The Multiverse????

[G.T.]

There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad.

Let us talk about serious science now - particularly string theory as that appears to be the topic of this thread. Both theory of relativity and quantum field theory have established themselves as well accepted theories that are supported by evidence. However, there is a gap between the two. As we know, theory of relativity is good at explaining things at large distances and speeds nearing that of light but it sucks at explaining things at quantum level. That is where quantum field theory comes into play. This leaves a gap between the two. That gap needs to be filled. This is where string theory comes in. String theory postulates that everything in our universe and I mean everything such as energy, matter, gravity, etc. is made of one dimensional vibrating string. Prior to string theory which came out in 1980s, our understanding was that quarks were the most basic building block. Prior to arrival of Edward Witten on the scene, there were five competing string theories. This was problem for the credibility of the theory. But in 1995, Edward Witten successfully demonstrated that all those five theories were simply special cases of one string theory which was called M-theory. M stands for membrane. Prior to M-theory, string theory postulated that our realities existed in 10 dimensions. M-theory adds one more dimension to this bringing the total dimensions to 11. So our universe is made of three dimensional membrane which is made of one dimensional vibrating string. There is no limit to these membranes aka universes. When we think of multiverse, we tend to think of multiple universes at vast distances. That is not always the case actually. There could be a membrane right next to you but you cannot reach it even if it is right next to you because it could be at a higher dimension than yours. So it is not the distance which is always separating us from other membranes (universes) but the dimensions as well. We are nothing but the prisoners to the dimensions in which we exist. For example, us humans are limited to four dimensions. But even today we know of particles that defy common sense. For example, bosons can exist in multiple places at the same time. Positrons can go back in time. Last but not least the curious behaviors of entangled particles seem crazy.

The same of kind of disrespect that some people are showing towards string theory and its contributors was shown towards Satyendra Nath Bose (Indian theoretical physicist) when he in 1920 proposed that there is a possibility of a particle which can exist in two places at the same time. This was a revolutionary idea as it violated Pauli's Exclusion Principle. He received a lot of ridicule for his idea till Einstein backed him. Now bosons are reality. No body disputes that.

You have reasons to be skeptical about M-theory. There is nothing wrong with that skepticism. However, you have to realize that science is about proposing ideas and deliberating on them. That is how we advance as a society.

Keep in mind, it may be hard for us to prove M-theory for now but with the advent of next generation particle smashers, we may be able to pickup on signatures of gravitons which is a prediction of M-theory (string theory).

I agree with this, except you cant quite dismiss Hawkings' work like that. It stands on its own, independent of the surrounding celebutant hoopla.

 

[Vikrant]

There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad.

Let us talk about serious science now - particularly string theory as that appears to be the topic of this thread. Both theory of relativity and quantum field theory have established themselves as well accepted theories that are supported by evidence. However, there is a gap between the two. As we know, theory of relativity is good at explaining things at large distances and speeds nearing that of light but it sucks at explaining things at quantum level. That is where quantum field theory comes into play. This leaves a gap between the two. That gap needs to be filled. This is where string theory comes in. String theory postulates that everything in our universe and I mean everything such as energy, matter, gravity, etc. is made of one dimensional vibrating string. Prior to string theory which came out in 1980s, our understanding was that quarks were the most basic building block. Prior to arrival of Edward Witten on the scene, there were five competing string theories. This was problem for the credibility of the theory. But in 1995, Edward Witten successfully demonstrated that all those five theories were simply special cases of one string theory which was called M-theory. M stands for membrane. Prior to M-theory, string theory postulated that our realities existed in 10 dimensions. M-theory adds one more dimension to this bringing the total dimensions to 11. So our universe is made of three dimensional membrane which is made of one dimensional vibrating string. There is no limit to these membranes aka universes. When we think of multiverse, we tend to think of multiple universes at vast distances. That is not always the case actually. There could be a membrane right next to you but you cannot reach it even if it is right next to you because it could be at a higher dimension than yours. So it is not the distance which is always separating us from other membranes (universes) but the dimensions as well. We are nothing but the prisoners to the dimensions in which we exist. For example, us humans are limited to four dimensions. But even today we know of particles that defy common sense. For example, bosons can exist in multiple places at the same time. Positrons can go back in time. Last but not least the curious behaviors of entangled particles seem crazy.

The same of kind of disrespect that some people are showing towards string theory and its contributors was shown towards Satyendra Nath Bose (Indian theoretical physicist) when he in 1920 proposed that there is a possibility of a particle which can exist in two places at the same time. This was a revolutionary idea as it violated Pauli's Exclusion Principle. He received a lot of ridicule for his idea till Einstein backed him. Now bosons are reality. No body disputes that.

You have reasons to be skeptical about M-theory. There is nothing wrong with that skepticism. However, you have to realize that science is about proposing ideas and deliberating on them. That is how we advance as a society.

Keep in mind, it may be hard for us to prove M-theory for now but with the advent of next generation particle smashers, we may be able to pickup on signatures of gravitons which is a prediction of M-theory (string theory).

I agree with this, except you cant quite dismiss Hawkings' work like that. It stands on its own, independent of the surrounding celebutant hoopla.

Hawking is alright. He has done some good work in the field of theoretical physics. Furthermore, he does a very good job of bringing cutting edge science to average folks.

I just distaste folks who parade as scientists but in reality they are nothing but celebrities. I prefer scientists who stay out of limelight.

 

[Vikrant]

It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life.

The idea of multiverse did not arise from vacuum. It has history. It started with Alan Guth proposing the idea of inflationary universe which was verified through astronomical observations later.

Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin took it one step further by suggesting that the inflation has to come to rest at some point and that it cannot come to rest at once. So we have places where inflation is still taking place. He coined the term eternal inflationary universe aka multiverse. Unfortunately Alex Vilenkin did not receive much support till string theory came along.

As a matter of fact, the book on multiverse would have probably closed if it was not for the arrival of string theory and making the prediction for multiverse. String theory especially in the form of M-theory is solid. It explains workings of our universe in detail and supports it through mathematics. Just like any other theory, it makes some fundamental assumptions and makes predictions. In less than 100 years or so, we will know whether those predictions are valid or not.

In defense of multiverse though, it is supported by three independent fields: inflationary universe (verified by observation), dark energy (verified by observation) and last but not least the M-theory (string theory). The idea of multiverse is gaining traction and to quote Andrei Linde, "Genie is out of the bottle."

There are morons who will believe anything.....ANYTHING......and claim it to be 'science.'

Raise your paw.


Did you just quote 'Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin'?????


This guy claims that the universe came from nothing.


Nothing!!!!



Another 'scientific' theory you embrace?????



You guys......all charter members of "Imbeciles United"

Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

 

[PoliticalChic]

It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life.

The idea of multiverse did not arise from vacuum. It has history. It started with Alan Guth proposing the idea of inflationary universe which was verified through astronomical observations later.

Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin took it one step further by suggesting that the inflation has to come to rest at some point and that it cannot come to rest at once. So we have places where inflation is still taking place. He coined the term eternal inflationary universe aka multiverse. Unfortunately Alex Vilenkin did not receive much support till string theory came along.

As a matter of fact, the book on multiverse would have probably closed if it was not for the arrival of string theory and making the prediction for multiverse. String theory especially in the form of M-theory is solid. It explains workings of our universe in detail and supports it through mathematics. Just like any other theory, it makes some fundamental assumptions and makes predictions. In less than 100 years or so, we will know whether those predictions are valid or not.

In defense of multiverse though, it is supported by three independent fields: inflationary universe (verified by observation), dark energy (verified by observation) and last but not least the M-theory (string theory). The idea of multiverse is gaining traction and to quote Andrei Linde, "Genie is out of the bottle."

There are morons who will believe anything.....ANYTHING......and claim it to be 'science.'

Raise your paw.


Did you just quote 'Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin'?????


This guy claims that the universe came from nothing.


Nothing!!!!



Another 'scientific' theory you embrace?????



You guys......all charter members of "Imbeciles United"

Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

 

[Vikrant]

It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life.

The idea of multiverse did not arise from vacuum. It has history. It started with Alan Guth proposing the idea of inflationary universe which was verified through astronomical observations later.

Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin took it one step further by suggesting that the inflation has to come to rest at some point and that it cannot come to rest at once. So we have places where inflation is still taking place. He coined the term eternal inflationary universe aka multiverse. Unfortunately Alex Vilenkin did not receive much support till string theory came along.

As a matter of fact, the book on multiverse would have probably closed if it was not for the arrival of string theory and making the prediction for multiverse. String theory especially in the form of M-theory is solid. It explains workings of our universe in detail and supports it through mathematics. Just like any other theory, it makes some fundamental assumptions and makes predictions. In less than 100 years or so, we will know whether those predictions are valid or not.

In defense of multiverse though, it is supported by three independent fields: inflationary universe (verified by observation), dark energy (verified by observation) and last but not least the M-theory (string theory). The idea of multiverse is gaining traction and to quote Andrei Linde, "Genie is out of the bottle."

There are morons who will believe anything.....ANYTHING......and claim it to be 'science.'

Raise your paw.


Did you just quote 'Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin'?????


This guy claims that the universe came from nothing.


Nothing!!!!



Another 'scientific' theory you embrace?????



You guys......all charter members of "Imbeciles United"

Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are morons who will believe anything.....ANYTHING......and claim it to be 'science.'

Raise your paw.


Did you just quote 'Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin'?????


This guy claims that the universe came from nothing.


Nothing!!!!



Another 'scientific' theory you embrace?????



You guys......all charter members of "Imbeciles United"

Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Vikrant]

Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

 

[Vikrant]

You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as a fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

 

[Dot Com]

PoliticalSpice doesn't care for the Enlightenment which brought about the very creation of this great nation's founding document? Quelle surprise.....NOT!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is "all three."

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

 

[Hollie]

You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right.

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

 

[Hollie]

Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

See what I mean.

 

[Hollie]

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

See what I mean.

I do. You're stuttering and mumbling like a bumbling moron.

 

[Vikrant]

Let's cut to the chase: which is based on faith?

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theoryafter 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

Copying and pasting: That explains why are posts are so incoherent. It is almost next to impossible to make any sense of her posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level.

I think I understand your discomfort as fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

Copying and pasting: That explains why are posts are so incoherent. It is almost next to impossible to make any sense of her posts.

I detect that you have begin to sense your defeat.

Let's remind all.....what you call 'science' is no different from what other folks call religion.


There is no laboratory proof of God's existence.....

But neither is there any proof of:

The mulitiverse theory
String theory
The HIggs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


You can obfuscate all you like, about me, about how I choose to post factual material, but the truth is exactly what I wrote above.
There is no proof of any of those 'beliefs.'

Clearly, I understand science far better than you do.

 

[Montrovant]

Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on a religious faith.

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives.
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

Copying and pasting: That explains why are posts are so incoherent. It is almost next to impossible to make any sense of her posts.

I detect that you have begin to sense your defeat.

Let's remind all.....what you call 'science' is no different from what other folks call religion.


There is no laboratory proof of God's existence.....

But neither is there any proof of:

The mulitiverse theory
String theory
The HIggs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


You can obfuscate all you like, about me, about how I choose to post factual material, but the truth is exactly what I wrote above.
There is no proof of any of those 'beliefs.'

Clearly, I understand science far better than you do.

I thought that the Large Hadron Collider had found the evidence of the Higgs boson recently. Were the articles about that untrue?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute.

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument.

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.

I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are.

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.

Copying and pasting: That explains why are posts are so incoherent. It is almost next to impossible to make any sense of her posts.

I detect that you have begin to sense your defeat.

Let's remind all.....what you call 'science' is no different from what other folks call religion.


There is no laboratory proof of God's existence.....

But neither is there any proof of:

The mulitiverse theory
String theory
The HIggs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


You can obfuscate all you like, about me, about how I choose to post factual material, but the truth is exactly what I wrote above.
There is no proof of any of those 'beliefs.'

Clearly, I understand science far better than you do.

I thought that the Large Hadron Collider had found the evidence of the Higgs boson recently. Were the articles about that untrue?

"When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory in Geneva closed down for upgrades in early 2013, its collisions had failed to yield any of dozens of particles that many theorists had included in their equations for more than 30 years. The grand flop suggests that researchers may have taken a wrong turn decades ago in their understanding of how to calculate the masses of particles.

Yet decades after their prediction, none of the supersymmetric particles have been found. “That’s what the Large Hadron Collider has been looking for, but it hasn’t seen anything,” saidSavas Dimopoulos, a professor of particle physics at Stanford University who helped develop the supersymmetry hypothesis in the early 1980s. “Somehow, the Higgs is not protected.”


....many physicists have grown increasingly convinced that the theory has failed. Just last month at the International Conference of High-Energy Physics in Valencia, Spain, researchers analyzing the largest data set yet from the LHC found no evidence of supersymmetric particles. (The data also strongly disfavors an alternative proposal called “technicolor.”)"
Radical New Theory Could Kill the Multiverse Hypothesis WIRED