Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[Photonic]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.



I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.



Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.

It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.



Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.



Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.



It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.



Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

Oh stop with your excuses. If I'm wrong, tell me why. Don't just repost what you already said, come off your goddamn ivory tower and give me an actual rebuttal. You never even touched what I said in reply. Baby? Bathwater? Did you even read my reply? My original reply, before you just reposted your post and called it a day?



That? Remember that? I don't think you do, because you never acknowledged it. You insulted me, said I must not have understood what you said. Despite the fact that I agreed with you that the Standard Model didn't explain everything. That is why it's only a partial theory of everything.



Oh look. Someone else's words. Yawn.

Theoretical physicists. Theoretical. Y'know, the field of physics based on math? Whose theories aren't accepted until presented with observations and evidence? Einstein's theory of relativity? Ringing any bells?

Once again, I challenge you to not apply a niche field of science to the whole subject.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.

Oh, yeah. You're all butthurt cuz of the mean old atheists and their science. Boo--hoo.

That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

Cut the cutesy passive-aggressive insults and fucking debate me already. You're argument so far has been "the standard model has problems, but scientists still use it as a theory, therefore they have faith in it." I pointed out why they still keep it, and how many of the issues with it resolve around many of the unsolved problems of physics. You just reposted the same thing and ignored me.

It's entertaining how you use exactly the arguments that make my point, and fail to see how you doom yourself.

You argue that parts of science are correct, so why 'throw the baby out....blah, blah, blah..."
So, if parts cannot be proven, and remain connected only as belief and faith...
...why do you and your ilk attack religion?

If God is not proven, many of the other aspect of religion are, as in the efficacy of the following:
"Do unto others as you would have others do into you."


But enough chit chat...It is time, I believe, for you to don those horrid white orthopedic walking shoes, and matching belt, and waddle off, ‘else you may miss the ‘Early Bird Special’!

 

[PoliticalChic]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

Didn't you say that you didn't accept string theory?

Yet Christians have to accept every aspect written in connection with religion?

Bogus.

 

[Photonic]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

Didn't you say that you didn't accept string theory?

Yet Christians have to accept every aspect written in connection with religion?

Bogus.

If you are going to use a single source as your "evidence" you should at least make sure it is sound.

 

[westwall]

I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.

I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.


Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.

Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.

Creationist Predictions

I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.

The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.

You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.

^ If that theory is the basis to determine species, then before a jellyfish was a fish, it was a watermelon, and before a watermelon was a watermelon, it was a cloud. All three having "similar DNA".
A one celled amoeba is still a one celled amoeba. Monkeys are still birthing monkeys. We are neither.

I never said we were monkeys now did I. However, millions of years ago before man existed there was a little mutation in some form of ape and the little mutation (done by God or a random gamma ray, who knows?) continued it's work until finally man was created.

You believe that there is a GOD, who is omniscient and omnipresent. Who makes the littlest decisions for his flock. I don't. I see GOD (or at least Gods essence as you would describe it) everywhere, in every thing. I see NATURE at work whenever I walk out the door. The natural processes at work are as close to Gods work as we can see.

I don't "believe" in God. But I don't "dis-believe" in God either. I honestly don't know. I also honestly don't care. If there is a God I get to see His work every day. If there isn't I still get to see the wonders of nature every day and I realise how precious and wonderful they are. Regardless of if there is a entity behind it all.

 

[westwall]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

For some rerason I find this particular train of logic very bad. Jesus preached "love thy neighbor" I don't think he would appreciate taking every suspected charlatan out back and stoning them to death. It seems to me that God would prefer to be "proven" in the things that are created and the love of people, rather then through destruction and murder.

Things that man is quite capable of accomplishing on his own quite well.

You may wish to reconsider your arguments there.

 

[westwall]

I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.

I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.


Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.

Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.

Creationist Predictions

I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.

The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.

You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.

Really ? because they are there and at the end of the page the evidence was given for the predictions.

The bible comes right out and say's how long a day is to God.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight are as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So if God used his days of creation not mans,man was not created until the 6th day if God used his timeframe for a day the earth would have been created 5,000 years before man that would put the earth at 11,000 years old.

Oh and creationist predict similarity because we are created by one designer. It's like someone leaving their finger prints on the evidence. God created with the same substances for all that is why your side thinks we are all related. The big difference is the DNA information we are vastly different even though their is microbiological similarity as well as with our DNA.

You do realise that predicting something that is known is not really predicting anything right? That is rationalisation that is not prediction. Prediction is telling us that football team "X" will win the Super bowl before the season has started. That is a prediction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

Didn't you say that you didn't accept string theory?

Yet Christians have to accept every aspect written in connection with religion?

Bogus.

If you are going to use a single source as your "evidence" you should at least make sure it is sound.

Thanks for the comic relief....the 'evidence' that I used was your statement.

If only you had a science education, you'd realize how important string theory is to the unification of theoretical physics.

 

[westwall]

I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.

I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.


Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.

Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.

Creationist Predictions

I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.

The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.

You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.

You see parents genes never seem to have a problem reproducing offspring that are the same whether they are cat's,dog's,horses,or humans.

That is why genetics are no friend of the evolutionist.

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

 

[Photonic]

Didn't you say that you didn't accept string theory?

Yet Christians have to accept every aspect written in connection with religion?

Bogus.

If you are going to use a single source as your "evidence" you should at least make sure it is sound.

Thanks for the comic relief....the 'evidence' that I used was your statement.

If only you had a science education, you'd realize how important string theory is to the unification of theoretical physics.

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

 

[Photonic]

I'm going to be helpful.

Here's an online library containing the vast majority of research papers and experiments submitted for physics, cosmology, etc.


arxiv.org

 

[The Irish Ram]

(Can you test for God? Nope.)

Actually you can test for God very easily.
Biblical prophesy can be used to test, not only that he lives but that he sees the end from the beginning.
In fact, in the testing arena, God said, "If one of My prophets is wrong, take him out back and stone him to death." That was/is the test.
God passed/continues to pass........

God also said that Christians are immune to all poison.

Why don't you test THAT?

Could you show me where you came up with, "God says Christians are immune to all poisons"?

Westwall, do you have any opinions about what happens to you after death? What if this life on earth is merely a training camp for what lies ahead?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you are going to use a single source as your "evidence" you should at least make sure it is sound.

Thanks for the comic relief....the 'evidence' that I used was your statement.

If only you had a science education, you'd realize how important string theory is to the unification of theoretical physics.

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to be helpful.

Here's an online library containing the vast majority of research papers and experiments submitted for physics, cosmology, etc.


arxiv.org

I hate to be serious with you....it's like scolding a little kid...but these posts that you intend as evidence that you have some kind of expertise in the area under discussion...
...but, sadly, you simply come across as a less-than-insightful bore who has memorized some list and keeps thrusting that forward whether or not it has any bearing.


Ignore the headaches and try to concentrate.

 

[LOki]

Thanks for the comic relief....the 'evidence' that I used was your statement.

If only you had a science education, you'd realize how important string theory is to the unification of theoretical physics.

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.

The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.

You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.

You see parents genes never seem to have a problem reproducing offspring that are the same whether they are cat's,dog's,horses,or humans.

That is why genetics are no friend of the evolutionist.

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

Lowest!!

You again!! I should have anticipated your entry when the air suddenly became cold, and hordes of black flies appeared out of nowhere, and green slime began oozing out of the walls.

 

[Photonic]

Thanks for the comic relief....the 'evidence' that I used was your statement.

If only you had a science education, you'd realize how important string theory is to the unification of theoretical physics.

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice&#8221 it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

Oh excellent, you've spouted a few misconceptions here, but I'll work through them one by one.

1. Non-sequitur.

2. Another non-sequitur.

3.

The Standard Model is conceptually simple and contains a description of the elementary particles and forces. The SM particles are 12 spin-1/2 fermions (6 quarks and 6 leptons), 4 spin-1 ‘gauge’ bosons and a spin-0 Higgs boson. These are shown in the figure below and constitute the building blocks of the universe. The 6 quarks include the up and down quarks that make up the neutron and proton. The 6 leptons include the electron and its partner, the electron neutrino. The 4 bosons are particles that transmit forces and include the photon, which transmits the electromagnetic force. With the recent observation of the tau neutrino at Fermilab, all 12 fermions and all 4 gauge bosons have been observed. Seven of these 16 particles (charm, bottom, top, tau neutrino, W, Z, gluon) were predicted by the Standard Model before they were observed experimentally! There is one additional particle predicted by the Standard Model called the Higgs, which has not yet been observed. It is needed in the model to give mass to the W and Z bosons, consistent with experimental observations. While photons and gluons have no mass, the W and Z are quite heavy. The W weighs 80.3 GeV (80 times as much as the proton) and the Z weighs 91.2 GeV. The Higgs is expected to be heavy as well. Direct searches for it at CERN dictate that it must be heavier than 110 GeV.

Now that we understand WHAT the Standard Model is we will work our way down.

a. The Standard Model explains the characteristics of the interaction particles. (The particles that control the interaction of the 3 forces of Physics, it is incomplete in that it does not describe gravity). This does indeed translate to the states of matter in that it describes these forces that control the transition.

I would like to see the transition of matter occur without the fundamental forces existing.

b. Non-sequitur, I can do nothing more than simply point out that you have a serious misconception of how math applies to reality. It is not within he scope of this argument to give you an understanding of why math works.

I will simply as you the question, how do you define mass in relation to energy?

c. Non-sequitur. It has no relation to the transition of matter from one state to another.

4. String theory has shit all to do with reality as it stands. It makes no accurate predictions. What does that mean? It means it can't be tested.

The point of a Theory of Everything is to unify. Right now it is just playing pretend. If you can prove otherwise by all means.

As to your final and very weak statement, the reason you as a layman can reject my argument is that you have no understanding of my argument.

Your lack of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start learning.

Now, I've been polite, and you've been a complete cock. If you have ANY point to your argument, you will stop using ad hominem and direct attacks.

 

[LOki]

Lowest!!

You again!! I should have anticipated your entry when the air suddenly became cold, and hordes of black flies appeared out of nowhere, and green slime began oozing out of the walls.

PotatoheadChic!!

That's just a whiff of your own breath!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go ahead and enlighten me then. Please, display your knowledge of the mathematics and physical principles I have spent my whole life using. Show me why I'm wrong with evidence.

Do you know why no scientist has earned a Nobel Prize in physics for working on string theory?

1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?

2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....

....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?

Good choice!

3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."

I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?

OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.

Oh excellent, you've spouted a few misconceptions here, but I'll work through them one by one so I don't hurt your brain.

1. Non-sequitur.

2. Another non-sequitur.

3.

The Standard Model is conceptually simple and contains a description of the elementary particles and forces. The SM particles are 12 spin-1/2 fermions (6 quarks and 6 leptons), 4 spin-1 ‘gauge’ bosons and a spin-0 Higgs boson. These are shown in the figure below and constitute the building blocks of the universe. The 6 quarks include the up and down quarks that make up the neutron and proton. The 6 leptons include the electron and its partner, the electron neutrino. The 4 bosons are particles that transmit forces and include the photon, which transmits the electromagnetic force. With the recent observation of the tau neutrino at Fermilab, all 12 fermions and all 4 gauge bosons have been observed. Seven of these 16 particles (charm, bottom, top, tau neutrino, W, Z, gluon) were predicted by the Standard Model before they were observed experimentally! There is one additional particle predicted by the Standard Model called the Higgs, which has not yet been observed. It is needed in the model to give mass to the W and Z bosons, consistent with experimental observations. While photons and gluons have no mass, the W and Z are quite heavy. The W weighs 80.3 GeV (80 times as much as the proton) and the Z weighs 91.2 GeV. The Higgs is expected to be heavy as well. Direct searches for it at CERN dictate that it must be heavier than 110 GeV.

Now that we understand WHAT the Standard Model is we will work our way down.

a. The Standard Model explains the characteristics of the interaction particles. (The particles that control the interaction of the 3 forces of Physics, it is incomplete in that it does not describe gravity). This does indeed translate to the states of matter in that it describes these forces that control the transition.

I would like to see the transition of matter occur without the fundamental forces existing.

b. Non-sequitur, I can do nothing more than simply point out that you have a serious misconception of how math applies to reality. It is not within he scope of this argument to give you an understanding of why math works.

I will simply as you the question, how do you define mass in relation to energy?

c. Non-sequitur. It has no relation to the transition of matter from one state to another.

4. String theory has shit all to do with reality as it stands. It makes no accurate predictions. What does that mean? It means it can't be tested.

The point of a Theory of Everything is to unify. Right now it is just playing pretend. If you can prove otherwise by all means.

As to your final and very weak statement, the reason you as a layman can reject my argument is that you have no understanding of my argument.

Your lack of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start learning.

Now, I've been polite, and you've been a complete cock. If you have ANY point to your argument, you will stop using ad hominem and direct attacks.

1. So...you're agreeing with my post???

This is no fun!!


2. "It means it can't be tested."

Whoops, there it is!

Let me repeat that for the hard-of-thinking:
"It means it can't be tested."

My argument exactly.
The example I've given, the multiverse, "It means it can't be tested."
Such ideas are based on....
...wait for it....

Belief and faith!!!

3. "... stop using ad hominem and direct attacks."

Nope.

See...this is only fun when someone bites it big time!
That's where you come in.

4. You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you returned to it.

5. Now, this insult is on a somewhat higher level, tell me how you like it:
You never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

(sigh)...I know you'd be insulted if you could only understand it.