Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 31 of 1725 (501621)
03-07-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by onifre
03-07-2009 3:20 AM


Re: Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 3:20 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 11:47 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 32 of 1725 (501669)
03-07-2009 11:47 AM
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 5:51 AM Straggler has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 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

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 1725 (501680)
03-07-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
03-07-2009 12:25 PM


Re: Evidence
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 12:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Son Goku, posted 03-07-2009 4:11 PM Straggler has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 1725 (501753)
03-07-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
03-07-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 12:50 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 7:40 PM Son Goku has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 36 of 1725 (501791)
03-07-2009 7:11 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 03-07-2009 7:46 PM Sarawak has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 1725 (501800)
03-07-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sarawak
03-07-2009 7:11 PM


Welcome!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 7:11 PM Sarawak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 8:15 PM Coyote has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 39 of 1725 (501808)
03-07-2009 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
03-07-2009 7:46 PM


Re: Welcome!
archaeology and physical anthropology are two of the areas I need updating.
Thank you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 03-07-2009 7:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 8:35 PM Sarawak has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 40 of 1725 (501809)
03-07-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Sarawak
03-07-2009 8:15 PM


Re: Welcome!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 8:15 PM Sarawak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 9:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 41 of 1725 (501816)
03-07-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Coragyps
03-07-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Welcome!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 8:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 42 of 1725 (502206)
03-10-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 10:49 AM


Re: Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 10:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:16 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2009 12:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 43 of 1725 (502215)
03-10-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
03-10-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Evidence
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 03-10-2009 10:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 03-11-2009 7:28 AM Stile has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 44 of 1725 (502231)
03-10-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
03-10-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 03-10-2009 10:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 03-11-2009 7:42 AM Theodoric has replied

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 45 of 1725 (502301)
03-10-2009 7:08 PM


Is this a "Peanut Gallery" for one thread only or can we just throw up comments about any thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Admin, posted 03-10-2009 8:19 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but 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