KJV

United States

#1564 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
I am quoting Daniel Friedan, a former string theorist at Rutgers from hep-th/0204131

"The long-standing crisis of string theory"

"String theory has no credibility as a candidate theory of physics.
Recognizing failure is a userful part of the scientific strategy. Only
when failure is recognized can dead ends be abandoned and useable
pieces of failed programs be recycled. Aside from possible utility,
there is a responsibility to recognize failure. Recognizing failure
is an essential part of the scientific ethos. Complete scientific
failure must be recognized eventually."
KJV

United States

#1565 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
Why the String Theory is pseudoscience
Throughout history the main block to scientific progress has always been atheists.

I don’t really understand how anyone can believe that the String Theory is science. Apparently the atheist animals that run science in modern times consider the String Theory science based off nothing more than authority, meaning they believe the String Theory is science because some authority figures have said so.

So what exactly is the String Theory? The String Theory is an attempt to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Right now you have to say that things behave a certain way in the quantum world and in another certain way in the macro-world. Meaning if you tried to apply Quantum Mechanics to the macro-world it wouldn’t work, and if you tried to apply General Relativity to the Quantum World it wouldn’t work. They each only work on their own scales. They do however make very accurate predictions on their own scale.

The String Theory is an attempt to reconcile QM and GR so you don’t have to say this works only in the Quantum World or only in the General Relativity world, you would just have one world where everything follows the same rules. In order to do this string theorists claim that matter is composed of 1-dimensional strings and that there exists many other unperceivable dimensions.
KJV

United States

#1566 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
Part 2

Here’s why the String Theory is pseudoscience:

- 1-Dimensional strings not empirically observable

The whole basis of the string theory is that matter is composed of oscillating 1-dimensional strings. 1-dimensional strings in the string theory are around 10 quadrillion times smaller than quarks (1 quadrillion = 1015). So it is quite impossible to observe them with our current technology, it may even be hypothetically impossible to observe them. Most string theorists don’t even hope that one day they will be directly observable or testable, they simply hope that one day predictions made by the string theory will be testable.

- Makes no testable predictions

Even the biggest string theory proponents like Ed Witten have only admitted that in the “foreseeable future” the string theory should produce testable predictions (specifically Supersymmetry). String theorists have been saying things like that for more than 30 years now. They don’t argue that the string theory is even testable at this present time but only that “in the future” it will be testable.

In reality as of now, no testable predictions of the string theory have ever been produced in peer-reviewed journals, not even one.

- Unfalsifiable

The string theory has already failed many supposed testable predictions such as black hole predictions, the accelerated expansion of the universe, and even recently supposedly low-energy Supersymmetry, but none of this falsifies the string theory, why? The string theory has an extraordinarily large number of solutions (vacua), meaning that the mathematics can be defined to match virtually any observed phenomena.
KJV

United States

#1567 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
String Theory has failed every test put to it. It has not passed one test. Not one"

There has yet to *be* a definitive test of string theory. It is still healthy and running well.

[QUOTE]Doc String theory is a myth, it's dead it's no longer science. Get over it. The LSD trip that lead to string theory is over!"

Even if that were true, it is beside the point. The qute you like to give about the failings of QM and GR is all about leading up to string theory. That is what Greene was talking about.
Part 3

Since the string theory has so many solutions and can match into virtually any observed phenomena this makes the string theory worse than simply empirically untestable at the present time, this makes it hypothetically unfalsifiable even if many supposed string theory predictions become testable. This means that even if we find ways to test supposed “predictions” made by the string theory if the string theory fails those tests then string theorists can just find many other solutions to the string theory and avoid the failed prediction.

So realistically the string theory doesn’t predict anything and never can be falsified. The only way to really falsify the string theory would be to find a way to directly test the existence of the 1-dimensional strings (since the string theory can accommodate virtually any low-energy phenomena) or for the string theory to fail a required high-energy prediction.

No string theorist can even tell us which solution to the string theory they are referring to. There’s just one string theory, but there’s an extraordinarily large number of solutions to the string theory.

It’s just as Feynman had said “String theorists do not make predictions, they make excuses”.

The “String Theory” is pseudoscience by definition since it does not adhere to the scientific method, and cannot be reliably tested. The String Theory matches the exact precise definition of pseudoscience. The String theory is really just mathematical philosophy.

If someone claims that aliens in another un-observable dimension exist, and that they have the mathematics for it, but they cannot test out if their mathematics correlate to reality or if the un-observable dimension with unicorns actually exists, should we should consider such a hypothesis as scientific?

String theorists claim that matter is composed of very small 1-dimensional strings, that many other un-observable dimensions exist, and that they have the mathematics for it, but they cannot test out if their mathematics correlate to reality, or if the 1-dimensional strings actually exist, or if other un-observable dimensions exist, so should we consider such a hypothesis as science?

I don’t think the String theory is useless however since it is very useful for advancing mathematics so it belongs in mathematical journals. All those who do work on the “string theory” should be considered as mathematicians rather than as physicists. Even if the string theory is pseudo-scientific or even completely wrong it’s still useful for advancing mathematics. You can do lots of things in mathematics that have zero correlation to reality.
KJV

United States

#1568 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Right, time only has t>0, not t<=0. That does NOT imply we don't exist except in your demented 'logic'.
So did time exist when there was no Big Bang or its after math?
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#1569 May 18, 2013
Hmm... The Perfect creator creates a fig tree and then his brat comes along and curses it.

One of the more infamous passages in the gospels involves Jesus cursing of a fig tree for not having any fruit for him despite the fact that it wasnt even the season for fruit.

What sort of petulant individual would deliver a gratuitous, arbitrary curse?

Why would this be Jesus only miracle in the environs of Jerusalem?

In reality the incident is meant as a metaphor for something larger and worse.

Mark isnt trying to tell his audience that Jesus was angered at not having figs to eat because it would be very strange, given that he would have known that it was far too early in the year for that.

Instead, Jesus is making a larger point about Jewish religious traditions. Specifically: it was not the time for Jewish leaders to bear fruit, and therefore they would be cursed by God never to bear any fruit ever again.

Isn't mythology fun?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1570 May 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. This is one of the *basic* ideas in the Big Bang model. Every location looks the same: there is no 'center' to the expansion. Every place is expanding. There is no 'edge' to the expansion. Until you get this basic point, you simply don't have a grasp on the Big Bang model.
It is a slippery concept for him to grasp, I suppose-- most folk simply cannot fathom the idea of a finite, but unbounded space.

My favorite analogy, is the surface of a rubber balloon-- from the perspective of the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon, there are no boundaries.

And if you inflate the balloon, all points on the surface will begin to spread apart from all the rest--equally (assuming smooth elasticity of the balloon, obviously).

It's a quite lovely analogy, one I did not invent (obviously), but it does help people to get a grasp of what's happening in our present Universe.

Kinda-- the failure of the analogy, is that the balloon exists within a 3 dimensional space, without filling that up.

That falsely implies that there is a sort of "super-space" that houses our present Universe; there may or may not be, but we cannot tell at present.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1571 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Just BS rants from a mindless little troll
So you agree? That you are just another hypocrite?

Because your "answer" above, ignores my points below:

And your bible commands you to PRAY about it, and NEVER ask for mundane, SECULAR help-- i.e. SCIENTIFIC medicine.

However, we all know how much of a HYPOCRITE you are--- at the slightest hint of pain, you go running for SCIENCE-BASED medicine.

Instead of asking your godling to help...

... because you KNOW your god WON'T DO ANYTHING.

That is what your god does best: NOTHING.

In fact?

That is the ONLY thing your god does at all! Nothing.

Sad for you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1572 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
bobby that's in space and time that that stuff happens.

Clueless. You are seriously, and fatally clueless... still.

[QUOTE who="KJV"]
Now I'll ask you again.

What powered the Big Bang when there was no (pay attention bobby) When there was no Space or Time or Energy or Matter, no dark matter no dark energy no anti matter no spider man or super man?
Who says there must be a Super, Magical Power-Pack?

You?

Again-- you are clueless.

I will ask YOU: WHAT "POWERS" GRAVITY?

Can you form a coherent answer?

No?

We thought as much...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1573 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
bobby that's in space and time that that stuff happens.
Clueless. You are seriously, and fatally clueless... still.
KJV wrote:
Now I'll ask you again.

What powered the Big Bang when there was no (pay attention bobby) When there was no Space or Time or Energy or Matter, no dark matter no dark energy no anti matter no spider man or super man?
Who says there must be a Super, Magical Power-Pack?

You?

Again-- you are clueless.

I will ask YOU: WHAT "POWERS" GRAVITY?

Can you form a coherent answer?

No?

We thought as much...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1574 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure about that bobby?
Math claims it does exist. I guess you fail again. Or is it math that is wrong?
Now try thinking bobby.
Moron. Polymath is NOT ME.

Polymath is a literal math-genius.

I'm not even in the same ball-park as Polymath is.

But you?

You demonstrate you have serious brain-damage.
KJV

United States

#1575 May 18, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Hmm... The Perfect creator creates a fig tree and then his brat comes along and curses it.

One of the more infamous passages in the gospels involves Jesus’ cursing of a fig tree for not having any fruit for him despite the fact that it wasn’t even the season for fruit.

What sort of petulant individual would deliver a gratuitous, arbitrary curse?

Why would this be Jesus’ only miracle in the environs of Jerusalem?

In reality the incident is meant as a metaphor for something larger and worse.

Mark isn’t trying to tell his audience that Jesus was angered at not having figs to eat because it would be very strange, given that he would have known that it was far too early in the year for that.

Instead, Jesus is making a larger point about Jewish religious traditions. Specifically: it was not the time for Jewish leaders to “bear fruit,” and therefore they would be cursed by God never to bear any fruit ever again.

Isn't mythology fun?
Missed the whole point didn't ya?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1576 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your model is wrong.
Is the universe expanding?
The scientific answer is "Yes"
If its expanding then it has an edge right next to where it doesn't exist.
100% bullshit.

Your puny and brain-damaged mind simply cannot grasp the concept of a finite, but no-boundaries space.

Sad.

There is no "edge" to the Universe-- it has no boundary.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1577 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
100% bullshit.
Your puny and brain-damaged mind simply cannot grasp the concept of a finite, but no-boundaries space.
Sad.
There is no "edge" to the Universe-- it has no boundary.
That is to KJV. I replied to you on the other thread, where you just replied to me. Anytime you wish to come back to civilized conversation, glad to meet you there. I don't think I can take too much of the backand forth with the knowledge-claiming believers here. See you elsewhere!
KJV

United States

#1578 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>It is a slippery concept for him to grasp, I suppose-- most folk simply cannot fathom the idea of a finite, but unbounded space.

My favorite analogy, is the surface of a rubber balloon-- from the perspective of the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon, there are no boundaries.

And if you inflate the balloon, all points on the surface will begin to spread apart from all the rest--equally (assuming smooth elasticity of the balloon, obviously).

It's a quite lovely analogy, one I did not invent (obviously), but it does help people to get a grasp of what's happening in our present Universe.

Kinda-- the failure of the analogy, is that the balloon exists within a 3 dimensional space, without filling that up.

That falsely implies that there is a sort of "super-space" that houses our present Universe; there may or may not be, but we cannot tell at present.

:)
bobby there is no 2 dimensional surface of a ballon!

2 dimension items do not exist in our universe.
KJV

United States

#1579 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>So you agree? That you are just another hypocrite?

Because your "answer" above, ignores my points below:

And your bible commands you to PRAY about it, and NEVER ask for mundane, SECULAR help-- i.e. SCIENTIFIC medicine.

However, we all know how much of a HYPOCRITE you are--- at the slightest hint of pain, you go running for SCIENCE-BASED medicine.

Instead of asking your godling to help...

... because you KNOW your god WON'T DO ANYTHING.

That is what your god does best: NOTHING.

In fact?

That is the ONLY thing your god does at all! Nothing.

Sad for you.
There was a point you were trying to make? Hmmmm. Don't see it sorry.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#1580 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Missed the whole point didn't ya?[/QUOTE]

No actually I understood it perfectly as you don't understand it and endorse it.

Ponder this for just a moment if you can take that much time...

If we are to assume your Creator Entrusted certain individuals with his words, Why then are there so many versions and other gods, Which your God admits to?

I would think a perfect being would not make such a Stupid mistake.

After all he would've known the consequences up front!

What excuse can you provide for this?
KJV

United States

#1581 May 18, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Missed the whole point didn't ya?"

No actually I understood it perfectly as you don't understand it and endorse it.

Ponder this for just a moment if you can take that much time...

If we are to assume your Creator Entrusted certain individuals with his words, Why then are there so many versions and other gods, Which your God admits to?

I would think a perfect being would not make such a Stupid mistake.

After all he would've known the consequences up front!

What excuse can you provide for this?
Paul is teaching us that there are not many gods. Rather, he is teaching us that there are many that are "called" gods but are not really gods. We can see this elsewhere when Paul says in Gal. 4:8, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." We can see that the Bible teaches that there is only one God, yet people believe in other gods. In reality these other gods do not exist.
KJV

United States

#1582 May 18, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Missed the whole point didn't ya?"

No actually I understood it perfectly as you don't understand it and endorse it.

Ponder this for just a moment if you can take that much time...

If we are to assume your Creator Entrusted certain individuals with his words, Why then are there so many versions and other gods, Which your God admits to?

I would think a perfect being would not make such a Stupid mistake.

After all he would've known the consequences up front!

What excuse can you provide for this?
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:'I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God...Do not fear, nor be afraid; have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" (Isaiah 44:6-8).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1583 May 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If "time only has t>0", then there can be no boundary of time, and time could not have begun.
We would say that t=0 is the 'boundary' even though only t>0 exists. That is the case in the basic BB theory.
If so, then there could be no absence of time, so your assertion that the universe was not caused because causality requires time, and there was no time, is false.
No, the fact that there simply *is* no t<0, but only t>0 shows that it is impossible to have a 'cause' for the beginning of time.

Come on, you can do better than this. You are just starting to get a grasp on what the theory actually says. Only t>0 exists because as t gets smaller, the curvature increases without limit, so it is impossible to extend t to t=0, let alone t<0. Causality only happens in time, so for t>0. We are currently at t~13.7 billion years.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Dogen 14,441
Christianity Created Hitler 25 min Uncle Sam 83
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 31 min polymath257 41
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 35 min polymath257 20
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 41 min polymath257 276
why? 1 hr thetruth 2
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 7 hr thetruth 1,225
More from around the web