Noah's flood real

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2297 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You missed the point completely.
Someday a theory will be found to replace these theory's I do believe.
I believe that also. And this new theory will have to agree with *both* GR and QM in the areas where they agree with observations. In particvular, the universe has been expanding from a hot dense state and the universe is, at the sub-atomic level, probabilistic in nature.
These should no longer be called theory's as once a theory fails it must be reworked to work where it failed perversely before it can be called a theory again.
And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail! We absolutely *know* that some sort of modification will be required. But we simply do not have any data to show how this is to be done. We have not observed *anything* where these theories do not work.
Science is calling these three theory's yet all three have failed at least one test and have not been corrected to work where they have failed.
1) The Theory of Relativity
2) The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
3) String Theory.
Exactly what *observations* show these have failed? There aren't any. There is an awareness that at the horizon of a black hole and at very early stages of the expansion of our universe, these must be modified. But we have not actually observed data from either of these, so we simply do not know how to merge them. String theory is *one* possibility. It actually gives a quantum theory of gravity. But we have not been able to produce the energies required to test it.
Why won't science follow there own rules as to what defines a scientific theory?
" A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
What *evidence* disputes any of these? Not philosophical whining, but *actual observations*?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2298 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
1) The Theory of Relativity
2) The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
3) String Theory.
Please be a bit more careful. The *special* theory of relativity has no problems with the quantum realm. All of our quantum field theories are relativistic. The problem is *general relativity*.

Furthermore, it is a 'safe bet' that GR is the theory that will have to change. It is a classical theory and does not address known quantum effects. There are ways to have QM 'sit on top' of GR and make things work for anything other than very, very extreme situations. But we know that GR will have to be modified in some way at the level of quantum gravity.

Now, here is the question: do you really think that a theory that subsumes both GR and QM will NOT have Big Bang? Or quantum indeterminacy? Do you think that the brand new theory will have an earth less than 10,000 years old and a universal flood?
KJV

United States

#2299 Jan 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Neither. That is the realm of quantum gravity and we don't have a full theory of quantum gravity.

[QUOTE]Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense."

Yes, and that is why we need to develop a theory of quantum gravity.

[QUOTE]Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
"

Exactly. We have some *guesses* about how quantum gravity will go. String theory is able to bring both GR and QM under the same overall theory, but string theory cannot, as yet, be tested. Another possibility is loop quantum gravity.

So, you are exactly right. If we are attempting to discuss anything before about 10^(-11) second into the current expansion, we have problems: we simply haven't been able to test our ideas at the energies required to fully understand this time. If we go back to 10^(-34) seconds, we absolutely require some sort of theory of quantum gravity.

But, up to that point, we don't have any difficulties. If you are interested in anything after about a millisecond into the expansion, quantum gravity is not required and we can understand what happens quite well. And *that* is the domain of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang happened in the sense that the universe was one much hotter and denser than it is now and has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years.

And yes, if you want to understand exactly what is happening at the event horizon of a black hole, you will again need a quantum theory of gravity. But it you want to understand things farther from that black hole than, say, the width of a human hair, then no such theory is required.

Now, what do you propose as an alternative? Do you have a quantum theory of gravity? Without that, what do *you* propose? Is it a complete failure if we haven't, yet, figured out a quantum theory of gravity?
No not at all a failure just not a theory. More of an equation then a theory.
KJV

United States

#2300 Jan 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I believe that also. And this new theory will have to agree with *both* GR and QM in the areas where they agree with observations. In particvular, the universe has been expanding from a hot dense state and the universe is, at the sub-atomic level, probabilistic in nature.

[QUOTE]These should no longer be called theory's as once a theory fails it must be reworked to work where it failed perversely before it can be called a theory again."

And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail! We absolutely *know* that some sort of modification will be required. But we simply do not have any data to show how this is to be done. We have not observed *anything* where these theories do not work.

[QUOTE] Science is calling these three theory's yet all three have failed at least one test and have not been corrected to work where they have failed.
1) The Theory of Relativity
2) The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
3) String Theory."

Exactly what *observations* show these have failed? There aren't any. There is an awareness that at the horizon of a black hole and at very early stages of the expansion of our universe, these must be modified. But we have not actually observed data from either of these, so we simply do not know how to merge them. String theory is *one* possibility. It actually gives a quantum theory of gravity. But we have not been able to produce the energies required to test it.

[QUOTE]Why won't science follow there own rules as to what defines a scientific theory?
" A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/... ;

What *evidence* disputes any of these? Not philosophical whining, but *actual observations*?
"And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail!"

But of course we've seen all three fail.
Relativity does on work in the sub atomic level. QM does not work in planet size objects. String theory has failed all test on the micro black holes.
KJV

United States

#2301 Jan 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Please be a bit more careful. The *special* theory of relativity has no problems with the quantum realm. All of our quantum field theories are relativistic. The problem is *general relativity*.

Furthermore, it is a 'safe bet' that GR is the theory that will have to change. It is a classical theory and does not address known quantum effects. There are ways to have QM 'sit on top' of GR and make things work for anything other than very, very extreme situations. But we know that GR will have to be modified in some way at the level of quantum gravity.

Now, here is the question: do you really think that a theory that subsumes both GR and QM will NOT have Big Bang? Or quantum indeterminacy? Do you think that the brand new theory will have an earth less than 10,000 years old and a universal flood?
Your question is off subject.

GR has failed 100% in the sub atomic level.
QM cannot be used in planet size or star size or bigger items.
ST has failed every test put to it.

My point is science needs to get its house in order and quit calling these theory's. in other words quit lying to the general population. By definition when a scientific theory's fails a test put to it, it is no longer a scientific theory unless it is modified to correct its point of failure. Sense no modification have been made to these three they need to drop the term Theory when addressing the three ideas or equation.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#2302 Jan 16, 2013
But religion's house with talking snakes and magical fruit is just fine?

Lmfao! What a fcking retard!
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is off subject.
GR has failed 100% in the sub atomic level.
QM cannot be used in planet size or star size or bigger items.
ST has failed every test put to it.
My point is science needs to get its house in order and quit calling these theory's. in other words quit lying to the general population. By definition when a scientific theory's fails a test put to it, it is no longer a scientific theory unless it is modified to correct its point of failure. Sense no modification have been made to these three they need to drop the term Theory when addressing the three ideas or equation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2303 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail!"
But of course we've seen all three fail.
Relativity does on work in the sub atomic level.
Give an example of an observation where it fails. Relativity works quite well in describing the path of a proton, for example.
QM does not work in planet size objects.
Actually, yes it does. It agrees with classical physics in this case.
String theory has failed all test on the micro black holes.
We have not seen micro black holes and they are not essential predictions of the theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2304 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is off subject.
GR has failed 100% in the sub atomic level.
This is simply false. For example, if you want to compute the frequency shift on a photon when it moves in a gravitational field, GR will do that for you.
QM cannot be used in planet size or star size or bigger items.
Again, this is simply false. In fact, QM is commonly used to describe the nuclear reactions inside of stars.
ST has failed every test put to it.
Which tests were those, exactly?
My point is science needs to get its house in order and quit calling these theory's.
They *are* theories. They are even very good theories.
in other words quit lying to the general population. By definition when a scientific theory's fails a test put to it, it is no longer a scientific theory unless it is modified to correct its point of failure.
There are two caveats that you have ignored.

1: The tests have to be *observational* predictions, not simply speculation.

2: The tests have to be in the area of competence of the theory. So, for example, using GR to predict the energy of decay of a muon doesn't work because GR doesn't even address such questions.
Sense no modification have been made to these three they need to drop the term Theory when addressing the three ideas or equation.
And this is simply, and stupidly wrong. These are some of the best theories we have ever had. NO actual observation has gone against the predictions of these theories in their areas of competence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2305 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all a failure just not a theory. More of an equation then a theory.
Actually, both GR and QM are quite good theories. They are both far more than simply equations.

In fact, it *is* possible to merge them to a very great degree without problems: simply do QM in a curved spacetime given by the distribution of matter. This works until we get to the level of quantum gravity, where the spacetime itself takes on a probabilistic aspect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2306 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"And this is part of the problem: we have not seen either one of these theories fail!"
But of course we've seen all three fail.
Relativity does on work in the sub atomic level.
Whatever gave you that idea? If we want to compute the paths of subatomic particles in a gravitational field at the energies we have in our accelerators (or even the energies of neutron stars), GR does quite well.
QM does not work in planet size objects.
Sure it does. It predicts exactly what the classical theories (such as GR) predict.
String theory has failed all test on the micro black holes.
WHAT tests of black holes? We have never seen any micro black holes nor are they required by string theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2307 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is off subject.
\
No, it is quite on subject. The question is whether there is a replacement for QM or GR. At this point, there are *hypotheses* that manage to generalize both, but none of them are testable at the energies we have access to.

Science, at least in this subject, does have it's 'house in order'. Both QM and GR are very good theories in their realm of application. Of the two, QM is the more fundamental, but it can be done in a curved spacetime background a la GR.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2308 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You missed the point completely.
Someday a theory will be found to replace these theory's I do believe.
God knows his creation he does not need to be inserted here.
Science will most likely find the correct theory that will work on anything in the universe small or big.
These should no longer be called theory's as once a theory fails it must be reworked to work where it failed perversely before it can be called a theory again. Science is calling these three theory's yet all three have failed at least one test and have not been corrected to work where they have failed.
1) The Theory of Relativity
2) The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
3) String Theory.
Why won't science follow there own rules as to what defines a scientific theory?
" A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
The theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have never failed. They've never been disproved - not once. Not sure why you would think they have.

The theory of relativity is used every single day by every single GPS on the planet. It's used by every single satellite in orbit.

You still fail to realize what "theory" means. How many times have you been told? I'll tell you again:

Theory means "never been disproved, not once" in science. When theories are disproved, they lose their status. A theory is a framework that links together disparate phenomena under one explanatory umbrella. Einstein's relativity unifies all the big stuff we have in the universe, produces testable predictions and new knowledge.

You don't have a theory. You have a religious belief system that is untestable, does not produce new knowledge and technology. I suppose that, for you, it unifies information under one system. What makes your belief system not science is that it is non-explanatory in that we cannot parse your beliefs into something testable that will produce knowledge or tech.

Maybe if you get a better handle on what theory is to science, how science incorporates and draws from theory, you'd be less insecure with regards to science (and evolution).

Here's a basic example: where did humans come from?

1.(your belief): God made them.

Question: How can we test that?
Answer: we cannot. You'll just have to take it on faith.

2.(evolution): Humans evolved, like all other species.

Question: How can we test that?
Answer: By comparing genes, the fossil record, morphology, and so on.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2309 Jan 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please be a bit more careful. The *special* theory of relativity has no problems with the quantum realm. All of our quantum field theories are relativistic. The problem is *general relativity*.
Furthermore, it is a 'safe bet' that GR is the theory that will have to change. It is a classical theory and does not address known quantum effects. There are ways to have QM 'sit on top' of GR and make things work for anything other than very, very extreme situations. But we know that GR will have to be modified in some way at the level of quantum gravity.
Now, here is the question: do you really think that a theory that subsumes both GR and QM will NOT have Big Bang? Or quantum indeterminacy? Do you think that the brand new theory will have an earth less than 10,000 years old and a universal flood?
Well said!

I got this KJV, I got this! You just sit down and rest.

Well, Polymath, as everyone knows, a new theory that links both GR and QM will do away with all old observations and especially anything to do with background microwave radiation. Suddenly, our satellites will no longer need updating, the time it takes light to arrive from the sun will be 1 second, and GPS will just work because of God.

Furthermore, the Grand Religious Unification Theory will demonstrate that the only mathematically logical rationalities that can exist are dogmatic explanations. At this point, we will be closer to finding out which religious system of the Abrahamic faiths is the correct ones, and we'll have conclusive evidence that all other religions are just fantasies.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2314 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now, here is the question: do you really think that a theory that subsumes both GR and QM will NOT have Big Bang? Or quantum indeterminacy? Do you think that the brand new theory will have an earth less than 10,000 years old and a universal flood?"
Yes this question is off subject.
No, it's not. Because you, based on misconceptions about relativity and QM, dismiss them in favor of creationism while maintaining that some new magical theory will appear to "fix" current theories and, somehow, observations.

The observations support the current theories we have. Future theories will have to explain current observations as well as unify GR and QM.

The observations aren't just going to disappear :p

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2317 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a fool you need not prove it every time you go one line. We have memory's so we remember that your an idiot. No need to keep proving if.
Thanks! If you think I'm a fool, I'm doing pretty well. Just to add pedantry to that, "your" in the above should be "you're" and "if" should be "it."

You're welcome!

You missed the point though, KJV. You are anti-science because you have a religious belief about creationism. Your stance that contemporary scientific theories will be replaced is all find and everything, but you're forgetting about our observations.

For you to argue that the universe was created 6000 years ago and our scientific theories just aren't good enough to demonstrate that, you also have to hold firm that our observations are all wrong.

The theories are going to be replaced when someone comes up with a unification theory, but the observations are not going away. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, time and space are relative, and weird things happen at the quantum level. Future theories will have to incorporate all of that and whatever observations their technology reveals to them.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#2318 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
All three theory's run into troubles with black holes and Singularity's. so either all three are good theory's and Singularity's and black holes don't really exist that would kind of kill the Big Bang or black holes or Singularity's do exist and the singularity at the start of the Big Bang might have actually have been there then all three theory's have to be reworked.
Newton's laws of gravity run into trouble when trying to explain the whole universe. It has been mostly replaced with Eintstein's yet apples still fall from trees.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2319 Jan 16, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions.
I already knew that, you don't have to give examples.
The bible doest contradict itself..
If you read it the jews made an oath to yahweh or Jehovah to be his people. Their purpose to be clean so that his son can come through their line.

They had to be clean and not mix in with the nations which is why he only chose certain people with good traits.

God had to keep the bloodline clean because Jesus was going to be born a perfect human.
When Jesus came the mosaic laws were no longer applicable.


“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2321 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws of the atom are different from what Einstein predicts, UA astronomer Don McCarthy said. Einstein’s theory does well in explaining the universe as a whole, but it doesn’t do well at the smallest scale of an atom
Yes, it doesn't deal with atomic phenomena. So?
Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
Mostly correct. The
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Yes, they no longer apply. So?
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate every where's.
Well, part of the problem is thinking that a theory *must* apply to everything in the universe as opposed to everywhere in the universe. For example, solid state theory does not deal with liquids. Electro-magnetic theory doesn't apply to sound.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
..and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
And that is exactly what string theory did. This was a *lead up* to showing how remarkable string theory is.
"Einstein’s theory says that when energy increases, so does mass, leading to the equation E=mc2. But depending on whether the atom is in flat or curved space, its mass might be different, and the equation might not hold up."
Which equation?
Classical mechanics is unable to explain phenomena like superfluidity, superconductivity, ferromagnetism, Bose-Einstein condensation etc. Similarly quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity.
These effects are NOT incompatible with GR. They are simply not dealt with by GR. See the difference?
There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in.
This week, LHCb (LHC-B), one of the many huge experiments along the LHC ring, reported a major result. The result itself is very technical, but its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it.
This is true, but SUSY has definitely NOT been discarded. The evidence is still coming in.

Now, suppose SUSY is shown to be wrong. String theory would then be out. But, QM and GR would still be alive and viable.

If anything, the definition of the term 'theory', to be accurate, needs to deal with GR and QM as theories because they are the paradigm of scientific theories. If your definition of 'theory' breaks with these, then you have the wrong definition.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2322 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
All three theory's run into troubles with black holes and Singularity's. so either all three are good theory's and Singularity's and black holes don't really exist that would kind of kill the Big Bang or black holes or Singularity's do exist and the singularity at the start of the Big Bang might have actually have been there then all three theory's have to be reworked.
Actually, string theory deals well with the event horizon of black holes.

But yes, there are difficulties when investigating black holes 8very* close up. At that point, quantum effects come into play and, once again, we simply do not have a quantum theory of gravity.

BUT these theories do quite well anywhere other than the event horizon and singularities of black holes and the beginning of the universe. They are quite valid *theories* about gravity and how the subatomic world works. No *observation* has ever violated the predictions of either. And *that* is the standard of science.

Here's a question: is Newton's theory of gravity a theory? Was it a theory 200 years ago? Was it a theory 200 years ago even though it didn't explain light? Or atoms?

GR and QM deal with different aspects of the universe. They are incredibly good at describing those aspects, each in their own realm. The problems come when *both* look like they should apply. Unfortunately, we simply don't have any *observations* of situations where both apply. Believe me, such observations would be a HUGE help in finding a more comprehensive theory. But, both GR and QM *are* theories right now and are even incredibly good theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2323 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now, here is the question: do you really think that a theory that subsumes both GR and QM will NOT have Big Bang? Or quantum indeterminacy? Do you think that the brand new theory will have an earth less than 10,000 years old and a universal flood?"
Yes this question is off subject.
No, it goes right to the heart of what we are discussing: the nature of scientific theories.

Let me give you an example. In the mid 1800's Maxwell came up with a *theory* about how gases act. He envisioned a gas as a collection of small atoms or molecules that fly around and occasionally collide with each other. Such effects as pressure, temperature, etc all are *statistical* properties derived from the motions of the underlying molecules.

Well, using his theory, he made predictions about the 'specific heats' of gases. His results agreed very well with monatomic gases (like neon or helium) and diatomic gases (like hydrogen or nitrogen), but failed with more complicated molecules.

Was Maxwell's statistical mechanics a 'theory' at this point? The answer is *yes*. It was, however, a theory that only worked for monatomic and diatomic gases. For those, it did quite well.

When QM came on the scene, Maxwell's ideas were modified because the molecules were described by QM and not by classical physics any longer. When statistical physics was applied along with QM, even the more complicated gases fell into line. This was an *improved* theory of gases.

Now, GR simply does not apply to the quantum world. When quantum effects become relevant, GR does not describe the situation. But it is still a theory of gravity that applies *except* at the atomic level and below.

Similarly, QM is a theory of physics describing things in a probabilistic manner. As far as we know, it applies to *everything*(yes, even planets). But it does not describe gravity. It describes E&M, the weak force, the strong force, the nature of gases, solids, etc. But it does not work with gravity. It is *still* a very good theory as long as gravity is not a significant factor at the atomic level.

Typically, gravity is NOT relevant at the atomic scale: it tends to be the same force over scales much larger than the atomic. So even inside of a neutron star we can use BOTH QM and GR to accurately describe the conditions. It is only when the gravitational force changes significantly over distances that compare to atoms that we have problems and our current theories *do not apply*.

That doesn't mean they fail to be theories. it simply means we *know* that they don't apply in some cases. Furthermore, we have been actively looking for a more general theory that would apply even in those cases. The problem is that to make gravity relevant at the atomic level requires HUGE energies and we simply have not been able to make observations for these phenomena.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 min Into The Night 5,724
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min Into The Night 23,599
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 5 hr IB DaMann 94
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 7 hr Suspicious Packag... 2
What are the best arguments against religion? 7 hr Richardfs 8
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web