Quote:

Frankly speaking your top down behaviour is a little bit irritating



Sorry? I don't know what "top down behaviour" means.
Are you sayig I behaieve like a quark that has a top-down to it (making me a spin zero, charge 1/2 quark)?

Quote:

Brian Greene is not a Physician , just because

" String theory is pure math and thus not physics "



You infer incorrectly. Brian Greene is a physicist because he is ultimitely trying to find physical significance to the theory. String theory IS pure math and thus cannot be called Physics eventhough that is it's ultimate aim. Remember, Physics is not Math... Physics is the experimental verification of physical phenomena which can be expressed in math.

To be clear Brian Greene is a PHYSICIST because he is after physics but is using a purely MATHEMATICAL theory of String Theory to do it. Just because you use math makes you a Theoretical Physicists as opposed to those that work with experiments, experimental Physicists.

Quote:

Of course Einstein theory invalidates Newton physics



Ummm, no. If it invalidated it, then we would be teaching Einstein exclusively in PHysics 101 and not Newton. To make invalid means that it is proven wrong in all regimes.

Examples of invalidating a theory:
Rotherfords atom scattering experiment INVALIDATED the Pudding-Pie model of the atom
Quantum Mechanics INVALIDATED the Bohr model of the atom.
Newton INVALIDATED Aristotles theory of the five elements and the four causes.

In all these cases, the new theory completely destroyed the old theory in all regimes. That is what it means to make a theory invalid. Newton is wrong only in high velocity regime (V~c), but below that (v<<c) it is perfectly valid.

Wikipedia puts it best:

"Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see below), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalisations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law


Quote:

Maybe these errors are negligible for 99.99 % of pratical uses but this is an other story




No, that's the whole story. Newton will predict with as much accuracy as you want the collision of two billard balls. You do NOT need Einstein to understand that process perfectly. Still valid. Now when it comes to relatavistic collisions, then yeah, Newton is replaced by Einstein but we can still play Snookers on Earth!



Quote:

All the evidences in modern physics are bound to be "in direct" come on..



Direct Evidence: a particle that doesn't have any of the other characteristics of any other particle pops out with the mass predicted for a Higgs Boson... direct evidence of the Higgs Bosons existence.

"Dr Renton, a particle physicist at Oxford, told BBC News Online.

"It's compatible with the Higgs boson certainly, but only a direct observation would show that."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3546973.stm


Indirect Evidence: an interaction between two W,Z particles has the signature that is consistance with a Higgs Boson exchange... indirect evidence of the Higgs Boson existence.

"Dr Renton cites indirect evidence taken from observations of the behaviour of other particles in colliders that agrees with the figure of 115 gigaelectronvolts for the mass of the Higgs boson. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3546973.stm

Semantics at play here. NOBODY sees atomic particles of course! But we have aparatus that do the seeing for us instead. If these apartus "see" the paticle directly, we say that we have direct evidence... if thes apparatus instead "see" a related interaction that can only be explained (currently) by a particle, we say we have indirect evidence for it.

So for example, we have indirect evidence of the Higgs Boson's existence:

"In August 2000, physicists working at CERN's LEP saw traces of particles that might fit the right pattern, but the evidence is still inconclusive."

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

Quote:

SM is exceptionaly accurate ( in its domain of applications) but a lot of great scientists consider SM an " ugly " theory for the reason explained before



Right. We agree on this point. That SM is "exceptionaly accurate ( in its domain of applications)". The "ugliness" is a human concept that has proven a good guide, but it's not science nor reason to believe that SM is wrong. That is all I'm saying.

Quote:

"The 25 parameters of the SM or NOT, I repeat, NOT physically unclear "

May be you did not notice that I quoted a certain Rogen Penrose on this specific topic



Maybe you are using "physically unclear" in a way I'm not used to. Roger Penrose's quote does not say that the parameters are unclear, merely that the SM model is incomplete (which we all agree on). To state that a parameter is "physically unclear" means that we cannot assign it physical significance (such as energy, mass, velocity, etc).

All 25 parameters are one of two things: either a mass (which reflects that particles resistance to inertia) or a coupling (which reflects how two particles interact). They are very physically clear even if we don't have a value for it.



FUTUR-E-SCAPE: The Future Landscape of Education and Entertainment.