Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2648 Jun 12, 2013
bnzo wrote:
<quoted text>I agree!, wow!
Isn't learning fun!?

"By the late 1990s, blue LEDs had become widely available. They have an active region consisting of one or more InGaN quantum wells sandwiched between thicker layers of GaN, called cladding layers"

enjoy :D
Are you on something?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2649 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like string theory said should have happened but didn't?
String theory didn't say it should have happened.

sheehs, what's wrong with you?

The energies required to probe string theory are orders of magnitude outside the reach of the LHC.

what's stopping you finding this out properly? you've deluged a series of bits and pieces you've only learned one tenth of - that being the names, without the slightest clue where you're going with them.

you're arguing in a total vacuum - why? why not learn it first? It's fascinating how stupendously ignorant you are - yet.. you just can't stop! like someone in a car accident!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2650 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you on something?
no, why? are you in need of medication now I showed you to be a liar? or ignorant? or both?

learn first, foam later.:D

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2651 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok The BB does not try and explain the impossible like were did time and space and energy and matter all come from and all at the same time. So simply for ease I'll call this the PBB theory.
The PBB theory can never be tested because space and time exist every where they can try and test it. With out the PBB there would be no BB.
Fact is everything that is cannot have blinked into existed all at the same instance with out a creator.
Now quit trying to stick to the BB. you know this whole time I'm talking about the PBB to the BB. I don't care about the BB and after. Could not care less.
The point is PBB to the BB could not have happened.
If you're talking about the PBB, you're the only one who is.
sorry.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2652 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
First off its science that says the bumble bee can't fly but it is God who says it can. Who wins this one?
Second that is not what I'm saying.
If science is going to stop and wait to get data from the event horizon then they must just stop, because they well never get their data. So using that as an excuse you might as well just shut down your science. Remember it is me that said science didn't need to go to the event horizon that they can use math. Not because actual data would not be great but because it is unattainable.
And you think that's nuts. What a DOLT!
No you idiot, what we knew about aerodynamics wings and muscles says a bumble can't fly. Normal bird like motion cannot generate enough lift , because muscles are limited to specific speeds. But what we didn't know about the bumble is how it used it's wings and muscles.

It took scientific investigation to answer this.
It's wings move like a helicopter and not like a birds, and it's muscles vibrate like a plucked guitar string.
It took work in close observation under magnification to tell these things, that could not be answered by what we knew and paper
to add it up, because that told us it couldn't.

The same is true with all unknown phenomena, we must study it closer and test it physically to answer questions. It doesn't matter how much and close theoretical physics we use sometimes, and this is a tool to great advantage. But when we have conflict between theory and physical event, we have to take a closer look, devise different tests, or scrap the theory for new.

In this case there is only a few conflicts to the theory and much confirmation it is correct. Which tells us there is an unknown
element/s, and these unknown element/s must be discovered, most of the time it is by physically testing conditions and simulating to reproduce the element/s. Just like a crime scene , unknown things are discovered by physically prodding the phenomenon for information. NASA has been doing this for years, Cal Tech and MIT all the great laboratories learn this way also, everything is not theoretical, or at least the theoretical becomes hard science when it is physically observed and tests ring true from experimentation.

Just as the existence of BH's went from theoretical to hard science from observation, the mystery's of them can be solved by experimentation and testing.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2653 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
First off its science that says the bumble bee can't fly but it is God who says it can. Who wins this one?
Second that is not what I'm saying.
If science is going to stop and wait to get data from the event horizon then they must just stop, because they well never get their data. So using that as an excuse you might as well just shut down your science. Remember it is me that said science didn't need to go to the event horizon that they can use math. Not because actual data would not be great but because it is unattainable.
And you think that's nuts. What a DOLT!
BTW, unattainable is not a word the scientist believes in at least in regards to answering questions. It wont break any laws of physics to come to understand something. But we do also know that rules can be bent to work around physical limitations.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2654 Jun 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No you idiot, what we knew about aerodynamics wings and muscles says a bumble can't fly. Normal bird like motion cannot generate enough lift , because muscles are limited to specific speeds. But what we didn't know about the bumble is how it used it's wings and muscles.
It took scientific investigation to answer this.
It's wings move like a helicopter and not like a birds, and it's muscles vibrate like a plucked guitar string.
It took work in close observation under magnification to tell these things, that could not be answered by what we knew and paper
to add it up, because that told us it couldn't.
The same is true with all unknown phenomena, we must study it closer and test it physically to answer questions. It doesn't matter how much and close theoretical physics we use sometimes, and this is a tool to great advantage. But when we have conflict between theory and physical event, we have to take a closer look, devise different tests, or scrap the theory for new.
In this case there is only a few conflicts to the theory and much confirmation it is correct. Which tells us there is an unknown
element/s, and these unknown element/s must be discovered, most of the time it is by physically testing conditions and simulating to reproduce the element/s. Just like a crime scene , unknown things are discovered by physically prodding the phenomenon for information. NASA has been doing this for years, Cal Tech and MIT all the great laboratories learn this way also, everything is not theoretical, or at least the theoretical becomes hard science when it is physically observed and tests ring true from experimentation.
Just as the existence of BH's went from theoretical to hard science from observation, the mystery's of them can be solved by experimentation and testing.
you know that you're wasting your time right?
theists are allergic to learning. entirely . this stuff scares them.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2655 Jun 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, unattainable is not a word the scientist believes in at least in regards to answering questions. It wont break any laws of physics to come to understand something. But we do also know that rules can be bent to work around physical limitations.
Just how can you get the data from the event horizon? First you need a ship. We have nothing like what would be needed. Then you would need millions of years for it to make it to the black hole. And if your lucky humans are still alive and the ship is some how still in one piece and work (next to impossible)
It would then some how take its reading and beam back the results before entering the black hole. And if you are real lucky in a few more million years you will get something that might be useable data.

Na it's unattainable.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2656 Jun 12, 2013
bnzo wrote:
<quoted text>String theory didn't say it should have happened.

sheehs, what's wrong with you?

The energies required to probe string theory are orders of magnitude outside the reach of the LHC.

what's stopping you finding this out properly? you've deluged a series of bits and pieces you've only learned one tenth of - that being the names, without the slightest clue where you're going with them.

you're arguing in a total vacuum - why? why not learn it first? It's fascinating how stupendously ignorant you are - yet.. you just can't stop! like someone in a car accident!
LHC Reports Failure To Create Black Holes, a Setback For String Theory

CMS Black Hole The Compact Muon Solenoid seen under construction in late 2008. Wikimedia Commons

Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.

Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however.

String theory is the most widely accepted attempt to unify the two major fields of physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. It holds that electrons and quarks are not objects, but one-dimensional strings whose oscillation gives them their observed qualities. It also says the universe has about a dozen dimensions, rather than the usual four (length, width, height and time).

In one version of string theory, if these dimensions exist, gravitons — hypothetical particles that transmit gravity — would leak into them, explaining why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces, as New Scientist explains it. It’s not really weaker, it just seems weaker, because some of its particles are in another dimension we can’t see. Happily, it takes a lot less energy to test this than it would to actually unify all the forces, and it just so happens it’s is in the energy range that the LHC, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, is capable of testing.

If this is all true, particles that collided at energies beyond this graviton-leaking energy cutoff would get so close together that gravity would take over, and they would merge to form a tiny black hole. The black holes would instantly decay, so there would be no danger of Earth being swallowed whole, and the decay would be visible as jets of particles. But the researchers have so far seen no jets.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2657 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how can you get the data from the event horizon? First you need a ship. We have nothing like what would be needed. Then you would need millions of years for it to make it to the black hole. And if your lucky humans are still alive and the ship is some how still in one piece and work (next to impossible)
It would then some how take its reading and beam back the results before entering the black hole. And if you are real lucky in a few more million years you will get something that might be useable data.
Na it's unattainable.
We will have to devise a work around and or devise simulations/creation of the forces to figure it out.
But there is still the possibility of discovering ones that will give us new information.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2658 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
LHC Reports Failure To Create Black Holes, a Setback For String Theory
CMS Black Hole The Compact Muon Solenoid seen under construction in late 2008. Wikimedia Commons
Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.
Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however.
String theory is the most widely accepted attempt to unify the two major fields of physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. It holds that electrons and quarks are not objects, but one-dimensional strings whose oscillation gives them their observed qualities. It also says the universe has about a dozen dimensions, rather than the usual four (length, width, height and time).
In one version of string theory, if these dimensions exist, gravitons — hypothetical particles that transmit gravity — would leak into them, explaining why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces, as New Scientist explains it. It’s not really weaker, it just seems weaker, because some of its particles are in another dimension we can’t see. Happily, it takes a lot less energy to test this than it would to actually unify all the forces, and it just so happens it’s is in the energy range that the LHC, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, is capable of testing.
If this is all true, particles that collided at energies beyond this graviton-leaking energy cutoff would get so close together that gravity would take over, and they would merge to form a tiny black hole. The black holes would instantly decay, so there would be no danger of Earth being swallowed whole, and the decay would be visible as jets of particles. But the researchers have so far seen no jets.
yes - you know none of them expected to right? know why?
because the energies required to probe string theory.. and so on.

does it hurt ? all this banging your head?

read first, foam later.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2659 Jun 12, 2013
bnzo wrote:
<quoted text>String theory didn't say it should have happened.

sheehs, what's wrong with you?

The energies required to probe string theory are orders of magnitude outside the reach of the LHC.

what's stopping you finding this out properly? you've deluged a series of bits and pieces you've only learned one tenth of - that being the names, without the slightest clue where you're going with them.

you're arguing in a total vacuum - why? why not learn it first? It's fascinating how stupendously ignorant you are - yet.. you just can't stop! like someone in a car accident!
the mathematics of string theory has, indeed, already shown that the theory isn't performing as expected (or, in their view, as needed to be a fun-
damental theory) and the string theorists are in denial.

Considering String Theory's Setbacks

Because string theory has made so few specific predictions, it's hard to dis-prove it, but the theory has fallen short of some of the hype about how it will be a fundamental theory to explain all the physics in our universe, a "theory
of everything." This failure to meet that lofty goal seems to be the basis of many (if not most) of the attacks against it.

abstract questions and focus on three issues that even most string theorists
aren't particularly happy about:

Because of supersymmetry, string theory requires a large number of
particles beyond what scientists have ever observed.

This new theory of gravity was unable to predict the accelerated expansion of the universe that was detected by astronomers.

A vastly large number of mathematically feasible string theory vacua (solutions) currently exist, so it seems virtually impossible to figure out
which could describe our universe.

The following sections cover these dilemmas in more detail.

The universe doesn't have enough particles For the mathematics of string theory to work, physicists have to assume a symmetry in nature called supersymmetry, which creates a correspondence between different types of particles. One problem with this is that instead of the 18 fundamental particles in the Standard Model, supersymmetry requires.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2660 Jun 12, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
the mathematics of string theory has, indeed, already shown that the theory isn't performing as expected (or, in their view, as needed to be a fun-
damental theory) and the string theorists are in denial.
cutting and pasting from "string theory for dummies" doesn't really make a good platform hun.

For readers - here is TAT's referecne:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-...

Yup - the best you could produce - not something informed, peer reviewed, but.. a book - called string theory for dummies.

Oh, and my original point stands unrefuted
AND you are still to tell me why E=mC^2 doesn't apply to black holes.

waiting...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2661 Jun 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying there is no need to test aircraft before production, because it's all worked out on paper.
If this premise is true, that there is no need to investigate reasons , then would you please tell the bumble bee he can't fly. Because theoretically he cannot fly, until you solve it mechanically there is no answer how it flies. So paper can only tell you things up to a point where investigation sheds new light on it's mechanism
beyond what paper calculation limits.
I should point out that the 'bees can't fly' story is an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

What it does show is that a bee with a flat, rigid, motionless wing could not fly.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2662 Jun 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
LHC Reports Failure To Create Black Holes, a Setback For String Theory
CMS Black Hole The Compact Muon Solenoid seen under construction in late 2008. Wikimedia Commons
Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.
You do realize that before the LHC started, the vast majority of string theorists predicted that no black holes would be found this way, right? That the conditions required under string theory for this to happen we understood *before* hand to be very unlikely in the LHC?

http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/safety...

"According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects."

Notice that the theories that predict micro black holes were classified as *speculative*. Typically, in contexts like this, this means nobody really thinks it will happen.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2663 Jun 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
First off its science that says the bumble bee can't fly but it is God who says it can. Who wins this one?
No, science does NOT say that a bumblebee can't fly. What it *does* say is that a bumblebee with a flat, rigid unmovable wing cannot glide. And that is true.
Second that is not what I'm saying.
If science is going to stop and wait to get data from the event horizon then they must just stop, because they well never get their data.
This is also far from obvious. For example, we are currently watching a gas cloud approach the black hole at the center of our galaxy. We can watch from afar as this gas cloud falls into the black hole and measure the x-rays released from this even. That *will* give us data about the event horizon of a black hole. Unfortunately, the black hole at the center of our galaxy is large enough that the quantum effects won't show up (in all likelihood). But there is nothing that says we cannot see material falling into smaller black holes in the future.
So using that as an excuse you might as well just shut down your science. Remember it is me that said science didn't need to go to the event horizon that they can use math. Not because actual data would not be great but because it is unattainable.
So we find *other* ways to find the relevant data. Perhaps relevant effects can be seen when neutron stars merge. Or when smaller black holes merge into larger ones. Or we might be able to detect the end flash from a vaporizing small black hole (that would be really nice)!
And you think that's nuts. What a DOLT!
Doing the math is a *start*. So, we know there are issues merging quantum mechanics and general relativity. We also know that *both* theories have survived every actual test that has been thrown at them. So, the question is how to find a broader theory that reduces to both QM and GR under the conditions where they have been tested. And that is where string theory and Loop Quantum Gravity come in (they are not the only ones, just the most popular today). The problem is that testing these *new* theories is beyond our capabilities right now.

String theory has the problem that too many vacuums are possible, so picking out the specific one that represents our universe may be an impossible challenge. It also only differs from QM and GR at energies that are much higher than any we can hope to get for a long, long time.

The one place where string theory *might* be testable by current equipment is in the predictions of supersymmetry. In that case, it has a few good candidates for the composition of dark matter (which one depends on the values of certain parameters in the theory). There are some interesting hints coming out of observations saying there are some new particles at the 8-12 GeV level. We shall see what plays out.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2664 Jun 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Because of supersymmetry, string theory requires a large number of
particles beyond what scientists have ever observed.
Yes, it does. We are getting close to the energy levels required to produce *some* of these particles at the LHC.
This new theory of gravity was unable to predict the accelerated expansion of the universe that was detected by astronomers.
No basic theory has been able to do that. This is an important and perplexing aspect. In some ways it is easier to 'explain' a zero cosmological constant than a small one.
A vastly large number of mathematically feasible string theory vacua (solutions) currently exist, so it seems virtually impossible to figure out
which could describe our universe.
This is also correct and is one of the biggest problems with using string theory in practice. That said, there are still many phenomenological predictions that can be made without knowing the specific vacuum.
The following sections cover these dilemmas in more detail.
The universe doesn't have enough particles For the mathematics of string theory to work, physicists have to assume a symmetry in nature called supersymmetry, which creates a correspondence between different types of particles. One problem with this is that instead of the 18 fundamental particles in the Standard Model, supersymmetry requires.
Sort of stopped in the middle of a sentence didn't you? What happened? The place where you were cutting a pasting didn't have more?

Yes, supersymmetry requires about double the number of basic particles (each fermion has a boson counterpart and vice verse). There are two good aspects of this: one is that we are just getting to the place we have the energies required to produce some of these particles. The other is that this could well explain the composition of dark matter, thereby clearing up a half-century mystery.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2665 Jun 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how can you get the data from the event horizon? First you need a ship. We have nothing like what would be needed. Then you would need millions of years for it to make it to the black hole. And if your lucky humans are still alive and the ship is some how still in one piece and work (next to impossible)
It would then some how take its reading and beam back the results before entering the black hole. And if you are real lucky in a few more million years you will get something that might be useable data.
Na it's unattainable.
Well, that's *one* scenario where you could get information from the event horizon. The other is to be lucky and actually watch something falling into a known black hole. That seems like an easier way, although the quality of the data might not be as good.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2666 Jun 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No you idiot, what we knew about aerodynamics wings and muscles says a bumble can't fly. Normal bird like motion cannot generate enough lift , because muscles are limited to specific speeds. But what we didn't know about the bumble is how it used it's wings and muscles.
It should also be pointed out that the fact that *one model* was unable to calculate the lift produced by a bee's wings did not mean that model was thrown out for everything else. The model assumed a flat, rigid, unmovable wing. That isn't how a bee's wings work. But that model works perfectly well for aircraft wings.

So this is a small case where the theory was NOT 'thrown out' because the observations didn't support it. Instead, the assumptions of the model were modified to better model the actual situation.

This is relevant for other situations also. For example, string theory has many adjustable parameters: the mass of the least massive supersymmetric particle, for example. Many of those parameters are constrained by observations we have already made, but often they are still allowed to have rather broad ranges. So, the predictions made from *one* set of parameters can differ from the predictions made from a *different* set of parameters. Now, if observations show the first set is wrong or unlikely, that does not disprove the whole theory--the second set could still be allowed.

So, when TAT likes to quote that any defect in a theory requires it to be thrown out or modified, he doesn't seem to get that modifications can be as simple as different parameter values. To get to the place that a theory has to actually be thrown out, we need a prediction that holds for ALL allowed parameter values and that is contradicted by observation. This does happen, but is has not happened for string theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2667 Jun 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has NEVER proven that nothing can turn into everything
No, it has not proven it. But it has shown how it could be possible.
First off there is no NOTHING'S that science can use sense Space and Time are always there. So go ahead and tell me again how the BB can be tested.
By matching the predictions of the background radiation to the observations.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 81,862
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 hr Science 2,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Science 33,086
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 18 Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web