Don't dictate beliefs

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/...

An alternative view:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstring...

" Basically the prediction for supersymmetry based on compactified string/M theories is that any rare decay rate should equal the Standard Model one within an accuracy of a few per cent."

"Although many string/M theory predictions can not yet be made accurately, some can, in particular the prediction for Bs&#8594;&#956;+&# 956;&#8722;. The short summary of the argument is that compactified string/M theories have moduli that describe the shapes and sizes of the small dimensions. The moduli fields have quanta, scalar particles, that decay gravitationally so they have long lifetimes. In order to not destroy the successes of nucleosynthesis the moduli have to be heavier than about 30TeV. One can show that the lightest eigenvalue of the moduli mass matrix is connected to the gravitino mass in theories with softly broken supersymmetry, and in turn that in such theories the squark and slepton (and Higgs scalar) masses are essentially equal to the gravitino masses. Thus the squarks and sleptons are heavier than about 30TeV, and they are predicted to be too heavy to observe at LHC or via the rare decays. The LHCb result agrees with this prediction. While the scalars are too heavy to be seen easily, gluinos and neutralinos and one chargino should be seen at LHC."

[derek4]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no evidence to support the existence of this "designer". All you have is unsupported conjecture ... aka .... nothing.

Unsupported conjecture = Darwinism / Evolutionism

Just one example previously posted:

This government link explains that the evolution of the eye and photoreceptor cell types remains a mystery and ongoing matter of debate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

[derek4]

Thinking wrote:

7+ posts in a row gets you another "Cuntard of the Day" award.
Way to go, cuntard!
<quoted text>

Just a reminder to everyone, when you have concerns about the content of any link I've posted, you need to express those to the web page publishers, since I have no interest in your amateur and misguided opinions. Thank you for your cooperation.

And this one other note: Act nice, even if we all know you're really not. Posts with inappropriate language may be reported to the moderators as abuse. Some already have been reported.

[derek4]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Based on the definitions you provided, no it is not a religion. Twist the facts all you want, but the information you get in your email from the creationist website is already debunked millions of times over.

Kitten, I have a compliment to you for a change. Your deep and abiding faith in the atheist religion is an outstanding example of commitment to all of us. Thank you.

[derek4]

The Sidney Hillman Foundation reports on the surging number of mistakes in science, the shadow over scientific trust, retractions, and government funds wasted on bogus science.

http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/blog/mistake...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

[Thinking]

Bollocks.

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Unsupported conjecture = Darwinism / Evolutionism
Just one example previously posted:
This government link explains that the evolution of the eye and photoreceptor cell types remains a mystery and ongoing matter of debate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

[derek4]

A report from the VIII International Scientific Conference explores the mistakes of modern science.

In the spirit of their concern about honesty, atheists should want to rid the planet of bad science.

http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/Fou...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

[derek4]

Thinking wrote:

How you bleat.
I always give respect where it's due. Conversely, I'll swear at barefaced liars like you whenever I see fit.
<quoted text>

post reported as abuse

[derek4]

The included link gives examples of the many ways scientists have been wrong, and still are wrong.

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

In order for atheists to rely on what science tells us, they need to insure they are placing their faith in bonafide science. Recognizing true and genuine science is becoming extremely complex.

[derek4]

Thinking wrote:

Bollocks.
<quoted text>

Your constant replies to me and you futile meaningless rebuttals plus your resort to juvenile language all point to your deep frustrations and inablitiy to make valid points. Thanks, lol.

[polymath257]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a reminder to everyone, when you have concerns about the content of any link I've posted, you need to express those to the web page publishers, since I have no interest in your amateur and misguided opinions. Thank you for your cooperation.

I, for one, will reply in this forum. You can ignore the posts if you really want to, but the discussion can happen here even if you don't participate.

[polymath257]

derek4 wrote:

A report from the VIII International Scientific Conference explores the mistakes of modern science.
In the spirit of their concern about honesty, atheists should want to rid the planet of bad science.
http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/Fou...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

That article didn't even rise to the level of bad science. It was simply wrong in most particulars (which we know you wouldn't understand).

[Thinking]

I can't fix your stupid.(With thanks to Ron White)

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your constant replies to me and you futile meaningless rebuttals plus your resort to juvenile language all point to your deep frustrations and inablitiy to make valid points. Thanks, lol.

[Thinking]

Which one. All your posts are an abuse.

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
post reported as abuse

[polymath257]

How bad reporting affects the public view of science:

http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_bewar...

[Just Think]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheism is a scientific religion requiring great faith.

Actually, an atheist could live in a hut and never, ever even care about science.

You lose.

[Just Think]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, atheism is a religion.
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

Did you really just use a Christian Fundamentalist website to "prove" atheism is a religion?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Adam]

derek4 wrote:

Recognizing true and genuine science is becoming extremely complex.

Its not too bad. Just avoid creationist websites :)

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>An alternative view:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstring...

" Basically the prediction for supersymmetry based on compactified string/M theories is that any rare decay rate should equal the Standard Model one within an accuracy of a few per cent."

"Although many string/M theory predictions can not yet be made accurately, some can, in particular the prediction for Bs&#8594;&#956;+&# 956;&#8722;. The short summary of the argument is that compactified string/M theories have moduli that describe the shapes and sizes of the small dimensions. The moduli fields have quanta, scalar particles, that decay gravitationally so they have long lifetimes. In order to not destroy the successes of nucleosynthesis the moduli have to be heavier than about 30TeV. One can show that the lightest eigenvalue of the moduli mass matrix is connected to the gravitino mass in theories with softly broken supersymmetry, and in turn that in such theories the squark and slepton (and Higgs scalar) masses are essentially equal to the gravitino masses. Thus the squarks and sleptons are heavier than about 30TeV, and they are predicted to be too heavy to observe at LHC or via the rare decays. The LHCb result agrees with this prediction. While the scalars are too heavy to be seen easily, gluinos and neutralinos and one chargino should be seen at LHC."

"The strongest scientific argument in favor of string theory is that it appears to contain a theory of gravity embedded within it and thus may provide a solution to the thorny problem of reconciling Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics and the rest of particle physics. There are, however, two fundamental problems, which are hard to get around.

First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct.

The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists actually consider this inconsistency to be a virtue, because otherwise they would have an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity on their hands (one for each way of wrapping up six dimensions), with no principle for choosing among them.

The "M" Word

These two problems have been around since the earliest work on string theory along with the hope that they would somehow cancel each other out. Perhaps some larger theory exists to which string theory is just an approximate solution obtained by series expansion, and this larger theory will explain what's going on with the six dimensions we can't see. The latest version of this vision goes under the name of "M-theory," where the "M" is said variously to stand for "Membrane," "Matrix," "Mother," "Meta," "Magic" or "Mystery"ýalthough "Mythical" may be more appropriate, given that nearly eight years of work on this idea have yet to lead to even a good conjecture about what M-theory might be."

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue...

[Thinking]

Therefore a magic man dunnit?[sic]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"The strongest scientific argument in favor of string theory is that it appears to contain a theory of gravity embedded within it and thus may provide a solution to the thorny problem of reconciling Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics and the rest of particle physics. There are, however, two fundamental problems, which are hard to get around.
First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct.
The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists actually consider this inconsistency to be a virtue, because otherwise they would have an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity on their hands (one for each way of wrapping up six dimensions), with no principle for choosing among them.
The "M" Word
These two problems have been around since the earliest work on string theory along with the hope that they would somehow cancel each other out. Perhaps some larger theory exists to which string theory is just an approximate solution obtained by series expansion, and this larger theory will explain what's going on with the six dimensions we can't see. The latest version of this vision goes under the name of "M-theory," where the "M" is said variously to stand for "Membrane," "Matrix," "Mother," "Meta," "Magic" or "Mystery"ýalthough "Mythical" may be more appropriate, given that nearly eight years of work on this idea have yet to lead to even a good conjecture about what M-theory might be."
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue...