|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory? Well, string theory is a theory that tries to explain gravity. Gravity is a known force so no faith is required to begin studying the phenomenon. Don't get me wrong I am not really questioning the validity of string theory research. I am just asking what links the concept of vibrating strings to the fact of gravity? Is it just abstract mathematics or is there a more empirical evidential basis? Our ability to use abstract maths to derive highly plausible and indeed verified (GR, QED) hypotheses is, I think, both interesting and different to the normally very empirically led scientific process of discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I am just asking what links the concept of vibrating strings to the fact of gravity? Is it just abstract mathematics or is there a more empirical evidential basis? Since it's theoretical physics I would say yes, just abstract math. But remember we're talking about 1 dimentional strings that are smaller than Planck scale. Not only do we not have the equipment to do that, the tighter we try to compress quantum fields the crazier they get.
Our ability to use abstract maths to derive highly plausible and indeed verified (GR, QED) hypotheses is, I think, both interesting and different to the normally very empirically led scientific process of discovery.
Well GR explains macro scales, QM explains micro scale, and what is trying to be done is simply to unify the 2, so it can ONLY be through abstract math. But I would agree that it's much different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I am just asking what links the concept of vibrating strings to the fact of gravity? Is it just abstract mathematics Yes, it is "just" abstract mathematics
Our ability to use abstract maths to derive highly plausible and indeed verified (GR, QED) hypotheses... Hmmm, plausible, verified, and ONLY THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORIES MANKIND HAS EVER DISCOVERED !!!!! Yeah, it's "just" that abstract mathematics... Amazing how succesful the "sod the evidence, look at its beauty"* method has worked And we've been doing this for over 100 years now, so it shouldn't really be such a surprise... * P.A.M. Dirac - private communication Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hmmm, plausible, verified, and ONLY THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORIES MANKIND HAS EVER DISCOVERED !!!!! Yeah, it's "just" that abstract mathematics... Amazing how succesful the "sod the evidence, look at its beauty"* method has worked I could not agree more. That is what I am getting at. It is bloody remarkable that "just" abstract mathematics is capable of this. Why is that? What about the universe is it that makes this abstract logical method such a successful method of revealing it's nature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
What about the universe is it that makes this abstract logical method such a successful method of revealing it's nature?
Probably the biggest philosophical question in theoretical physics. It's even crazier when a physical theory needs new mathematics and it turns out that the required maths was invented thirty years earlier by mathematicians for completely mathematical reasons by people who know nothing about physics! Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5506 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Hi folks. I am here as Sarawak. I'm new and saw no "welcome" thread so I figured I'd stop by here and say hello. I am of the retired scientist variety and need some updating in many areas.
My areas: geomicrobiology and biochemistry. Perhaps I can help push back the curtain of ignorance, but I suspect I will learn more than I will teach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Probably the biggest philosophical question in theoretical physics. Not for Max and me - we know what's going on
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Welcome!
I'm sure you'll be able to contribute a lot with that background. There are a lot of highly edjumacated folks here, which makes for good discussions. My fields are archaeology and physical anthropology. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5506 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
archaeology and physical anthropology are two of the areas I need updating.
Thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hi, Sarawak! You'll learn boatloads of stuff here - Bible tales to the Big Bang. It's one of my favorite spots on the internet. And I'll pump you for information on geomicrobiology - the oddities that those varmints put into crude oil never cease to fascinate me.
Edited by Coragyps, : addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarawak Member (Idle past 5506 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Coragyps:
Thank you. Being from Texas, I'd guess you have an interest in oil. Microbes, unfortunately, take more out of oil fields than they deposit (other than their dead/living bodies). I made more than a few dollars dealing with sour oil fields.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Good bud, I'm happy you're back. I've been citing significant evidence of the existence of God for years. Time will tell how much effect it has had on people. One knows not for sure what is going on in the minds of members, both active and inactive, not to mention the non-member readers. Hey Buzsaw, my time is limited to devote to forums anymore, especially ones that lead me to bang my head against the wall too much. I am grateful for this forum though, as the underlying motive for all this, is to disclose the truth about things. I feel that if God exists, and He created all of this, then every single particle of the universe is proof of Him. That's the decision we make when we look at it. We can look at it and say, "God is amazing for creating the crab nebula" or we can say "God didn't created the crab nebula, but it is still amazing". IMO, proving or disproving God with physical evidence should NOT BE what believing in God is all about. Believing in God is all about Love. If every single believer loved every non-believer, the way that God loves us, there would be very few problems, and very few unbelievers. It is about love, and love is subjective. Creation science is a joke. We are like the creatures in the locker from the movie Men in Black (2?). The more we look out, the more we see. The more we look in (microscopes) the more we see. It will never end, unless we reach the limits of the universe, set forth by it's creator, or mere chance existence. The question is, where did it all come from, and why. We will forever wonder the answer to that question. We won't find the answer to it in our life time, or several life times to come, and possibly never find the answer. But love exists, and it is subjective, and it is the answer to most, if not all problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Believing in God is all about Love. Yes, this is what believing in God should be about. Of course, there are many, many believers who do not yet have this message.
If every single believer loved every non-believer, the way that God loves us, there would be very few problems, and very few unbelievers. It is about love, and love is subjective. Why are you worried about having less unbelievers? I thought you said that it was "all about Love," no? Perhaps you should change that to say "If every single believer loved every non-believer, the way that God loves us, there would be very few problems, and very few without Love."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Believing in God is all about Love. If every single believer loved every non-believer, the way that God loves us, there would be very few problems, and very few unbelievers. It is about love, and love is subjective. Even if every believer in the world loved me, I still would not believe that mythology and mumbo-jumbo is true. I am quite certain it wouldn't have any affect on any of the atheists I know. Religion is about love, it is about control and the need for people to have an explanation for the things they don't, or refuse to, understand. P.S.Buzsaw took his ball and went home. Buz says bye bye
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Is this a "Peanut Gallery" for one thread only or can we just throw up comments about any thread?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024