Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

Attempting 2 merge physics and the paranormal

275 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

macqdor
Posted (edited)
Quote

No. Simple fact.

There is scientific evidence supporting string theory. There is zero evidence for poltergeists.

Poltergeist evidence does not exist. There are hoaxes such as the one you promote. There are other hoaxes such as Humpty Doo. There are tall tales.

And thanks for finishing with that childish excuse

String Theory is still being debated in scientific circles.

Its not accepted fact.  T-shirt of the week basically.

Quote

"All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a single successful prediction," says Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. "That's a very shocking state of affairs."

This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing more research than ever. But Turok says all that research isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe — at least not the way physicists did in the last century.

LOTS OF ACTIVITY, LITTLE PROGRESS

Quote

And if string theory so far has resisted experimental verification, the so-called multiverse — the idea that our universe is but one of many and perhaps an infinite number of universes — seems to some scientists more like science fiction than a description of reality.

Astro-Science has stalled*

 

Quote

In a new book entitled "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," Hossenfelder argues that many physicists working today have been led astray by mathematics — seduced by equations that might be "beautiful" or "elegant" but which lack obvious connection to the real world.

Ouch !

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why-some-scientists-say-physics-has-gone-rails-ncna879346

 

@stereologist

I wouldn't get on a plane if the pilots name was string theory.

 

LOL

 

Quote

In the 17th century, for example, German astronomer Johannes Kepler developed an elaborate theory that described the orbits of the planets in terms of the five "Platonic solids" of Euclidian geometry. His hypothesis was certainly elegant, but it was also wrong.

is string theory next?

Edited by macqdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

String Theory is still being debated in scientific circles.

Its not accepted fact.  T-shirt of the week basically.

Astro-Science has stalled*

 

Ouch !

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why-some-scientists-say-physics-has-gone-rails-ncna879346

 

@stereologist

I wouldn't get on a plane if the pilots name was string theory.

LOL

You are still incompetent at understanding what a theory is and how science works, even at an elementary school level.

Scientific theories are based on facts. String theory is a mathematical framework and is a mathematical theory.

A theory cannot be a fact. Been trying to help you on that but you continue to blunder on that issue.

I see you love to get things confused and understanding science is definitely not anything you are likely to do this decade.

There have been plenty of scientific predictions. The theoretical ones are based on attempts at grand unification. They have predicted particles that have been found. The issue is that there were aspects of the prediction such as mass and lifetime that were off.

You wrote "Astro-Science has stalled" That seems to be you babbling nonsense again.

Let's see what the link really says

Quote

Wilczek agrees that physics in recent years has seemed lackluster, but he says that's partly because we were "so spectacularly successful earlier on, in the '70s and '80s — which led to such good models of the world that it's been very, very difficult to improve on them."

As for supersymmetry and the dark matter particle, he says it's too soon to bury either idea. "Sometimes," he says, "you have to be patient."

Turok, too, remains optimistic that a new era of physics may be just around the corner — one that might produce bold new ideas on the scale of quantum theory and relativity. "What we need is for probably some young person to come forward and say, 'Aha, this is the way it all fits together.'"

Looks like you are incompetent at reading and comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What do we have for the poltergeist claims?

Nothing, zilch, nada, but hoaxes and tall stories.

Here is a great article about science does not know and is trying to learn.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/7-biggest-unanswered-questions-physics-ncna789666

These people are smart. They are working on problems far more complicated than those implied by asinine excuses made up about poltergeists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Web Extra: What happens if string theory is wrong? An increasing number of physicists are skeptical that string theory can unite the fundamental forces of nature.

:o  http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2015/07/web-extra-what-happens-if-string-theory-is-wrong

 

the scientific community is not unified around the theory.   Reason being.  It's still a theory.

Quote

In the book, I make the point that here we have string theory and here we have twistor theory and we don't know if either one of them is the right approach to nature. Roger Penrose
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

String Theory Has Failed as a Scientific Theory

Quote

String theory has been the darling of the theoretical physics community for decades. It has reigned as the dominant theory in prestigious US research institutions since the 1980s. Elegant books, TV shows, and grandiose TED talkshave hyped it to the public. Brilliant theoretical physicists tell us that this theory is the best answer to the hardest problem that their field has ever attacked.    All that is fine, but here's the unequivocal truth: string theory has failed as a scientific theory.

Quote

Remarkably, this exact question has been hearing open debate among proponents of string theory. String theorists met jointly with academic philosophers at a conference last month to talk about what we require of a theory for it to be held as correct. Do we need to test it experimentally? Or, are the qualities of beauty, consistency, mathematical interest, and greater funding proof enough?

Quote

The history of science is littered with theories that sounded rationally simple and logically brilliant but turned out to be utterly false empirically. Meat does not spontaneously grow maggots. The Universe does not revolve around the earth. The bumps on the human skull do not reveal the intelligence of the brain residing within. Light does not travel through a luminiferous aether. The failure of these theories was not found through rationalist logic but through careful experiment upon nature itself.

Quote

It's the idea that a single theory has become so entrenched and popular in its field that its failures cannot be addressed truthfully. Now, physicists ask that the rules be bent or changed just to accommodate it. To loosen the principles of our fantastically successful scientific method just to allow for one passing theoretical fad to continue would be a disaster.

 

 

it's not even fair any more.     You defending a theory that is severely outdated and thus was never true. so says other scientists

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 minutes ago, macqdor said:

It is not a scientific theory. Been saying that from the start. It is a mathematical framework.

I've posted articles making the same statements.

I guess this science stuff is too hard to understand by someone promoting a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
18 minutes ago, macqdor said:

:o  http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2015/07/web-extra-what-happens-if-string-theory-is-wrong

 

the scientific community is not unified around the theory.   Reason being.  It's still a theory.

 

Again you prove that you do not know what a scientific theory is.

Here is the dumb comment " Reason being.  It's still a theory." :lol:

This goes along with these dumb comments:

 "One theory out many that science uses to understand the Universe.  Its not FACT." :lol:

 " science has their theories (bloviation)  that work off of (as it was fact).  Still is a theory.  ":lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

I'm going to go out on a limp and say you're not a scientist.  Physicists or Astrophysicists. So how would you know?   These are scientists calling String Theory a scientific theory.  Not me.

Some are even  calling it a failure.  Which means its time to move on.   The theory got famous in the 80's. Put a a lot physicists on TV and thats about it.

 

Case closed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
12 minutes ago, macqdor said:

it's not even fair any more.     You defending a theory that is severely outdated and thus was never true. so says other scientists

You continue to show that you are incompetent at reading and comprehension.

I have not defended string theory.

Some scientists are against it. Some scientists are for it. That is the norm for science till consensus is reached.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

I'm going to go out on a limp and say you're not a scientist.  Physicists or Astrophysicists. So how would you know?   These are scientists calling String Theory a scientific theory.  Not me.

Some are even  calling it a failure.  Which means its time to move on.   The theory got famous in the 80's. Put a a lot physicists on TV and thats about it.

Case closed.

I'm not going out a limb when I state that you are a promoter of a hoax for profit.

String theory is not a scientific theory. It is a mathematical framework that has not matched reality.

Why are you so utterly incompetent that you cannot understand this?

Although the majority of scientists see it as NOT a scientific theory and it fails to become a scientific theory - so what?

You seem hung up on something that has not much to do with the progress of physics.

I guess this is all about you spending too much time promoting you hoax to make money and fleece the wallets of the gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single practical observation to support the theory.

- FAILURE

 

Quote

'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.

Quote

'Too many people have been overselling very speculative ideas,' said Woit - author of Not Even Wrong - last week. 'String theory has produced nothing.'

Quote

Scientists have poured all their energies into a theoretical approach that is proving sterile, he said. 'It is as if every medical researcher in the world had decided there was only way to fight cancer and had concentrated on this line of attack, at the expense of all other avenues,' he said. 'Then that approach is found not to work and scientists discover they have wasted 20 years. That's the parallel with string theory.'

THATS NOT ME.  Thats scientists.

I'm quoting scientists!

Don't refute me LOL

 

Refute them !

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, macqdor said:

   These are scientists calling String Theory a scientific theory.  Not me.

 

Please provide proof of this claim. I don't see that in the links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

- FAILURE

THATS NOT ME.  Thats scientists.

I'm quoting scientists!

Don't refute me LOL

 

Refute them !

 

Please provide the links for these quotes.

I believe you are using dated material.

More likely you cherry picked as you did previously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Abstract: The article discusses the demarcation problem; how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It then examines the string theory under various demarcation criteria to conclude that string theory cannot be considered as science.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.04266.pdf

scroll up. I've posted plenty of links disproving string theory.

Quote

5. Conclusion In conclusion, we have examined the demarcation problem and opined that for an activity to be deemed as science a set of criteria are needed to be satisfied. The set of criteria are; (i) Positivistic verifications: theories or statements can be verified; (ii) Karl Popper's falsification: theories or statements can be falsified; (iii) Kuhn's puzzle-solving: within a given paradigm, existence of anomaly or puzzle at any time; The set of criteria, when applied to string theory, led us to conclude that the theory cannot be classified as science. Statements of the theory cannot be verified nor falsified. Also, since the theory is trying to change existing paradigms, it does not have puzzles in the usual sense.

ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

No matter what happens to a mathematical model such as string theory, it is not a scientific theory.

Been trying to tell you but your grade school incompetence keeps getting in the way.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/post-modern-physics-string-theory-gets-over-the-need-for-evidence/

Quote

Physicist Ethan Siegel tells us bluntly at Forbes that string theory is not science: It cannot be tested.

Quote

Physicist Frank Close is blunt: “[M]any physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.04266.pdf

scroll up. I've posted plenty of links disproving string theory.

ouch!

Actually you have not posted links to disprove string theory.

I see this is much too difficult a concept for a hoax promoter to comprehend.

Even if string theory does not reflect reality it still remains a correct mathematical model. It is a mathematical theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Does beautiful mathematics lead physics astray?

https://mathscholar.org/2018/06/does-beautiful-mathematics-lead-physics-astray/

Ouch !

 

Quote

Hossenfelder argues that too many physicists today, like their counterparts of previous eras, cling to theories that have been seemingly rejected by experimental evidence, or which have extrapolated far beyond what can be reasonably expected to be tested by experimentation in any foreseeable time frame. The usual reason that researchers stick by these theories is that the mathematical techniques behind them are judged “too beautiful not to be true,” or for some other largely aesthetic (and thus unscientific) reason.

Quote

String theory is the notion that all of physical reality is derived from the harmonic properties of exceedingly small strings and higher-dimensional “branes,” and that reality is really 10- or 11-dimensional, with extra dimensions curled up into submicroscopically small configurations, much like a hose that appears one-dimensional from a distance but admits travel around its circular cross-section at close quarters.

String theory has been proposed as the long-sought “theory of everything,” because it appears to unite relativity and quantum theory, but mostly because it is so “beautiful.” Yet in spite of decades of effort, by literally thousands of brilliant mathematical physicists, the field has yet to produce any specific experimentally testable prediction or test, short of hypothesizing galaxy-sized accelerators. What’s more, hopes that string theory would result in a single crisp physical theory, pinning down unique laws and unique values of the fundamental constants, have been dashed. Instead, the theory admits a huge number of different options, corresponding to different Calabi-Yau spaces, which by one reckoning number more than 10500.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Actually you have not posted links to disprove string theory.

Oh yes I have. You're just cherry picking posts.

@stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Now lets check out what science is all about and see that the paranormal will always fail to be science.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.04266.pdf

Quote

Not only astrology, throughout the world, humans are engaged in several practices; phrenology (study of skull structure believing its relation with mental faculties), palmistry (study of lines on the palm hoping to predict the future), numerology (study of occult significance of numbers), iridology (study of the iris of the eye for indications of bodily health and disease), dowsing ( a type of divination employed in attempts to locate ground water, buried metals orores, gemstones, oil, gravesites and many other objects and materials without the use of scientific apparatus), creationism (the religious belief in biblical interpretation of Universe and life), divination (the practice of using signs such as arrangements of cards or tea leaves, or special power to predict the future), and many more.Are they science? Should the society encourage these types of practices? Will these practices, in the long runbe beneficial or detrimental to the human progress?

There they go and start a short list of the nonsense that people pretend is being researched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

Oh yes I have. You're just cherry picking posts.

@stereologist

As I posted other quotes we saw that you tried to lie about the contents of the article.

But then a hoaxer such as you do that to promote the hoax that fleeces the wallets of the gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

You are free to post as many articles as you want to about a mathematical construct called string theory.

It is not a scientific theory.  I posted that in one of my first posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

Looks like you need to go educate some scientists.  There calling it one thing and your calling it another.

No way you could have read all those links and PDF's I posted.

 

Your just skimming....................................................cherry picking.

 

Like I said. Physicists are saying the "theory is dead."  So go argue with them.

 

LOL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, macqdor said:

Looks like you need to go educate some scientists.  There calling it one thing and your calling it another.

No way you could have read all those links and PDF's I posted.

Your just skimming....................................................cherry picking.

Like I said. Physicists are saying the "theory is dead."  So go argue with them.

LOL

Please show where they called it a scientific theory.

You can't. Well stop lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

Read the links !

@stereologist I dont do people's home work.  U see the links.  U read them.  All of them.

@notspoonfeeding

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.