Science String Theory

[Shagrat]

Jesus christ it makes my head hurt.

maybe a bit hardcore for casual reading to unwind from work

interesting that its one of the theories some physicists are using to possibly explain the test results from CERN, the particles could have skipped off our brane, taken a shortcut, and dropped back on at the destination.


need a beer now, brain is overheating......

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Branes = switching between realities?

 

[Tuthmes]

If those test proof to be correct I can see an infinite loop of beer incomming.

Glass is empty.
Ohh wait it isnt.

win.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ah string theory, one to throw in any discussion where god and proof is talked about

 

[Cyradix]

http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/archief/archief2011/nieuwsberichten/Elburg


Groningen physicist publishes possible answer to the faster-than-light neutrino conundrum

Date:
October 18, 2011

The Groningen physicist Ronald van Elburg may have an explanation for the conundrum of the neutrinos that appear to be faster than light. His take on the affair has been widely covered in the American news media and is being seriously considered by many physicists.


The remarkable aspect of his explanation is that it in fact confirms the theory of relativity. Van Elburg wonders whether the team that conducted the OPERA experiment considered a necessary correction required by the special theory of relativity, the Lorentz transformation. It needs to be applied due to the movement of GPS satellites relative to the earth.

Van Elburg calculated how large the required correction must be and came up with a maximum of 64 nanoseconds. The OPERA experiment shows the neutrinos as being 60 nanoseconds faster than light. If the correction is subtracted from this, the neutrinos then end up near the speed of light again.

Ronald van Elburg’s article explaining his theory can be found on the Cornell University Library website. Whether or not he happens to be right is still up for debate. Van Elburg is waiting for reactions from the scientific community before making any further comment.

 

[Mabs]

Monty Python - String - YouTube

is about the extent of my string understanding

 

[Raven]

Ah string theory, one to throw in any discussion where god and proof is talked about

Not wanting to get into a discussion about god bothering or anything but, string theory is a theory, it is not and has never been fact.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not wanting to get into a discussion about god bothering or anything but, string theory is a theory, it is not and has never been fact.

Yeap.

 

[Deebs]

Not wanting to get into a discussion about god bothering or anything but, string theory is a theory, it is not and has never been fact.

Can you not say the same of God?

 

[Ch3tan]

Deebs man, don't do it....

*bites* religious folk do not see god as a theory, but as a fact. Science treats everything as a theory.

 

[Job]

God is Dog backwards, tickles me that one, there has to something in it.

One must always emphasise the word THEORY when discussing theories, though as a recent article pointed out, scientists use of words doesn't match up with the general public's perception of a words meaning.

 

[old.Tohtori]

*bites* religious folk do not see god as a theory, but as a fact. Science treats everything as a theory.

That's a "Well..." moment that i refer to, sometimes the theory is treated with way too much trust. Not just string theory. The moment you do something like use a theory to prove that stuff can't do X, you're in dangerous waters.

But even if you theorise about god, talk about the possibility of one, you're more likely to get laughed at by a scientist then if you're talking about string theory(etc) which are equally proven "facts". *

*Edit for the pedantic "Or there lack of..."

 

[Raven]

Can you not say the same of God?

Beleif in god (or faith) is absolute fact for the people who believe in it, regardless of any evidence for or against. They do not require or need any real proof. Whereas string theory is a theory that is ready to be proven either way, generally scientists are quite happy to be proven wrong.

The difference between science and religion, or as I like to call it fuckwittery.

*leaves thread alone*

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh nice, sabotage the thread then walk away. Smooth Raven, smooth.

 

[Raven]

erm? I think you will find Toht posted, as have you... I responded then said to I would leave it.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a bit of indignation, always amusing.

 

[dysfunction]

This was always going to end badly...

 

[Ch3tan]

And there you go again You can't say "not wanting to get into a god discussion" to toht and then walk away from all the carnage.

 

[Deebs]

Hehe.

 

[Raven]

Why? My opinion wont change half way through the thread, unless ofc someone can provide any sort of proof? I see little point in explaining it in 101 different ways...I am not particularly interested in whether other people believe in god either. They are wrong. End of.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not arguing it, just saying that it's rather irrational how god theory is treated compared to dark matter, or string theory.

I didn't bring religious "it must be fact!" zealots into it

Things like "believing in god is wrong!" are no different from "believing in god is right!" as far as the theory of it all goes. And yes i do think god is a theory, i've not seen proof either way.

It's ofcourse irrelevant what i wish and would like to be beyond the kicking ze bucket curtain.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I guess the question posed here is; what's the diffference in a god theory and string theory and if there is none, why is one treated as a complete bullsh*t impossibility and the other a valid theory?


And i DO mean just as a theory, leave the religious, blind belief either way, stuff out of it.

 

[Reno]

I'd rather we discussed the strings contained in this thread, than the God discussion all over again.

 

[Krazeh]

I guess the question posed here is; what's the diffference in a god theory and string theory and if there is none, why is one treated as a complete bullsh*t impossibility and the other a valid theory?

And i DO mean just as a theory, leave the religious, blind belief either way, stuff out of it.

Well for a start there is no 'God theory'. Secondly String Theory is falsifiable, the existence of God isn't. If it's not falsifiable then it's not a theory.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you listen to religious people who take it as fact, then no. Or to people saying it's simply not true without any "what if". Still as valid of a hypothesis as any that a supreme galaxy creating creature is out there.

the problem is that people take it as something that should be considered either fact or not and as such, discussing it leads to *points at thread* this.

Or is the mere notion of god somehow being possible, like string theory, contradicting and threatening to the whole basis of science?

 

[Krazeh]

Still as valid of a hypothesis as any that a supreme galaxy creating creature is out there.

I suppose considering neither of them are particularly valid scientific hypotheses you could say they're as valid as each other.

Or is the mere notion of god somehow being possible, like string theory, contradicting and threatening to the whole basis of science?

Not really, it's just simply not science and has no place in scientific discussions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What makes you say it's not scientific? It's no different then a human vs an ant.

String theory is made up sh*t as much as a being that could create galaxies, yet it's somehow ok? It makes zero sense.

Or are you still stuck in thinking that god can only be what is talked about in the bible and by religious people?

 

[Krazeh]

What makes you say it's not scientific? It's no different then a human vs an ant.

Is it falsifiable? Regardless of anything else if it's not falsifiable then it's not science.

String theory is made up sh*t as much as a being that could create galaxies, yet it's somehow ok? It makes zero sense.

String theory builds on pre-existing frameworks and knowledge. It's not just 'made up shit'. The only reason it appears to you to make as little sense as the 'magic man done it' approach is a lack of training/understanding in high level theoretical physics.

Or are you still stuck in thinking that god can only be what is talked about in the bible and by religious people?

How else would you like to talk about God? What evidence do you have to bring to the table? What tests can you concieve to test for his existence? How could you prove your 'hypothesis' to be false?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The only reason it appears to you to make as little sense as the 'magic man done it' approach is a lack of training/understanding in high level theoretical physics.

And that's about where i bow out as it's impossible to discuss it in any manner without those kinds of comments. Unless ofcourse you can keep 'em out.

If you believe it's impossible for more advanced species to exist, then you're too close minded to discuss it.

Proving the evolution of the planet by natural means(which is quite a gonga line of chances) would pretty mcuh remove an outside influence from our globe.

 

[Krazeh]

If you believe it's impossible for more advanced species to exist, then you're too close minded to discuss it.

Where did I say or imply anything like a belief that it's impossible for more advanced species to exist? I thought we were talking about God or are you moving the goalposts again?

Proving the evolution of the planet by natural means(which is quite a gonga line of chances) would pretty mcuh remove an outside influence from our globe.

What?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Where did I say or imply anything like a belief that it's impossible for more advanced species to exist? I thought we were talking about God or are you moving the goalposts again?

What?

A highly enough evolved species could be defined as god, but if you're stuck in the magical sky fairy thought process(as is usually the case with these discussions), you're restricting yourself as much as religious folk who claim it as fact.

On the second part; outside influence on the evolution of this planet is not completely impossible.