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When Jesus came the mosaic laws were no longer applicable.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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2324 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 to the heart of your objections to both QM and GR. Any new theory that subsumes both GR and QM will have a Big Bang. it will still have quantum indeterminacy. It will still have a universe about 13.7 billion years old (as defined by the start of the expansion). And the earth will be about 4.5 billion years old and there will not have been a global flood while humans have been around.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2325 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.
The main guess is that the singularity that appears in GR will be 'smoothed out' by quantum effects. This is what is seen in ST.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#2326 Jan 17, 2013
The Jewish Yahweh's use of the word to create was stolen from the Egyptians (Jewish Yaweh replaces Ptah)Adam and Eve were stolen from the Egyptian Geb and Nut 5
Jewish Cain, Abel and Seth were stolen from Osiris, Set and Horus8
The Ten commandments was stolen from The Code of Hammurabi Jewish Yaweh replaces the Sumerian Sun God Shamash aka Azazel25
Yellowknightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
KJV

United States

#2327 Jan 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>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
"Because you, based on misconceptions about relativity and QM, dismiss them in favor of creationism"

Because I? LOL

Those quotes all came from science papers or science shows. I never inserted one creation item in those post.
You sound like a broken record. Your hatred towards anything or one that is Theist is showing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2329 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Because you, based on misconceptions about relativity and QM, dismiss them in favor of creationism"
Because I? LOL
Yes, you. None of the quotes you gave support creationism in any way. They show that our current theories are not the final version and is ALL they say. But, any new theory will still agree with the current ones when the current ones give good answers. In other words, there will still be a hot Big bang and quantum indeterminacy. Whatever changes happen will be for *incredibly* high temperatures and densities.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2330 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Newton never discovered his law because of a falling apple. That is a myth. And no known theory works beyond the event horizon but yet there are many of them out there.
So the only thing you can add is apples still fall from trees?
And the planets will still orbit the sun is paths very close to ellipses. And we can still use Newton's laws to send probes to mars, Jupiter, or Pluto.
KJV

United States

#2331 Jan 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it doesn't deal with atomic phenomena. So?

[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""

Mostly correct. The

[QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]"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?

[QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE]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.
"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
KJV

United States

#2332 Jan 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
"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."

"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2334 Jan 17, 2013
Yellowknightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Of course the Bible contradicts itself.

Ephesians 6:2 Honour thy father and mother

No problems. I can do that.

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sistersyes, even their own lifesuch a person cannot be my disciple."

There's Jesus telling us to hate our parents.

Contradiction

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2335 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"


And we do not have such an observation for either theory.

Also, that does not show that they fail to be theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2336 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I firmly believe that QM and GR have issues in each other realm, because neither consider the effects of dark energy or matter in their equations.
I believe it is this dark energy that could be the reason QM and GR clash in each others realms. But that's just me.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. GR uses the mass distribution as an *input*, so all that needs to be done is put in the amount of dark matter and GR gives answers. This is, for example, how the fluctuations in the background radiation can be used to determine the amount of dark matter. Similarly for dark energy, by the way.

QM, on the other hand, attempts to determine the *composition* of the dark matter. Again, QM can take *as input* the different fundamental particles and use this information to make predictions. So, for example, SUSY models tend to describe dark matter in terms of the least massive supersymmetric particle. Other models describe the dark matter as axions, or WIMPS, or other possibilities.

So, GR is quite fine with dark matter and dark energy (which is essentially a cosmological constant and was introduced by Einstein for a different reason). And QM is used to determine the properties of dark matter given different proposals for what it is made from.

Let's face it. You are simply talking through your hat here and have no *actual* knowledge of either GR, QM, dark matter, or dark energy. Oh, I'm sure you know a few things you have read in popular magazines, but nothing that has any actual information above the trivialities.

Now, one of the reasons to investigate supersymmetry and string theory are that they give good possibilities for the composition of dark matter. The real question is whether the particles they predict that could be the composition of dark matter will actually show up in our accelerators.

Dark energy is another matter entirely. It fits very naturally into GR (it is simply the energy density of a vacuum). But it turns out that a QM description of it is a much deeper problem. In essence, a naive approach to the question using QM gives answers that are wildly off from reality. But it is common for such naive approaches to give wrong answers because they ignore the details. In this case, there could be cancellations due to, say, supersymmetry that explain what is going on. We are still actively working on this question.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2337 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
I should point out that you didn't answer my questions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2338 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
One problem is that a general theory, like QM or GR, has many specifics that are determined in other ways. For example, GR requires information about the thermodynamic properties of matter, light, etc as inputs. QM requires things like the masses of the electrons, quarks, etc.

The micro-black hole prediction of string theory was based on *one* set of additional assumptions. These assumptions were not considered reasonable by many people working in string theory, so the fact that micro black holes have not been found only shows *those* assumptions are wrong, not string theory in general.

In modeling dark matter, GR makes the assumption that it has very similar thermodynamics properties as usual matter. From that assumption together with the overarching theory of GR, we can get predictions that can be tested. In fact, the LCDM model (Lambda =dark energy, Cold Dark Matter) agrees with all observations that we have right now. But if, for example, the thermodynamic properties of dark energy turn out not to be what we thought, we only have to input the *new* properties into the GR equations to get new predictions based on the new properties. To eliminate GR, we would have to find evidence at the heart of GR without additional assumptions.

In the same way, QM is an overarching theory. It can apply to a vast array of situations, and uses the properties of each situation as inputs. If, though, we happen to have the wrong value for the decay time of a neutron, QM will give wrong answers to some questions. Those wrong answers do not harm QM itself because the decay times input were wrong. To invalidate QM itself would require an observation where QM gives wrong answers and where the assumptions required for the input are known to be correct.

The problem with your examples (black hole singularities, etc) is that we simply don't know the correct conditions to *input* into GR and QM. That alone does not invalidate either theory. But, without actual observations we cannot know what the *real* values are for the inputs.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2340 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Again those were all quotes from science sources. No creationism was inserted or implied I was strictly talking science. I see now that that's impossible with the creationist lynch mob here.
Yes, and you misunderstood all of them.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2341 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Because you, based on misconceptions about relativity and QM, dismiss them in favor of creationism"
Because I? LOL
Those quotes all came from science papers or science shows. I never inserted one creation item in those post.
You sound like a broken record. Your hatred towards anything or one that is Theist is showing.
I'll wait for you to respond to Poly's comments on those quotes - but I found it quite funny that one of them was the introduction to the problem of these theories that was then solved later...and you only provided the explanation of the problem part. Cherry picking! Very fun :)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2342 Jan 17, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Stephen Hawking states, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
Yes. You don't seem to understand the theories you are discussing haven't been disproved.

You also don't seem to understand that future theories will build on top of these ones, taking contemporary observations about the universe into their models.

Meaning that the universe's ancient age will be narrowed down to 13.7 billion, with a smaller margin of error. Meaning that humans evolved like all other animals and we'll just understand the details better. That the Biblical Flood never happened.

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
News Is Religion Childish? (Sep '14) 7 min thetruth 161
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min thetruth 236,798
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 min Agents of Corruption 6,345
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 19 min thetruth 9,223
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Dogen 17,920
News The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 1,107
News Confessions of a black atheist 4 hr Mr_SKY 2
More from around the web