'm expecting lots more.
Limits to how far my country has been able to subvert the intent
of the regulation to protect the state from humanity, might get ugly :/
Add a comment...
Post has shared content
Dear Physics Community,
Also shared this on Nuclear and Particle Physics.
However I am eager for more dialogue on these ideas.
And I cannot stress enough that albeit knowing quite a lot
of philosophy, metaphysics including physics concepts and
mathematical logic and information theory. Unless talking
of relations and models, don't expect me to be too familiar
with methods and tools for calculations usually acting
as a quick root to discuss discrepancies and confusion.
Given positive discussions surrounding this proposal recently
in G+, I'm sharing this proposal here and in the presentation:
I'd like to offer "banking" as a term for pushing to a side
when "lensing" may deal with fields with a direction, current or drag.
I ask for some tolerance as far as terminology is concerned.
Also, they key element to try and measure to zero for the sake
of trying to falsify the notion, and why it requires a full year.
Is to look for "banking" effects in relation to the sun and the milky-way.
Initially put this in quantum field theory as it may be prudent to discuss
if this concept could include the Higgs-field and be moved together
with zero-point energy and field where force carriers is a special case
with interaction of the proposed mechanism, and former a special case
of space-time interaction.
Also shared this on Nuclear and Particle Physics.
However I am eager for more dialogue on these ideas.
And I cannot stress enough that albeit knowing quite a lot
of philosophy, metaphysics including physics concepts and
mathematical logic and information theory. Unless talking
of relations and models, don't expect me to be too familiar
with methods and tools for calculations usually acting
as a quick root to discuss discrepancies and confusion.
Given positive discussions surrounding this proposal recently
in G+, I'm sharing this proposal here and in the presentation:
I'd like to offer "banking" as a term for pushing to a side
when "lensing" may deal with fields with a direction, current or drag.
I ask for some tolerance as far as terminology is concerned.
Also, they key element to try and measure to zero for the sake
of trying to falsify the notion, and why it requires a full year.
Is to look for "banking" effects in relation to the sun and the milky-way.
Initially put this in quantum field theory as it may be prudent to discuss
if this concept could include the Higgs-field and be moved together
with zero-point energy and field where force carriers is a special case
with interaction of the proposed mechanism, and former a special case
of space-time interaction.
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
Post has shared content
Dear Opinionated meddlers in physics and math,
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
I do need sponsors to publish, and could do so
rather quickly with commentary to make sure
I'm explaining others and not myself.
Cheers!
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
I do need sponsors to publish, and could do so
rather quickly with commentary to make sure
I'm explaining others and not myself.
Cheers!
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
Post has attachment
Kjæresten ble en økonomisk risiko uten at noen fikk det med seg da det skjedde i Januar eller før, inkludert presse. PST har bare snakket om å undersøke hva som kan antas er butikkjøpt smartphone. Og hun var statsråd -- da er vel saken full POTT, diplomati, økonomi og politikk.
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/WLK0z2
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/WLK0z2
Add a comment...
Initially written in a comment to +Eric Bright and asked for a separate post.
We seem to have a common interest, where I'm taking the philosophy of mind approach to show that religion has always been about psychology and education. As with any other topic, this one in particular it's not easy to find dialogue where others genuinely follow and engage in intelligent conversation. As for religion, polytheist religion according to me is mostly about naming cognitive functions, describe what they are like and how they relate to others; mystifying these things I think is a consequence of the written language where non-verbal conveyance is not involved.
And it is a cogent premisee for discourse if followed.
It served a function, and one may be free to argue for example that entertainment is a more leading principle as that is much more common in informal conversation. But I wager that the best entertainment in poetry and art does play with intuition and emotion at that level and is a grounding feature of whether an idea or story spread easily or not irrespective of current relevance.
By adding the above, I somehow verged more into metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. Hope the category can be changed to reflect eventual interest.
But hoping to keep the category and perhaps even elaborations on Qualia in creative form can show up. Realistically however this is likely to lead onto basic principles behind Memes, intuition pumps and the like.
Epistemology, for what are we talking about -- and please do!
We seem to have a common interest, where I'm taking the philosophy of mind approach to show that religion has always been about psychology and education. As with any other topic, this one in particular it's not easy to find dialogue where others genuinely follow and engage in intelligent conversation. As for religion, polytheist religion according to me is mostly about naming cognitive functions, describe what they are like and how they relate to others; mystifying these things I think is a consequence of the written language where non-verbal conveyance is not involved.
And it is a cogent premisee for discourse if followed.
It served a function, and one may be free to argue for example that entertainment is a more leading principle as that is much more common in informal conversation. But I wager that the best entertainment in poetry and art does play with intuition and emotion at that level and is a grounding feature of whether an idea or story spread easily or not irrespective of current relevance.
By adding the above, I somehow verged more into metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. Hope the category can be changed to reflect eventual interest.
But hoping to keep the category and perhaps even elaborations on Qualia in creative form can show up. Realistically however this is likely to lead onto basic principles behind Memes, intuition pumps and the like.
Epistemology, for what are we talking about -- and please do!
Public
Blocked 5-eyes countries out of principle.
Considered more places with lack of dialogue where healthy interaction is experimenting with impression and expression.
Considered more places with lack of dialogue where healthy interaction is experimenting with impression and expression.
Add a comment...
Post has shared content
Dear Nuclear and Particle Physics Community,
Given positive discussions surrounding this proposal recently
in G+, I'm sharing this proposal here and in the presentation:
I'd like to offer "banking" as a term for pushing to a side
when "lensing" may deal with fields with a direction, current or drag.
I ask for some tolerance as far as terminology is concerned.
Also, they key element to try and measure to zero for the sake
of trying to falsify the notion, and why it requires a full year.
Is to look for "banking" effects in relation to the sun and the milky-way.
Initially put this in quantum field theory as it may be prudent to discuss
if this concept could include the Higgs-field and be moved together
with zero-point energy and field where force carriers is a special case
with interaction of the proposed mechanism, and former a special case
of space-time interaction.
Given positive discussions surrounding this proposal recently
in G+, I'm sharing this proposal here and in the presentation:
I'd like to offer "banking" as a term for pushing to a side
when "lensing" may deal with fields with a direction, current or drag.
I ask for some tolerance as far as terminology is concerned.
Also, they key element to try and measure to zero for the sake
of trying to falsify the notion, and why it requires a full year.
Is to look for "banking" effects in relation to the sun and the milky-way.
Initially put this in quantum field theory as it may be prudent to discuss
if this concept could include the Higgs-field and be moved together
with zero-point energy and field where force carriers is a special case
with interaction of the proposed mechanism, and former a special case
of space-time interaction.
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
Post has shared content
Dear Opinionated meddlers in physics and math,
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
Cheers!
Initially posted this to a philosophy community.
But would given its a proposition also begging
the question if for the sake of scientific principles
an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley
experiment can be ignored. Even if the physics
interest is for the LHC it is also not fumbling in
the blind, given recent articles like the following:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05155
Cheers!
I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
Post has attachment
Taken from:
https://www.statsbudsjettet.no/upload/Statsbudsjett_2018/dokumenter/pdf/gulbok.pdf
2012 - 2018 in Mill NOK.
Ymse utgifter | 66 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 182 | 4 900 |
In plain English "Ymse" is an ominous version of 'various' where "utgifter" mean something as boring as 'expenses'.
I'm laughing rather hard at this, for me being in Norway or not has a correlation with ominous expenses. Were mostly in Norway in 2012 and at CERN paid for by Intel. In 2013 I moved to the UK and late 2016 I quit (31 Des.) in order to move back to Norway. And have been here since about March 2017, and in 2018 I've been in Norway the whole year so far.
I assume "Ymse utgifter" could be spent for me as its not earmarked. :)
The 2018 figure is more than half a billion USD, lol! (:
https://www.statsbudsjettet.no/upload/Statsbudsjett_2018/dokumenter/pdf/gulbok.pdf
2012 - 2018 in Mill NOK.
Ymse utgifter | 66 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 182 | 4 900 |
In plain English "Ymse" is an ominous version of 'various' where "utgifter" mean something as boring as 'expenses'.
I'm laughing rather hard at this, for me being in Norway or not has a correlation with ominous expenses. Were mostly in Norway in 2012 and at CERN paid for by Intel. In 2013 I moved to the UK and late 2016 I quit (31 Des.) in order to move back to Norway. And have been here since about March 2017, and in 2018 I've been in Norway the whole year so far.
I assume "Ymse utgifter" could be spent for me as its not earmarked. :)
The 2018 figure is more than half a billion USD, lol! (:
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded