G
GZAexabyte
Guest
m theory is essentially a well defined quantum theory that reduces to a supersymmetric theory of gravity at low energies. In effect, with M theory, already established theories are being "united" in a single framework. To this you may respond "whats the point favoring theories that explain everyting alone over multiple theory's that only explain certain things?" (ie. your so called "practical physics") obviously the universe follows "laws". Note that I would use the term "follows a set of laws" but I won't until I deal with the fact that the term "set" is normally used arbitrarily. who's to say "these things are in "one set" and "those are in another". however when it comes down to laws that the universe follows i'd say that the rules followed by the universe are by definition objectively different from rules the universe does not follow. in as much as reality iteself (as is limited by the fact that our definition of reality is relegated to being a function of our perception in as much as we cannot deal with a reality we cannot percieve unless it at least has some indirect consequences we can percieve) can be said to be a function of those rules and those rules alone. to make a simple analogy, a deductively valid logical calculation such as modus tollens is, by definition, objectively different from a rule i'll label "potato" which states that "if all a are b then all b are not c". the latter is demonstrably illogical (if the statement "potato" is intended to stand alone without supporting premises) while the former is objectively true. in essence the groups of laws which make up "objective truth" are objectively true. When stated this way it is rather obvious that favoring a unified theory over a set of inelegant and incomplete theories makes perfect sence. By definition a theory which lacks the ability to discern certain objective truths would be "in error" as it relates to the truths it fails to discern. Name a physics theory that contains 4 or less dimensions (spatial or otherwise) that can even come close to claiming that it unifies all the forces of the universe into a single framework? the very fact that the theory's you favor are incomplete, by definition, exhibits their lack of ability to resolve correct conclusions in all circumstances and therefore makes them inferior to M theory. unless you can come up with some correct conclusions which m theory has failed to resolve that your "practical physics" can resolve... M theory, at the current state of events in physics, must be accepted as being demonstrably superior to your so called "practical physics". Make a list of the theories you deem to be "practical" and i'll show you a study or experiment that has shown results that cannot be explained by each one of those theories. I'll ask you to attempt to do the same for M theory. Seeing as though no Physicist I have ever heard of has been able to do this so far... good luck! More experimentaton is necessary in order to be able to directly test the results of M theory and yet more experimentation is NOT necessary in order to test the results of your "practical physics" in as much as it relates to your "practical physics" being tested as possible candidates for unifying all the forces of nature. Why? because they have already been rejected as possible candidates! I would have responded much more specifically to the particular theories you espouse but it seems you have failed yet again to include any evidence (or even specifics) in your writings and have simply stated opinion. However, it's really easy to attack opinions..... so I will 
..............
you wrote
Ok. Site your evidence, bookworm. You know, reading drivel from the "Science" isle in Barnes and Noble doesn't quite make you a physicist, right?
.........................................
Are you a physicist? obviously not so what makes you think you know more about physics than they do? we are BOTH non physicists the only difference between me and you is that physicists, on the whole, agree with me and disagree with you.
Gee...... which of these two statements do you disagree with in order for me to know exactly what it is you want backed up
1. M theory unifies other theories into a single framework
2. M theory is currently in a state of not being disproven
If you dont find fault with either of these two premises the conclusion that M theory is superior to "practical physics" necessarily follows (as is explained above). I've actually never read about M theory in a book from the book store, but to be fair I did first read about superstrings theory in a book published in the 80's when I was about 10 (or less) years old, but like I said superstrings has already been usurped. And by the way It does not take a physicist to recognize that physicists happen to favor a certain theory as plausible. "mr. physicist do you recognize newtonian physics as plausible?.....no I don't"..... how about that, its' easy, just find out their position. I'm willing to bet money that their positions are more "well informed" than either of ours. Too bad it just so happens they happen to agree with me.
..............
you wrote: You'll have to do better than that. Would you REALLY like to have this little battle of wits with me? May the net force be with you.
...................
I'll have to do better than what? reading books about m theory from barnes n' noble (which I havent) or stating the obvious fact that physicists around the world are now backing M theory? If the latter is not enough then please state how it is that you have come to the conclusion that you know more about physics than the vast majority of physicsts around the world put together? Even If i don't rely on the opinions of other physicists for evidence I still can provide evidence to disprove any of your "practical physics" theories while you can't provide any evidence to disprove m theory (because none exists)
.........
you wrote:
Hawking is a theoretical dolt
.................
your opinion, Which I might add is somewhat equivalent to me sitting around saying einstein was stupid or mozart knew nothing about music..... how do you expect anyone to take you seriously.
.............
you wrote:
and Big Bang is another load of crap.
...............
your opinion, where's your evidence?....... you know the universe is EXPANDING.........which means that obviously the universe was smaller in the past than it is now which by definition contradicts the notion of an infinite universe..... obviously, infinity isn't smaller than infinity. an infinite universe can therefore never expand. and therefore the existence of an expanding universe contradicts the notion that the universe is infinite
..............
you wrote:They've obviously not updated the science isle in your local store. I bet you still believe in black holes, too.
...............
that depends, if by black hole you mean a singularity, then yes I believe they exist. Do you disagree with the notion that curvatures of space-time correlate with the force of gravitation? (if so you not only disagree with Stephen Hawking but also Albert Einstein, so perhaps it's you who's a "dolt") and If you don't disagree with general relativity as it relates to curvatures of space time then what is it that you propose happens when there's an infinite curvature of space-time?????????? (here's a hint.... it's rhymes with singularity
.............
you wrote:
Practical physics is where it's at.
............
gee folks....... its another OPINION........ lets see newtonian physics is "practical" can you please use it to explain the existence of even a single stable atom?????????
............
you wrote:
P.S. _My_ IQ is in the range where we don't need to brag about it. (And, MINE was not determined by my friend's LiveJournal IQ survey.) (;
........................
Actually my IQ was first tested when I was still in the first grade at the behest of my teacher which seemed to think that perhaps I wasn't paying attention due to a lack of intelligence, on the contrary it turned out that class was moving too slowly for me and I was in fact uninterested due to boredom. If you'll note I didn't mention my actual IQ. in my first post for a reason, I simply said "genius level" In order to simply state that you havent picked a fight with an "average joe" who's going to crumble in the face of weak arguments. (If I was bragging I'd also mention the fact that my IQ is higher than what is considered "genius level" by a larger margin than "genius level" is higher than "average" and that in essence i'm a "genius compared to a genius" but I purposely did not state my IQ because I felt I would be "overdoing it" and that simply stating I was a genius was sufficient as it related to my intent.) As you'll note.......It was not I who decided to attempt to make fun of one of your posts in the hope that I would sound more intelligent than you but It was you who decided to attempt to make fun of one of my posts obviusly not having any idea who it was you just picked a fight with. It's not considered "bragging" to defend yourself in the face attempted ridicule and that's exactly what I'm doing. You are analogous to the proverbial "bully" in the school yard, it just so happens to be the case that you "would have" picked on me if you could. not only that, you tried. all I have to say is "too bad you didn't realize I'm ALOT bigger than you"
Here's a tip......... next time actually include some arguments that arent opinions. Perhaps you don't realize the difference so here's an example.
1+1=2 is an argument
if you respond to this argument
"I hate math only crackpots believe in it" or " I hate theoretical physics. It opens everything up to the metaphysical hogwashers." that would be an OPINION
you see? so anyway seeing as though you added no "non-opinions" in your second post the score is STILL as follows
Evidence for my post: all the scientific data we currently have
Evidence for your post: none, consisting of purely opinion
..............
you wrote
Ok. Site your evidence, bookworm. You know, reading drivel from the "Science" isle in Barnes and Noble doesn't quite make you a physicist, right?
.........................................
Are you a physicist? obviously not so what makes you think you know more about physics than they do? we are BOTH non physicists the only difference between me and you is that physicists, on the whole, agree with me and disagree with you.
Gee...... which of these two statements do you disagree with in order for me to know exactly what it is you want backed up
1. M theory unifies other theories into a single framework
2. M theory is currently in a state of not being disproven
If you dont find fault with either of these two premises the conclusion that M theory is superior to "practical physics" necessarily follows (as is explained above). I've actually never read about M theory in a book from the book store, but to be fair I did first read about superstrings theory in a book published in the 80's when I was about 10 (or less) years old, but like I said superstrings has already been usurped. And by the way It does not take a physicist to recognize that physicists happen to favor a certain theory as plausible. "mr. physicist do you recognize newtonian physics as plausible?.....no I don't"..... how about that, its' easy, just find out their position. I'm willing to bet money that their positions are more "well informed" than either of ours. Too bad it just so happens they happen to agree with me.
..............
you wrote: You'll have to do better than that. Would you REALLY like to have this little battle of wits with me? May the net force be with you.
...................
I'll have to do better than what? reading books about m theory from barnes n' noble (which I havent) or stating the obvious fact that physicists around the world are now backing M theory? If the latter is not enough then please state how it is that you have come to the conclusion that you know more about physics than the vast majority of physicsts around the world put together? Even If i don't rely on the opinions of other physicists for evidence I still can provide evidence to disprove any of your "practical physics" theories while you can't provide any evidence to disprove m theory (because none exists)
.........
you wrote:
Hawking is a theoretical dolt
.................
your opinion, Which I might add is somewhat equivalent to me sitting around saying einstein was stupid or mozart knew nothing about music..... how do you expect anyone to take you seriously.
.............
you wrote:
and Big Bang is another load of crap.
...............
your opinion, where's your evidence?....... you know the universe is EXPANDING.........which means that obviously the universe was smaller in the past than it is now which by definition contradicts the notion of an infinite universe..... obviously, infinity isn't smaller than infinity. an infinite universe can therefore never expand. and therefore the existence of an expanding universe contradicts the notion that the universe is infinite
..............
you wrote:They've obviously not updated the science isle in your local store. I bet you still believe in black holes, too.
...............
that depends, if by black hole you mean a singularity, then yes I believe they exist. Do you disagree with the notion that curvatures of space-time correlate with the force of gravitation? (if so you not only disagree with Stephen Hawking but also Albert Einstein, so perhaps it's you who's a "dolt") and If you don't disagree with general relativity as it relates to curvatures of space time then what is it that you propose happens when there's an infinite curvature of space-time?????????? (here's a hint.... it's rhymes with singularity
.............
you wrote:
Practical physics is where it's at.
............
gee folks....... its another OPINION........ lets see newtonian physics is "practical" can you please use it to explain the existence of even a single stable atom?????????
............
you wrote:
P.S. _My_ IQ is in the range where we don't need to brag about it. (And, MINE was not determined by my friend's LiveJournal IQ survey.) (;
........................
Actually my IQ was first tested when I was still in the first grade at the behest of my teacher which seemed to think that perhaps I wasn't paying attention due to a lack of intelligence, on the contrary it turned out that class was moving too slowly for me and I was in fact uninterested due to boredom. If you'll note I didn't mention my actual IQ. in my first post for a reason, I simply said "genius level" In order to simply state that you havent picked a fight with an "average joe" who's going to crumble in the face of weak arguments. (If I was bragging I'd also mention the fact that my IQ is higher than what is considered "genius level" by a larger margin than "genius level" is higher than "average" and that in essence i'm a "genius compared to a genius" but I purposely did not state my IQ because I felt I would be "overdoing it" and that simply stating I was a genius was sufficient as it related to my intent.) As you'll note.......It was not I who decided to attempt to make fun of one of your posts in the hope that I would sound more intelligent than you but It was you who decided to attempt to make fun of one of my posts obviusly not having any idea who it was you just picked a fight with. It's not considered "bragging" to defend yourself in the face attempted ridicule and that's exactly what I'm doing. You are analogous to the proverbial "bully" in the school yard, it just so happens to be the case that you "would have" picked on me if you could. not only that, you tried. all I have to say is "too bad you didn't realize I'm ALOT bigger than you"
Here's a tip......... next time actually include some arguments that arent opinions. Perhaps you don't realize the difference so here's an example.
1+1=2 is an argument
if you respond to this argument
"I hate math only crackpots believe in it" or " I hate theoretical physics. It opens everything up to the metaphysical hogwashers." that would be an OPINION
you see? so anyway seeing as though you added no "non-opinions" in your second post the score is STILL as follows
Evidence for my post: all the scientific data we currently have
Evidence for your post: none, consisting of purely opinion