Comments
2,121 - 2,140 of 4,507 Comments Last updated Nov 12, 2013
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2292
Jan 16, 2013
 
That's not a problem, it's an opportunity to discover.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Point: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2293
Jan 16, 2013
 
Yellowknightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
No its fact.
Because the bible says that her rivers will dry upmeanimg her ingluence on people will be falling
You see that today.
People are not as religious as they once were and the power of religious has fallen tremendously.
Its going to happen rather we believe it or not .
The bible even notes that its defense will be little but over all its going to happen out of nowhere.
So Christianity was never really going to succeed.

I get it.

What a waste of time.
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2295
Jan 16, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Quick! An area where science doesn't quite have an answer - throw God into there!!!

It's your last, best hope!
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Quick! An area where science doesn't quite have an answer - throw God into there!!!

It's your last, best hope!
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/...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2296
Jan 16, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Point: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Neither. That is the realm of quantum gravity and we don't have a full theory of quantum gravity.
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.
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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Buck Crick 224,358
Our world came from nothing? 11 hr NightSerf 240
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 15 hr Patrick 385
What does "Atheism" mean? 16 hr Reason Personified 10
Introducing The Universal Religion 17 hr Reason Personified 733
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 22 hr DonPanic 21,400
Talking some sense into you people... 23 hr religionisillness 24
•••
•••