Posted on 02/23/2012 7:32:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.
This statement disqualifies Sir Newton from teaching science in our schools.
Not to many people know who Sir Issac Newton to begin with.
Didn’t he grow apples or something?
In fact, you can go through every detail of string theory, or the multiverse theory, and use it to say just about anything you might imagine one way or the other ~ without limit.
Some have put a cap of how many multiverse situations can really occur but I've seen folks use other math to simply demolish a cap.
So, what is going on? My personal theory is very simple ~ that in this universe at least you cannot predict the future. You can certainly project trends but you cannot predict!
The evidence for that arises out of the discovery that given a whole bunch of waves in the ocean there's a probability (may be vanishingly small) that a larger wave exists in their midst, and that maybe an even larger wave than that.
Before the discovery of real rogue waves the math used to describe fluid dynamics failed to predict the existence of such waves. Now that we know they exist we can actually describe them and their behavior quite well ~ even determine the probabilities of a wave of this, that orthe other size just popping up ~ but we cannot predict that with certainty.
Quantum tunneling depends on similar processes ~ some wave forms (electrons or protons perhaps) occurring in higher energy levels than we can predict with certainty, but occurring in any case.
It's like uncertainty prohibits us looking into the future.
|
|
Good heavens, no! He grew figs. Surely you've heard of the (wait for it)...fig newton?
String theory and multiverse theories are BS of the worst sort, motivated by a recognition of the mathematical odds against evolution in the one universe which we actually live in and know anything about.
All the male inhabitants on the Blue Planet are controlled by string bikinis that control the purse strings and leave the males on a shoestring.
It`s all one big happy web.
Could you either refer to it as “string hypothesis”, or tell us what repeatable experiment demonstrates the the truth of the hypothesis?
Bump! thanks for posting!
Oh man...that was bad!
but, you know, the New York Times...sigh. They have a book list...
“Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: ‘What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?’ And science cannot answer these questions.”
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow
It was Rocky & Bullwinkle who did that to me. Society is to blame.
String theory came about by accident when two physicists accidentally discovered that an obscure eighteenth century mathematical expression called the Euler Beta function unexpectedly described quantum behavior. There was no anti-relgious motivation involved at all.
The problem with string theory, is that instead of noticing that the math no longer describes reality,, we are assured that the math is correct, and that there are magic invisible universes and worlds.
Which is more plausible,, the lunacy of string theory, taken as a representation of reality?? Or that the math somewhere took a turn off the path of truth?
It’s happened before,,so many deep errors in describing reality had entire bodies of “proof”.
Point to ponder...
The other day someone posted an interactive site zooming from the smallest parts of what we believe exists, through the mwasureable, up to the spherical ball that consists of the believed universe...
It went like this...
Bits of point matter
Empty space
Bigger bits
Empty space
repeated a few times
Then...
Bits of matter (quarks and such
Empty space
Atoms - Bits of matter orbited by other bits of matter
Empty space
Bigger ones
Empty space
repeated a few times
Then...
Things we can see with microscopes
Things in the world
The World
The Sun
solar system (Matter with things orbiting around it)
Empty space
Other solar systems (Matter with things orbiting around it)
Empty space
Our galaxy (central core with things orbiting around it)
Empty space
Galactic clusters (central core with things orbiting around it)
ETC
Zoomed out far enough, our universe appears to be a point of matter.
So considering the repeating process above, The fact that we could be one ‘molecule’, our universe could be one molecule in a much larger ‘thing’, with uncounted others, does not strike me as far fetched.
Anyone thinking that in a couple hundred years of actual hard science, that we have done anything but scratch the surface of what ‘is’ in ‘reality’ is pretty arrogant or deluding themselves. One of the two.
It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself. –Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest
String theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate
String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. –Laughlin, Nobel Laureate
“It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it’s a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.” Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate
I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right. –Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.