Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,376 Year: 4,633/9,624 Month: 408/1,096 Week: 3/110 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 30 of 1725 (501619)
03-07-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
03-06-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Evidence
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
Not really, for there is no one hypothesis - the "theory" in String Theory simple means the body of associated work. We didn't come up with the term for public consumption - it is simply how we refer to the work being done. No one would argue that Quantum Field Theory is misnamed given its staggering success, but the real-world, experimentally verified elements of QFT form just one part of the whole body of work, with much of it highly theoretical and often more an exercise in pure mathematics - just like String Theory.
Anyone who claims (and I have ssen this often on the net) that String Theory has ideas above its station for using the word "Theory" compared with, say, Loop Quantum Gravity, is an idiot and/or does not know what they are talking about. We use whatever sounds reasonably "cool", "funny" or appropriate. Supergravity was so called because it sounds great, and calling it Supergravity Theory just takes something away. "String" doesn't quite cut it - although we would often use the diminutive "strings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Coyote has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 1725 (501674)
03-07-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
03-07-2009 5:51 AM


Re: Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 5:51 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 12:50 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 37 of 1725 (501798)
03-07-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Son Goku
03-07-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Evidence
Probably the biggest philosophical question in theoretical physics.
Not for Max and me - we know what's going on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Son Goku, posted 03-07-2009 4:11 PM Son Goku has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 136 of 1725 (517669)
08-02-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by DevilsAdvocate
08-02-2009 12:00 AM


Re: I believe Smooth Operator is a Troll
Anyone want to venture a guess?
I think his current expletive driven meltdown is a sign that he is not.
If you want to have fun, read my post on the Midnight Sun, and hit him with it repeatedly. If this is the only observation we mention, he will run screaming

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-02-2009 12:00 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2009 4:24 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 08-02-2009 8:09 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 204 of 1725 (537196)
11-27-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Coyote
11-25-2009 12:41 AM


Re: In the debate thread Slevesque writes...
Humphreys responded to this argument here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp. Showing that the in vacuum results are totally acceptable, and that Henke's argument is faulty in many occasions.
No, Humphrey's claims are useless:
quote:
Zircon, being harder than steel, would be much less compressible than lead.[5] So pressure should affect diffusion rates much less than in lead
...completely ignoring the point Henke raises concerning defects and fractures in the zircon. These should potentially have a MASSIVE effect upon the diffusion rates, but Humphreys completely fails to acknowledge this. Even in Humphreys'2008 article, he claims to have answered all critcisms regarding presuure, compressibility and diffusion rates back in his 2006 reply, which is blatently false and approaching deliberate falsehood.
Just as an additional: Humphreys is a useless twat when he comes to physics. His amateur ability in General Relativity enabled him to come up with his creation cosmology, which simply does not work, but unfortunately he is too dumb to acknowledge it despite being taken to task by those immeasurably more gifted and knowledgable than he. And his guesses at the magnetic field strength of the lesser giant planets came with error bounds so broad that it would have been a miracle not to have bracketed the correct value

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2009 12:41 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2009 3:15 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 210 of 1725 (538196)
12-04-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by JonF
11-29-2009 8:42 AM


Re: Arphy in the Debate Thread
Ok, I have now gnawed off both my arms in frustration at Arphy completely failing to follow Nosy on Nosy's clock analogies - what the f'ck do I do when we go past the analogies and actually get the real deal????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by JonF, posted 11-29-2009 8:42 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 12-04-2009 1:19 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1415 of 1725 (625439)
07-23-2011 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1408 by Chuck77
07-23-2011 2:21 AM


Re: ICANT
He's debating 3 of the sites smartest guys (nonukes, Crash and cavediver) and holding his own, IMO.
No, Chuck, ICANT is just being toyed with. He is so clueless to basic science that his insistance on trying to debate relativity is both hilarious and outrageously arrogant. Please don't be impressed by people attempting to argue at levels so far beyond their own expertise. If someone in a debate or argument refuses to back down or acknoweldge their mistake, it does not necessarily mean that they are winning or "holding their own".
At the moment I'm trying to get him to understand basic Galilean relativity (i.e pre Newton) and he's failing badly. His problem is that he has no desire to learn. He simply wants to be right. It's not an uncommen problem with those of advanced years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1408 by Chuck77, posted 07-23-2011 2:21 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1417 by Chuck77, posted 07-23-2011 5:48 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1418 of 1725 (625445)
07-23-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1417 by Chuck77
07-23-2011 5:48 AM


Re: ICANT
I guess what I mean is, it's impressive he hasn't backed down yet...lol.
Well, you have to admire his stamina!
Even if he IS being toyed with, he deserves something
Yep, he definitely does deserve "something"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1417 by Chuck77, posted 07-23-2011 5:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1419 by Larni, posted 07-23-2011 6:17 AM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024