info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 11:07:06 AM1/30/16
to
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
be interwoven into our discernable space.
Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
provide objective proof? Gordon
has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
be interwoven into our discernable space.
Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
provide objective proof? Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 30, 2016, 11:27:44 AM1/30/16
to
In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> It
> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> Yet, the
> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>
> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>
> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>
> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> provide objective proof? Gordon
Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
it. Why do you want to?
--
JD
I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> It
> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> Yet, the
> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>
> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>
> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>
> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> provide objective proof? Gordon
As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
it. Why do you want to?
--
JD
I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 11:43:11 AM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>
Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>
>
>> It
>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>
SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
>> It
>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>
minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
maybe they never will. Gordon
>
>> Yet, the
>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>
>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>>
>> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>>
>> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>> provide objective proof? Gordon
>
>Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>
Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
>> Yet, the
>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>
>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>>
>> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>>
>> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>> provide objective proof? Gordon
>
>Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>
proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
>
>As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>it. Why do you want to?
>
I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>it. Why do you want to?
>
and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
ideas. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 12:04:45 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>
>> It
>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>
>> Yet, the
>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>
>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
He has no idea what he is talking about.
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>
>> It
>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>
>> Yet, the
>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>
>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>> provide objective proof? Gordon
If it turns out to be what they hope, THEN everybody you group
together as "we" will take notice.
The way the real world works, is for people who make claims or even
this kind of suggestion, have to back them up.
It's not up to everybody else to investigate them.
Even though the stupids imagine everybody else should do that to their
baseless god-claims and lie about them when they have no reason to do
so because everything the stupids insist on, is contrary to the way
the real world works.
>Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
It will start by the discovery of some phenomenon where the math
works, but the current math doesn't.
And this will be investigated.
>As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>it. Why do you want to?
alternate dimensions of science fiction.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 12:08:13 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:43:08 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
It's up to its proponents to show that it is valid. Not for "we" to do
that.
wrote:
that.
Don't Touch Me There
Jan 30, 2016, 12:13:37 PM1/30/16
to
On 1/30/2016 8:27 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something "just" a
> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>
> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
theory is direct evidence of scientific illiteracy. Saying that
something needs "evidence" in order to make the jump from "just" a
hypothesis to full-fledged theory is nearly as bad. It also gets
science backward. A theory is used to generate testable hypotheses;
hypotheses don't generate theories.
>> Ithas not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>
> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
No valid scientific theory is ever "proven" [sic]. Testing of
> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
hypotheses generated from theories either confirm the theory's
predictions, or they contradict them. If they confirm, then the theory
is tentatively accepted. If they contradict, then the theory is called
into question.
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 1:02:26 PM1/30/16
to
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
one of our scientists on the subject:
“One of the most exciting developments in fundamental physics in the
last twenty years has been the development of so-called “String
Theory.” In String Theory, all fundamental sub-atomic particles are
visualized and described mathematically as microscopic vibrating
strings. Although as yet unproven, many physicists believe that String
Theory has the potential to become the long-sought “Theory of
Everything,” through which the fundamental physical nature of all
matter and forces will become understood.
Obviously String Theory IS correct, although misnamed (a secular
humanist conspiracy perhaps?). As NOODLE Theory clearly unambiguously
reveals, He has created the fundamental subatomic particles that form
all matter in this universe in His own quivering image! You, me, the
Earth, the stars…everything in the universe…are all built of trillions
of tiny jiggling noodles, microscopic copies of our Divine Saucy Maker.
Truly He is everywhere and in all things!
Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!“
–Steve Lawrence, PhD
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 1:17:07 PM1/30/16
to
that "proven" isn't a valid word?
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 30, 2016, 2:12:25 PM1/30/16
to
In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> >> Yet, the
> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >>
> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
> >>
> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
> >>
> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
> >
> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
> >
> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
Why? What are you basing your guess on?
> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
> >it. Why do you want to?
> >
> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> ideas. Gordon
Why?
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >
> >Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> >
> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
> >
> >> It
> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >
> >Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >
> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> maybe they never will. Gordon
Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >
> >Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> >
> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
> >
> >> It
> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >
> >Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >
> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> maybe they never will. Gordon
> >> Yet, the
> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >>
> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
> >>
> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
> >>
> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
> >
> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
> >
> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
> >it. Why do you want to?
> >
> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> ideas. Gordon
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 2:12:27 PM1/30/16
to
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:13:55 PM1/30/16
to
Kurt Kurt
Jan 30, 2016, 2:23:51 PM1/30/16
to
Yep.
Kurt Kurt
Jan 30, 2016, 2:26:15 PM1/30/16
to
Nothing in science is ever proved. The word has no meaning in science. Theory is as good as it gets.
Kurt Kurt
Jan 30, 2016, 2:30:20 PM1/30/16
to
The THEORY of General Relativity, the Quantum THEORY, and the passing fad to unite the two, Membrane THEORY, all predict the same thing...
Many Worlds. The same exact identical Many Worlds. They all say it's a cyclic Universe.
The End is the Beginning and if you know it, you won't know death.
Many Worlds. The same exact identical Many Worlds. They all say it's a cyclic Universe.
The End is the Beginning and if you know it, you won't know death.
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 2:30:37 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
never be. Gordon
after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>> >
>> >Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>> >
>> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
>> >
>> >> It
>> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>> >
>> >Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>> >
>> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
>> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
>> maybe they never will. Gordon
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
>
I've read many magazine articles and scientific publications on this
>In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>> >
>> >Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>> >
>> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
>> >
>> >> It
>> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>> >
>> >Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>> >
>> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
>> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
>> maybe they never will. Gordon
>
>Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
>
and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
never be. Gordon
>
>
>> >> Yet, the
>> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>> >>
>> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>> >>
>> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>> >>
>> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
>> >
>> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>> >
>> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
>> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
>
>Why? What are you basing your guess on?
>
See above...
>
>> >> Yet, the
>> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>> >>
>> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>> >>
>> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>> >>
>> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
>> >
>> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>> >
>> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
>> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
>
>Why? What are you basing your guess on?
>
>
>> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>> >it. Why do you want to?
>> >
>> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>> ideas. Gordon
>
>Why?
>
Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
>> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>> >it. Why do you want to?
>> >
>> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>> ideas. Gordon
>
>Why?
>
after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:34:18 PM1/30/16
to
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 2:36:08 PM1/30/16
to
>
>Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
>
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
bil...@m.nu
Jan 30, 2016, 2:43:16 PM1/30/16
to
>On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>
>>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>
>Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
No gordon you are a moron. SST was conisered a moot subject by the top
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>
>>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>
>Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
geeks in physics. You really need to catch up on things. Stop trying
to sound smart so that you can feel like you are one of those smart
theists. You believe in fairies, stick to the make believe
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:44:02 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:30:32 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
ITS PROPONENTS ARE WORKING ON IT, imbecile.
It's nobody else's job to do that they come up with something
testable.
Idiot.
>Gordon
It's nobody else's job to do that they come up with something
testable.
Idiot.
>Gordon
bil...@m.nu
Jan 30, 2016, 2:45:35 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:04:38 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>
>>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>
>>> It
>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>>
>>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>>
>>> Yet, the
>>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>>
>>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>
>He has no idea what he is talking about.
not in the slightest. he wants approval by the atheists so he can feel
<c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>
>>Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>
>>> It
>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>>
>>Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>>
>>> Yet, the
>>> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>>> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>>
>>> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>>> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>>> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>>> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>
>He has no idea what he is talking about.
intelligent
>
>>> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>>> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>>> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>>> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>>> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>>> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>
>Meaningless nonsense.
that is everything he says
>>> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>>> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>>> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>>> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>>> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>>> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>
>Meaningless nonsense.
bil...@m.nu
Jan 30, 2016, 2:47:16 PM1/30/16
to
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 30, 2016, 2:48:31 PM1/30/16
to
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:50:22 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:36:04 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
Hardly, liar.
WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MORON ASKS SUCH A STUPID QUESTION OUTSID IN THE
REAL WORLD OUTSIDE HIS RELIGION?
As usual, you assume "facts" not in evidence...
WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
idiot this makes you?
>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>what I've said? Gordon
Pretty well everytime you have spewed your question-begging,
pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MORON ASKS SUCH A STUPID QUESTION OUTSID IN THE
REAL WORLD OUTSIDE HIS RELIGION?
As usual, you assume "facts" not in evidence...
WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
idiot this makes you?
>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>what I've said? Gordon
pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:55:43 PM1/30/16
to
something concrete - ie a discovey which cannot be explained using the
existing math, but can be with the math of string theory.
How many times must we keep explaining this to the wilfully and
woefully ignorant, in-your-face moron?
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 2:57:15 PM1/30/16
to
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 3:27:03 PM1/30/16
to
seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental axiom of logic that,
"if x cannot be proven false, then x is necessarily true".
For example, the existence of the FSM cannot be disproven and so
therefore the FSM exists. Kindergarten stuff, actually. I just hope the
atheists like stale beer because that's all they're going to get.
Turtle Island
Jan 30, 2016, 3:30:22 PM1/30/16
to
On 1/30/2016 11:12 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>>
>> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
>>>
>>>> It
>>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>>>
>> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
>> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
>> maybe they never will. Gordon
>
> Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
What stupid fucking questions. Oh, yeah, you do that shit all the time:
> In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
>>>
>> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
>>>
>>>> It
>>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
>>>
>> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
>> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
>> maybe they never will. Gordon
>
> Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
"Aware of what?"
"What is an 'anarcho-lesbo'?"
"Oh, yeah, what the fuck is a 'stripped gear'?"
"What surgery?"
"What is 'penile inversion'?"
"Didn't what go well?"
"What does that have to do with me?"
"What transformation?"
"Oh come on now what?"
"Why would [fat ugly smelly mackerel cunt dyke Jeanne] care?"
"Tranny? Why do you call me that? And why do you think it's an insult?"
"Does what work like what real thing?"
"What fake thing?"
"Why would you say something so silly?"
"What 'intellectual and moral superiors'?"
"Where's your evidence for that assertion?"
"What does rioting have to do with anything?"
"What racist lies?"
"What truth?" [28 Nov 2014]
"What whining?" [02 Dec 2014]
"And what's your evidence for this assertion?" [02 Dec 2014] [a two-fer!]
"Who is 'The Black Bigot in Chief'?" [02 Dec 2014]
"What 'angry, bitter, racist attorney general"' are you talking about?"
[02 Dec 2014]
"What 'real world' are you talking about?" [02 Dec 2014]
"Why would you say something so stupid?" [05 Dec 2014]
"What is your evidence for that?" [06 Dec 2014]
"What does Obama have to do with those murders?" [06 Dec 2014]
"What the fuck are you talking about?" [07 Dec 2014]
"Like what?" [23 Dec 2014]
Rudy Canoza
Jan 30, 2016, 3:32:39 PM1/30/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Jan 30, 2016, 3:37:52 PM1/30/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Jan 30, 2016, 3:53:57 PM1/30/16
to
a stupid logical fallacy.
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 5:07:39 PM1/30/16
to
I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's essays on the subject, mostly
because I'm not bright enough to understand the other philosophers and
found Russell much easier to read and so read him the most.
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 5:10:44 PM1/30/16
to
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 5:12:03 PM1/30/16
to
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 5:13:26 PM1/30/16
to
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 6:40:46 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:12:01 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Sounds like it would be fun if I liked pasta. I might get by if I wore
a colander on my head. Gordon
a colander on my head. Gordon
Gordon
Jan 30, 2016, 6:47:23 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Christopher, can you explain how the synapses in our brain are able to
provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
could not do something similar? Please respond in a civil manner. All
I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
could not do something similar? Please respond in a civil manner. All
I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2016, 7:07:52 PM1/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:47:18 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
Couldn't answer this, imbecile?
>>And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
>>idiot this makes you?
>>
>>>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>>>what I've said? Gordon
>>
>>Pretty well everytime you have spewed your question-begging,
>>pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
>>
>>In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
>>in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
>>
>Christopher, can you explain how the synapses in our brain are able to
>provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
Not my field, imbecile. But they switch electrical signals.
And just because YOU don't know, doesn't mean you can attribute it to
an unjustified and imaginary magical superbeing which you plucked out
of your arse and which you know your involuntary audience doesn't
believe in, imbecile.
>you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
>quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
>could not do something similar?
Look up Ockham's razor, imbecile.
Then apply it to string theory, which hasn't even got beyond
speculation and about which there are no details, before asking stupid
questions which presume it has been validated and the missing details
worked out.
> Please respond in a civil manner. All
Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.
You lost that right years ago with your repeated rude and stupid
question-begging (which you are still doing) followed by your lies and
nastiness towards those who pointed it out when they finally got
through to you.
>I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
No. You're not. You are trying to score rhetorical points by asking
nonsensical questions.
>>And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
>>idiot this makes you?
>>
>>>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>>>what I've said? Gordon
>>
>>Pretty well everytime you have spewed your question-begging,
>>pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
>>
>>In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
>>in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
>>
>Christopher, can you explain how the synapses in our brain are able to
>provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
And just because YOU don't know, doesn't mean you can attribute it to
an unjustified and imaginary magical superbeing which you plucked out
of your arse and which you know your involuntary audience doesn't
believe in, imbecile.
>you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
>quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
>could not do something similar?
Then apply it to string theory, which hasn't even got beyond
speculation and about which there are no details, before asking stupid
questions which presume it has been validated and the missing details
worked out.
> Please respond in a civil manner. All
You lost that right years ago with your repeated rude and stupid
question-begging (which you are still doing) followed by your lies and
nastiness towards those who pointed it out when they finally got
through to you.
>I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
nonsensical questions.
Ted&Alice
Jan 30, 2016, 7:42:01 PM1/30/16
to
Olrik
Jan 30, 2016, 11:59:31 PM1/30/16
to
Le 2016-01-30 11:07, Gordon a écrit :
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
And you are in no way, shape or form qualified to write about it.
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
<snip abuse of physics>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Kurt Kurt
Jan 31, 2016, 12:47:55 AM1/31/16
to
Well, Russell did a lot of math proofs, but no proofs in science. And turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste of time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
Kurt Kurt
Jan 31, 2016, 12:49:27 AM1/31/16
to
heh heh...
> >>>>> quivering image! You, me, the Earth, the stars...everything in
> >>>>> the universe...are all built of trillions of tiny jiggling
> >>>>> the universe...are all built of trillions of tiny jiggling
> >>>>> noodles, microscopic copies of our Divine Saucy Maker. Truly
> >>>>> He is everywhere and in all things! Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!"
> >>>>> -Steve Lawrence, PhD
> >>>>> He is everywhere and in all things! Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!"
Kurt Kurt
Jan 31, 2016, 12:51:43 AM1/31/16
to
You misused it. At a minimum.
> > > > > > > Earth, the stars...everything in the universe...are all built
> > > > > > > of trillions of tiny jiggling noodles, microscopic copies
> > > > > > > of our Divine Saucy Maker. Truly He is everywhere and in
> > > > > > > all things! Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!" -Steve Lawrence, PhD
> > > > > > > of our Divine Saucy Maker. Truly He is everywhere and in
Ted&Alice
Jan 31, 2016, 3:47:23 AM1/31/16
to
> Well, Russell did a lot of math proofs, but no proofs in science. And
> turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste of
> time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
>
No question that Russell was a brilliant mathematician, but that's not
> turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste of
> time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
>
what I meant. I was referring to Russell's essays on the problem of
induction, i.e. agreeing with your statement that "nothing in science
is ever proved".
I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy Rucker's
math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
Ted&Alice
Jan 31, 2016, 3:49:47 AM1/31/16
to
Kurt Kurt
Jan 31, 2016, 8:16:29 AM1/31/16
to
No, I actually never heard of him. Jack Kilmon was a whiz kid and got to hang out with Godel and Einstein as a kid, and I've talked to him a lot on historical Jesus and anthropology sites. He says Einstein and Godel liked the idea of a cyclic Universe. Godel went to some lengths to come up with something that would demonstrate it, such as this from Wheeler...
http://www.webofstories.com/play/john.wheeler/91;jsessionid=D655E594DF7E242F9D88F106F8CAD8B5
http://www.webofstories.com/play/john.wheeler/91;jsessionid=D655E594DF7E242F9D88F106F8CAD8B5
Kurt Kurt
Jan 31, 2016, 8:17:35 AM1/31/16
to
It's not an axiom, he's right.
Ted&Alice
Jan 31, 2016, 8:47:40 AM1/31/16
to
word "axiom" or that it isn't a word at all. He's done that before with
the word "proven".
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 31, 2016, 9:07:24 AM1/31/16
to
>I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy Rucker's
>math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
proved God.
He is fond of the incompleteness theorem which he doesn't understand
only applies to formal, self-referential systems, and that Godel
merely formalised what was already understood by anybody with any
commonsense.
He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
with reality.
Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
described...
cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
etc are.
If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
we would be in trouble,
But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
from words which are labels for things we already know.
The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
the loop,
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 31, 2016, 8:42:00 PM1/31/16
to
In article <shiqabtoklht05gql...@4ax.com>,
Why do you think the two things have anything to do with each other?
> Please respond in a civil manner. All
> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
that, you can't have a discussion about it.
In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
until you provide evidence that it exists.
--
JD
I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
> Please respond in a civil manner. All
> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
that, you can't have a discussion about it.
In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
until you provide evidence that it exists.
--
JD
I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 3:54:46 AM2/1/16
to
In article <nk3qabdoi05himu79...@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> >
> I've read many magazine articles and scientific publications on this
> and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
> never be. Gordon
Yeah, so?
Someone will always choose to work on it until it's proven wrong. You
can't ever prove something right, but you can prove it wrong.
> >> >> Yet, the
> >> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> >> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >> >>
> >> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> >> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> >> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> >> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
> >> >>
> >> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> >> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> >> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> >> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> >> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> >> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
> >> >>
> >> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> >> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> >> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> >> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
> >> >
> >> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
> >> >
> >> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
> >> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
> >
> >Why? What are you basing your guess on?
> >
> See above...
Why? "above" is nothing but your completely misunderstanding the
commentary on a subject. Not a scientific investigation of, but an op-ed
expressing their opinion.
How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
your god.
> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
> >> >it. Why do you want to?
> >> >
> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> >> ideas. Gordon
> >
> >Why?
> >
> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >> >
> >> >Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> It
> >> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >> >
> >> >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >> >
> >> >Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
> >> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> >> maybe they never will. Gordon
> >
> >Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
> >> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> >> maybe they never will. Gordon
> >
> >
> I've read many magazine articles and scientific publications on this
> and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
> never be. Gordon
Yeah, so?
Someone will always choose to work on it until it's proven wrong. You
can't ever prove something right, but you can prove it wrong.
> >> >> Yet, the
> >> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> >> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >> >>
> >> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
> >> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
> >> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
> >> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
> >> >>
> >> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
> >> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
> >> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
> >> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
> >> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
> >> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
> >> >>
> >> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
> >> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
> >> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
> >> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
> >> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
> >
> >Why? What are you basing your guess on?
> >
> See above...
Why? "above" is nothing but your completely misunderstanding the
commentary on a subject. Not a scientific investigation of, but an op-ed
expressing their opinion.
How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
your god.
> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
> >> >it. Why do you want to?
> >> >
> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> >> ideas. Gordon
> >
> >Why?
> >
> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 3:57:51 AM2/1/16
to
In article <v39ry.215541$Xk5....@fx17.iad>,
is to learn, to never stop learning. If you don't ask questions, you'll
never learn anything new.
But nowhere do I say I'm the only one who should be learning. By asking
someone to explain what they said, to really think about it, is to help
them learn if they know what they're talking about or not.
Anyone who throws away real opportunities to know even oneself better is
a fool.
Turtle Island <need_mo...@home.con> wrote:
> On 1/30/2016 11:12 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> >>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> >>>
> >> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
> >>>
> >>>> It
> >>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >>>
> >> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
> >> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> >> maybe they never will. Gordon
> >
> > Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
>
> What stupid fucking questions. Oh, yeah, you do that shit all the time:
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
> On 1/30/2016 11:12 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <khppab9puvg8148q2...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> >>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
> >>>
> >> Syntactical error on my part. Sorry! Gordon
> >>>
> >>>> It
> >>>> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >>>
> >> SS-M has not yet been proven and there have been many very intelligent
> >> minds working on developing a proof. If they haven't yet succeeded,
> >> maybe they never will. Gordon
> >
> > Why do you say that? What do you base that speculation on?
>
> What stupid fucking questions. Oh, yeah, you do that shit all the time:
is to learn, to never stop learning. If you don't ask questions, you'll
never learn anything new.
But nowhere do I say I'm the only one who should be learning. By asking
someone to explain what they said, to really think about it, is to help
them learn if they know what they're talking about or not.
Anyone who throws away real opportunities to know even oneself better is
a fool.
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 10:56:59 AM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Are you saying we can never prove that the earth is spherical and
rotates counter clockwise as viewed from above the north pole? Hmmmm!
I have accepted this as proven fact, since I was an infant. Wrong,
again, huh??? Gordon
We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
reject God. Gordon
Gordon
rotates counter clockwise as viewed from above the north pole? Hmmmm!
I have accepted this as proven fact, since I was an infant. Wrong,
again, huh??? Gordon
However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
reject God. Gordon
>
>> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>> >> >it. Why do you want to?
>> >> >
>> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>> >> ideas. Gordon
>> >
>> >Why?
> > >
>> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
>> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
>> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
>
>I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
>
I have, many times over, but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
>> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>> >> >it. Why do you want to?
>> >> >
>> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>> >> ideas. Gordon
>> >
>> >Why?
> > >
>> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
>> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
>> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
>
>I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
>
Gordon
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 11:04:33 AM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Absolutely correct in every way. This applies to accepting and knowing
God, too. We must study the information that is available to us and we
MUST adjust our mind-set back to the mind-set of those ancient people
who wrote the information that is available to us. Had they written
those manuscripts in modern scientific vernacular, most of those
ancient people would never have been able to comprehend it at all.
But, written in their vernacular they could get the gist of it and we
modern, scientifically educated people can easily understand it if we
don't block our minds against it. Gordon
God, too. We must study the information that is available to us and we
MUST adjust our mind-set back to the mind-set of those ancient people
who wrote the information that is available to us. Had they written
those manuscripts in modern scientific vernacular, most of those
ancient people would never have been able to comprehend it at all.
But, written in their vernacular they could get the gist of it and we
modern, scientifically educated people can easily understand it if we
don't block our minds against it. Gordon
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 11:11:06 AM2/1/16
to
probably never will be, but it seems possible. How do you justify
rejecting it with no proof at all? Gordon
>
>> Please respond in a civil manner. All
>> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
>
>But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
>that, you can't have a discussion about it.
>
If this is true, then why does anyone continue to study SS-M theory?
>> Please respond in a civil manner. All
>> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
>
>But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
>that, you can't have a discussion about it.
>
>
>In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
>until you provide evidence that it exists.
>
Nor can we discuss the idea that Strings and Super Strings exist until
>In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
>until you provide evidence that it exists.
>
someone provides firm evidence that this theory is right. But, how
would anyone continue to study things such as SS-M theory if they
can't even discuss it until reliable evidence has been provided...by
someone else. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 11:23:07 AM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:10:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
Couldn't answer this, so you went off on another red herring?
>I see no reason to reject this idea. It has not been proven and
>probably never will be, but it seems possible. How do you justify
>rejecting it with no proof at all? Gordon
REJECT WHAT, LIAR?
If it's just an idea, then it has to be justified.
Until then, there is nothing to reject.
>>> Please respond in a civil manner. All
>>> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
Liar.
Besides which, when have you ever tried to discuss anything in a civil
manner?
Do you seriously imagine your neverending, rude, stupid
question-begging is civil?
Or your amateur-psychologised, button-pushing, personal lies when this
is pointed out?
>>But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
>>that, you can't have a discussion about it.
>>
>If this is true, then why does anyone continue to study SS-M theory?
ITS PROPONENTS DO, imbecile.
>>In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
>>until you provide evidence that it exists.
>>
>Nor can we discuss the idea that Strings and Super Strings exist until
>someone provides firm evidence that this theory is right. But, how
>would anyone continue to study things such as SS-M theory if they
>can't even discuss it until reliable evidence has been provided...by
>someone else. Gordon
Stop being so dishonest.
I don't see its proponents insisting it be accepted as the
unquestioned truth, rudely and stupidly presuming everybody else
believes it and insisting the rest of us should discuss it from the
presumption that it is fact.
Oddly enough, the only person I have seen doing that, is yourself -
when you claim that your hypothetical god is hiding in string theory's
additional dimensions which are nothing more than a mathematical
abstraction which may or may not be useful in the same way imaginary
numbers are.
Grow up.
>I see no reason to reject this idea. It has not been proven and
>probably never will be, but it seems possible. How do you justify
>rejecting it with no proof at all? Gordon
If it's just an idea, then it has to be justified.
Until then, there is nothing to reject.
>>> Please respond in a civil manner. All
>>> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
Besides which, when have you ever tried to discuss anything in a civil
manner?
Do you seriously imagine your neverending, rude, stupid
question-begging is civil?
Or your amateur-psychologised, button-pushing, personal lies when this
is pointed out?
>>But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
>>that, you can't have a discussion about it.
>>
>If this is true, then why does anyone continue to study SS-M theory?
>>In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
>>until you provide evidence that it exists.
>>
>Nor can we discuss the idea that Strings and Super Strings exist until
>someone provides firm evidence that this theory is right. But, how
>would anyone continue to study things such as SS-M theory if they
>can't even discuss it until reliable evidence has been provided...by
>someone else. Gordon
I don't see its proponents insisting it be accepted as the
unquestioned truth, rudely and stupidly presuming everybody else
believes it and insisting the rest of us should discuss it from the
presumption that it is fact.
Oddly enough, the only person I have seen doing that, is yourself -
when you claim that your hypothetical god is hiding in string theory's
additional dimensions which are nothing more than a mathematical
abstraction which may or may not be useful in the same way imaginary
numbers are.
Grow up.
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 11:34:30 AM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:04:26 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
WHAT FUCKING GOD, deliberately rude, deliberately stupid moron who
cannot admit that there is a real world beyond his religion where it
is merely somebody else's religious belief they haven't the courtesy
and commonsense to keep where it is appropriate?
> We must study
Why, moron?
> the information that is available to us and we
WHAT FUCKING INFORMATION?
Until you demonstrate otherwise, it's just nonsense you plucked out of
your arse.
>MUST adjust our mind-set back to the mind-set of those ancient people
LIAR.
>who wrote the information that is available to us.
WHAT FUCKING "INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US", liar?
> Had they written
>those manuscripts in modern scientific vernacular, most of those
>ancient people would never have been able to comprehend it at all.
Idiot.
>But, written in their vernacular they could get the gist of it and we
Liar.
They're nothing more than an bronze-age version of Kipling's Just-So
stories.
>modern, scientifically educated people can easily understand it if we
There's nothing to understand, imbecile.
>don't block our minds against it. Gordon
You are a disgusting, dishonest, personally nasty liar.
wrote:
cannot admit that there is a real world beyond his religion where it
is merely somebody else's religious belief they haven't the courtesy
and commonsense to keep where it is appropriate?
> We must study
Why, moron?
> the information that is available to us and we
Until you demonstrate otherwise, it's just nonsense you plucked out of
your arse.
>MUST adjust our mind-set back to the mind-set of those ancient people
>who wrote the information that is available to us.
> Had they written
>those manuscripts in modern scientific vernacular, most of those
>ancient people would never have been able to comprehend it at all.
>But, written in their vernacular they could get the gist of it and we
They're nothing more than an bronze-age version of Kipling's Just-So
stories.
>modern, scientifically educated people can easily understand it if we
>don't block our minds against it. Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 12:24:35 PM2/1/16
to
In article <eh0vab1i9c5q7l8e0...@4ax.com>,
You also have no reason to accept this idea. So why do you?
> It has not been proven and
> probably never will be, but it seems possible. How do you justify
> rejecting it with no proof at all? Gordon
Who's rejecting it?
> >> Please respond in a civil manner. All
> >> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
> >
> >But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
> >that, you can't have a discussion about it.
> >
> If this is true, then why does anyone continue to study SS-M theory?
Because it's a theoretically possible solution to some problems.
If scientists only studied things that were already proven, science
would never move forward.
> >In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
> >until you provide evidence that it exists.
> >
> Nor can we discuss the idea that Strings and Super Strings exist until
> someone provides firm evidence that this theory is right. But, how
> would anyone continue to study things such as SS-M theory if they
> can't even discuss it until reliable evidence has been provided...by
> someone else. Gordon
Who the fuck are you talking about?
> It has not been proven and
> probably never will be, but it seems possible. How do you justify
> rejecting it with no proof at all? Gordon
> >> Please respond in a civil manner. All
> >> I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
> >
> >But you haven't established that your premise is correct. Until you do
> >that, you can't have a discussion about it.
> >
> If this is true, then why does anyone continue to study SS-M theory?
If scientists only studied things that were already proven, science
would never move forward.
> >In exactly the same way that we can't discuss what your god has done
> >until you provide evidence that it exists.
> >
> Nor can we discuss the idea that Strings and Super Strings exist until
> someone provides firm evidence that this theory is right. But, how
> would anyone continue to study things such as SS-M theory if they
> can't even discuss it until reliable evidence has been provided...by
> someone else. Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 12:25:54 PM2/1/16
to
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 12:28:40 PM2/1/16
to
In article <ikvuab9o0ps7uoh3n...@4ax.com>,
Nope, none of that is proven right. It's only right on the preponderance
of the evidence. Odds are that it's right, but it's not 100%.
Anyone who accepts anything, including any god, without evidence of any
kind is a delusional moron.
> >> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop
> >> >> >studying
> >> >> >it. Why do you want to?
> >> >> >
> >> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> >> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> >> >> ideas. Gordon
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> > > >
> >> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
> >> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
> >> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
> >
> >I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
> >
> I have, many times over, but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
> Gordon
But you're not fully educated on any of the subjects you post, so why is
this any different?
of the evidence. Odds are that it's right, but it's not 100%.
kind is a delusional moron.
> >> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop
> >> >> >studying
> >> >> >it. Why do you want to?
> >> >> >
> >> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
> >> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
> >> >> ideas. Gordon
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> > > >
> >> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
> >> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
> >> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
> >
> >I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
> >
> I have, many times over, but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
> Gordon
this any different?
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 12:51:04 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:56:52 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
Grow up and stop being such a stupid liar.
>>> >> >> Yet, the
>>> >> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>>> >> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>>> >> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>>> >> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>>> >> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>>> >> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>>> >> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>>> >> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>>> >> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>>> >> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>>> >> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>>> >> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>>> >> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
They have to provide objective JUSTIFICATION - which hasn't been done.
Why are you still pretending you don't understand this?
>>> >> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>>> >> >
>>> >> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
>>> >> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
>>> >
>>> >Why? What are you basing your guess on?
>>> >
>>> See above...
>>
>>Why? "above" is nothing but your completely misunderstanding the
>>commentary on a subject. Not a scientific investigation of, but an op-ed
>>expressing their opinion.
>>
>>How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
>>your god.
It's called unthinking stupidity.
>We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
You have neither.
>However, I am convinced that God
As usual, the deliberately rude, deliberately stupid sociopath
assumes the same "facts" not in evidence....
WHAT FUCKING GOD, OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION?
> does not want us to have absolute
>objective proof of His existence.
Then you should understand why those who aren't as stupid as you are,
have no reason to take it seriously.
> If this were available to us, none
>of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
>reject God. Gordon
Stop lying, pathological liar.
>>> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>>> >> >it. Why do you want to?
>>> >> >
>>> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>>> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>>> >> ideas. Gordon
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>> > >
>>> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
>>> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
>>> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
The way it works, is that its proponents do that and then announce
what they have discovered.
But so far, there is nothing to announce.
But then you already know this, so why do you keep repeating the same
old, same old?
.
> but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
Or anything else, apparently.
>Gordon
wrote:
>>> >> >> Yet, the
>>> >> >> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>>> >> >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> SS-M posits ten spatial and one temporal dimension, of which our
>>> >> >> universe is a three dimensional part. Our time scale also spans all
>>> >> >> these dimensions. Those other spatial dimensions, if they exist, may
>>> >> >> be interwoven into our discernable space.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Think of a deck of cards with all the black cards just a bit more than
>>> >> >> a Planck Length in thickness and all the red cards just a bit less
>>> >> >> than a Planck Length in thickness. An atomic sized microbe moving
>>> >> >> through this deck of cards could discern only the black cards and the
>>> >> >> volume they occupy but could not discern the red cards although they
>>> >> >> are interspersed uniformly between each black card.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Should we go on studying SS-M theory, even though it has not and
>>> >> >> probably never will be objectively proven? Or, should we toss this and
>>> >> >> all other unproven theories in the trash until someone else is able to
>>> >> >> provide objective proof? Gordon
Why are you still pretending you don't understand this?
>>> >> >Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
>>> >> >
>>> >> Years of intensive study hasn't yet resulted in a proof. It may be
>>> >> proven sometime but the odds seem very small. Gordon
>>> >
>>> >Why? What are you basing your guess on?
>>> >
>>> See above...
>>
>>Why? "above" is nothing but your completely misunderstanding the
>>commentary on a subject. Not a scientific investigation of, but an op-ed
>>expressing their opinion.
>>
>>How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
>>your god.
>We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
>However, I am convinced that God
assumes the same "facts" not in evidence....
WHAT FUCKING GOD, OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION?
> does not want us to have absolute
>objective proof of His existence.
have no reason to take it seriously.
> If this were available to us, none
>of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
>reject God. Gordon
>>> >> >As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
>>> >> >it. Why do you want to?
>>> >> >
>>> >> I quite agree but I am thinking the general interest may drop to nil
>>> >> and no further work done on this and other longstanding, unproven
>>> >> ideas. Gordon
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>> > >
>>> Most people give up on a project or idea if they cannot move forward,
>>> after a lot of intensive work on it. How long has SS-M been in the
>>> mill and how many have worked extensively on it? Gordon
what they have discovered.
But so far, there is nothing to announce.
But then you already know this, so why do you keep repeating the same
old, same old?
.
>>I dunno. Why don't you research your question and let us know.
>>
>I have, many times over,
Then why do you keep getting so much, so wrong?
>>
>I have, many times over,
> but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
>Gordon
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 1:07:55 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Jeanne, from my perspective there is ZERO evidence that you exist.
I've never seen or touched you nor have I seen anything that I can
objectively prove you have done or caused to be done. Therefore you
don't exist. Gordon
I've never seen or touched you nor have I seen anything that I can
objectively prove you have done or caused to be done. Therefore you
don't exist. Gordon
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 1:11:00 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
interesting conjecture that may prove true....sometime. Gordon
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <eh0vab1i9c5q7l8e0...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <shiqabtoklht05gql...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>In article <eh0vab1i9c5q7l8e0...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <shiqabtoklht05gql...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
>> >> >
>> >> >And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
>> >> >idiot this makes you?
>> >> >
>> >> >>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>> >> >>what I've said? Gordon
>> >> >
>> >> >Pretty well everytime you have spewed your question-begging,
>> >> >pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
>> >> >
>> >> >In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
>> >> >in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
>> >> >
>> >> Christopher, can you explain how the synapses in our brain are able to
>> >> provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
>> >> you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
>> >> quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
>> >> could not do something similar?
>> >
>> >Why do you think the two things have anything to do with each other?
>> >
>> I see no reason to reject this idea.
>
>You also have no reason to accept this idea. So why do you?
>
I never said that I accepted this idea. I merely pointed it out as an
>> >> >
>> >> >And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
>> >> >idiot this makes you?
>> >> >
>> >> >>Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
>> >> >>what I've said? Gordon
>> >> >
>> >> >Pretty well everytime you have spewed your question-begging,
>> >> >pseudo-scientific nonsense, imbecile.
>> >> >
>> >> >In other words, every time you have brought up your hypothetical god
>> >> >in a scientific context, lying imbecile.
>> >> >
>> >> Christopher, can you explain how the synapses in our brain are able to
>> >> provide the level of cognizance and intelligence that we have? And, if
>> >> you can explain this, please go on and explain why some form of
>> >> quantum entanglements between super strings, or sub-atomic particles
>> >> could not do something similar?
>> >
>> >Why do you think the two things have anything to do with each other?
>> >
>> I see no reason to reject this idea.
>
>You also have no reason to accept this idea. So why do you?
>
interesting conjecture that may prove true....sometime. Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 1:17:13 PM2/1/16
to
In article <hi7vabpb5ssb51fc1...@4ax.com>,
I have no problem with that.
Especially since we already know how much you love corresponding with
the non-existent.
Especially since we already know how much you love corresponding with
the non-existent.
Ted&Alice
Feb 1, 2016, 1:22:05 PM2/1/16
to
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 1:30:59 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
He imagines every unsupported belief should be invesigated by the
listener, not the one proposing it.
Because he's dug himself into a hole with no way out that wouldn't
lose him many years of face.
He needs to say anything, however stupid, rather than admit the
mistakes he ran away from all those years ago.
Which just makes things worse, every time he does it.
listener, not the one proposing it.
Because he's dug himself into a hole with no way out that wouldn't
lose him many years of face.
He needs to say anything, however stupid, rather than admit the
mistakes he ran away from all those years ago.
Which just makes things worse, every time he does it.
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 1:50:17 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:07:49 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
A standard fundie dishonesty.
Respond to a demand for evidence that supports his baseless and
unsolicited claims, in other words that he "put up or shut up".
And the terminally dishonest theist demands evidence for the ordinary,
that would convince a solipsist.
Who does the moron think he's talking to?
Respond to a demand for evidence that supports his baseless and
unsolicited claims, in other words that he "put up or shut up".
And the terminally dishonest theist demands evidence for the ordinary,
that would convince a solipsist.
Who does the moron think he's talking to?
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 1:51:02 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <hi7vabpb5ssb51fc1...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e40vabtgq9klrvb3v...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>In article <hi7vabpb5ssb51fc1...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e40vabtgq9klrvb3v...@4ax.com>,
>> > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Anyone who throws away real opportunities to know even oneself better is
>> >> >a fool.
>> >> >
>> >> Absolutely correct in every way. This applies to accepting and knowing
>> >> God, too. We must study the information that is available to us
>> >
>> >There is ZERO information available about your god.
>> >
>> Jeanne, from my perspective there is ZERO evidence that you exist.
>> I've never seen or touched you nor have I seen anything that I can
>> objectively prove you have done or caused to be done. Therefore you
>> don't exist. Gordon
>
>
>I have no problem with that.
>
>Especially since we already know how much you love corresponding with
>the non-existent.
>
Are you saying that had I refused to respond to anything in the way of
>> >> >a fool.
>> >> >
>> >> Absolutely correct in every way. This applies to accepting and knowing
>> >> God, too. We must study the information that is available to us
>> >
>> >There is ZERO information available about your god.
>> >
>> Jeanne, from my perspective there is ZERO evidence that you exist.
>> I've never seen or touched you nor have I seen anything that I can
>> objectively prove you have done or caused to be done. Therefore you
>> don't exist. Gordon
>
>
>I have no problem with that.
>
>Especially since we already know how much you love corresponding with
>the non-existent.
>
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 1:52:16 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:10:53 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
Yet your mindless nonsense presumes it - and not even what it is but a
misunderstanding of it.
Look up "Ockham's Razor" and stop being so stupid.
wrote:
misunderstanding of it.
Look up "Ockham's Razor" and stop being so stupid.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 2:17:50 PM2/1/16
to
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 2:57:40 PM2/1/16
to
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:30:29 +0800, Peter Pan wrote:
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
>> >your god.
>> >
>> We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
>> However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
>> objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
>> of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
>> reject God. Gordon
>
>That's silly. If the god hides in the closet, how can it
>expect everyone to follow it.
>
Think of Him as just around the corner, out of sight and not making
any noise, waiting for us to volitionally come around the corner and
make contact with Him. Those who won't volitionally search (look
around the corner) for God won't find any evidence of His existence
and will go on with their lives as if God actually doesn't exist.
Gordon
>
>Satan knows objectively that god exists, yet he exercised a
>totally sovereign choice to reject god.
>
Lucifer/Satan had absolutely no knowledge as to the effects of sin and
rebellion at the time he turned away from God. He COULD NOT have made
a sovereign choice in these matters until he had explored them in
depth. This is going on presently and we humans are along for the
learning process, too. Gordon
>
>Adam & Eve talked with god daily, yet they exercised a
>totally sovereign choice to disobey god.
>
Here, as with Satan, they had no first hand learning or knowledge as
to the effects of sin and rebellion. Gordon
>Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
>> >your god.
>> >
>> We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
>> However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
>> objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
>> of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
>> reject God. Gordon
>
>expect everyone to follow it.
>
Think of Him as just around the corner, out of sight and not making
any noise, waiting for us to volitionally come around the corner and
make contact with Him. Those who won't volitionally search (look
around the corner) for God won't find any evidence of His existence
and will go on with their lives as if God actually doesn't exist.
Gordon
>
>Satan knows objectively that god exists, yet he exercised a
>totally sovereign choice to reject god.
>
Lucifer/Satan had absolutely no knowledge as to the effects of sin and
rebellion at the time he turned away from God. He COULD NOT have made
a sovereign choice in these matters until he had explored them in
depth. This is going on presently and we humans are along for the
learning process, too. Gordon
>
>Adam & Eve talked with god daily, yet they exercised a
>totally sovereign choice to disobey god.
>
Here, as with Satan, they had no first hand learning or knowledge as
to the effects of sin and rebellion. Gordon
>Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
Gordon
Feb 1, 2016, 2:59:00 PM2/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:17:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Those who refuse to respond to anything from God claim that He doesn't
exist. Gordon
exist. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 1, 2016, 3:40:08 PM2/1/16
to
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 7:20:38 PM2/1/16
to
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 1, 2016, 7:23:40 PM2/1/16
to
In article <mndvabl0sil5hiu73...@4ax.com>,
> >Satan knows objectively that god exists, yet he exercised a
> >totally sovereign choice to reject god.
> >
> Lucifer/Satan had absolutely no knowledge as to the effects of sin and
> rebellion at the time he turned away from God. He COULD NOT have made
> a sovereign choice in these matters until he had explored them in
> depth. This is going on presently and we humans are along for the
> learning process, too. Gordon
And Gordie once again declares that his god is a monster.
> >Adam & Eve talked with god daily, yet they exercised a
> >totally sovereign choice to disobey god.
> >
> Here, as with Satan, they had no first hand learning or knowledge as
> to the effects of sin and rebellion. Gordon
So why were they punished so severely for something they didn't know was
wrong?
You've just declared again that your god is the worst monster in the
history of the universe.
What the fuck was your childhood like if you think punishing people for
things they had no way of knowing was wrong is okay?
> >Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:30:29 +0800, Peter Pan wrote:
>
> >Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
> >> >your god.
> >> >
> >> We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
> >> However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
> >> objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
> >> of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
> >> reject God. Gordon
> >
> >That's silly. If the god hides in the closet, how can it
> >expect everyone to follow it.
> >
> Think of Him as just around the corner, out of sight and not making
> any noise, waiting for us to volitionally come around the corner and
> make contact with Him. Those who won't volitionally search (look
> around the corner) for God won't find any evidence of His existence
> and will go on with their lives as if God actually doesn't exist.
> Gordon
What fucking "corner"?
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:30:29 +0800, Peter Pan wrote:
>
> >Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >How can you not see that that is in no way evidence for the existence of
> >> >your god.
> >> >
> >> We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
> >> However, I am convinced that God does not want us to have absolute
> >> objective proof of His existence. If this were available to us, none
> >> of us would have a totally sovereign choice as to whether we accept or
> >> reject God. Gordon
> >
> >That's silly. If the god hides in the closet, how can it
> >expect everyone to follow it.
> >
> Think of Him as just around the corner, out of sight and not making
> any noise, waiting for us to volitionally come around the corner and
> make contact with Him. Those who won't volitionally search (look
> around the corner) for God won't find any evidence of His existence
> and will go on with their lives as if God actually doesn't exist.
> Gordon
> >Satan knows objectively that god exists, yet he exercised a
> >totally sovereign choice to reject god.
> >
> Lucifer/Satan had absolutely no knowledge as to the effects of sin and
> rebellion at the time he turned away from God. He COULD NOT have made
> a sovereign choice in these matters until he had explored them in
> depth. This is going on presently and we humans are along for the
> learning process, too. Gordon
> >Adam & Eve talked with god daily, yet they exercised a
> >totally sovereign choice to disobey god.
> >
> Here, as with Satan, they had no first hand learning or knowledge as
> to the effects of sin and rebellion. Gordon
wrong?
You've just declared again that your god is the worst monster in the
history of the universe.
What the fuck was your childhood like if you think punishing people for
things they had no way of knowing was wrong is okay?
> >Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
Malcolm McMahon
Feb 2, 2016, 5:48:02 AM2/2/16
to
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:07:06 UTC, Gordon wrote:
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
As I understand it (which is not a lot), its one of those theories that depends on huge values almost, but not quite, completely cancelling one another out leaving a balance which is sort of credible in our universe.
> Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
> mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
That puts me off.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 2, 2016, 6:46:15 AM2/2/16
to
Malcolm McMahon
Feb 2, 2016, 8:16:14 AM2/2/16
to
On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 11:46:15 UTC, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <5eb5b0bf-3f27-4c06...@googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McMahon <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:07:06 UTC, Gordon wrote:
> > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
> > > has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
> > > mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> > > eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >
> > As I understand it (which is not a lot), its one of those theories that
> > depends on huge values almost, but not quite, completely cancelling one
> > another out leaving a balance which is sort of credible in our universe.
> >
> > That puts me off.
>
>
> Didn't quantum mechanics put Einstein off?
>
Quantum mechanics upset a lot of physicists. God playing dice after all, for example.
> In article <5eb5b0bf-3f27-4c06...@googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McMahon <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:07:06 UTC, Gordon wrote:
> > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
> > > has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
> > > mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
> > > eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
> >
> > As I understand it (which is not a lot), its one of those theories that
> > depends on huge values almost, but not quite, completely cancelling one
> > another out leaving a balance which is sort of credible in our universe.
> >
> > That puts me off.
>
>
> Didn't quantum mechanics put Einstein off?
>
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 2, 2016, 9:22:17 AM2/2/16
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:16:09 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
<malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 11:46:15 UTC, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <5eb5b0bf-3f27-4c06...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Malcolm McMahon <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:07:06 UTC, Gordon wrote:
>> > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
>> > > has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
>> > > mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> > > eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>> >
>> > As I understand it (which is not a lot), its one of those theories that
>> > depends on huge values almost, but not quite, completely cancelling one
>> > another out leaving a balance which is sort of credible in our universe.
>> >
>> > That puts me off.
>>
>> Didn't quantum mechanics put Einstein off?
>
>Quantum mechanics upset a lot of physicists. God playing dice
>after all, for example.
However, they accepted it and researched it when it was demonstrated.
>On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 11:46:15 UTC, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <5eb5b0bf-3f27-4c06...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Malcolm McMahon <malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, 30 January 2016 16:07:06 UTC, Gordon wrote:
>> > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory. It
>> > > has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
>> > > mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and may
>> > > eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
>> >
>> > As I understand it (which is not a lot), its one of those theories that
>> > depends on huge values almost, but not quite, completely cancelling one
>> > another out leaving a balance which is sort of credible in our universe.
>> >
>> > That puts me off.
>>
>> Didn't quantum mechanics put Einstein off?
>
>Quantum mechanics upset a lot of physicists. God playing dice
>after all, for example.
Ted&Alice
Feb 3, 2016, 6:48:40 PM2/3/16
to
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
> <festus...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:07:39 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice wrote:
> >> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 1:17:07 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > Don't Touch Me There wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On 1/30/2016 8:27 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> > > > > > In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > > "just" a theory is direct evidence of scientific
> illiteracy. >> > > > > Saying that something needs "evidence" in
> order to make the >> > > > > jump from "just" a hypothesis to
> full-fledged theory is >> > > > > nearly as bad. It also gets
> science backward. A theory is >> > > > > used to generate testable
> hypotheses; hypotheses don't >> > > > > generate theories.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Ithas not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> Testing of >> > > > > hypotheses generated from theories either
> confirm the theory's >> > > > > predictions, or they contradict them.
> If they confirm, then >> > > > > the theory is tentatively accepted.
> If they contradict, then >> > > > > the theory is called into
> question. >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard who evidently
> >> > > > thinks that "proven" isn't a valid word?
> >> >
> >> > > Nothing in science is ever proved. The word has no meaning in
> >> > > science. Theory is as good as it gets.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
> >> >
> >> > I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's essays on the subject,
> mostly >> > because I'm not bright enough to understand the other
> philosophers >> > and found Russell much easier to read and so read
> him the most.
> > >
> >> Well, Russell did a lot of math proofs, but no proofs in science.
> And >> turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste
> of >> time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
> >
> > No question that Russell was a brilliant mathematician, but that's
> > not what I meant. I was referring to Russell's essays on the
> > problem of induction, i.e. agreeing with your statement that
> > "nothing in science is ever proved".
>
> Collogually, proved means "proved beyond reasonable doubt".
Of course. Russell's discussion explains it pretty well.
>
> > I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy
> > Rucker's math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
>
> This moron used to post as Kurt Godel, and he claimed that Godel
> proved God.
>
Ah now I see. :)
> He is fond of the incompleteness theorem which he doesn't understand
> only applies to formal, self-referential systems, and that Godel
> merely formalised what was already understood by anybody with any
> commonsense.
>
Perhaps for intelligent people like you, but the first time I heard of
it was in grad school and I was awed.
> He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
> that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
> with reality.
>
> Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
> they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
> described...
>
> cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
> snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
> for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
>
> But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
> etc are.
>
> If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
> the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
> we would be in trouble,
>
> But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
> the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
>
> That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
>
> Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
> from words which are labels for things we already know.
>
> The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
> religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
> belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
> the loop,
Did Godel believe in a sort of God, though? I don't remember.
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
> <festus...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:07:39 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice wrote:
> >> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 1:17:07 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > Don't Touch Me There wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On 1/30/2016 8:27 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> > > > > > In article <65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > > > Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present
> just a >> > > > > > > theory.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present
> just a >> > > > > > > theory.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make
> it >> > > > > > a theory.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something
> it >> > > > > > a theory.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "just" a theory is direct evidence of scientific
> illiteracy. >> > > > > Saying that something needs "evidence" in
> order to make the >> > > > > jump from "just" a hypothesis to
> full-fledged theory is >> > > > > nearly as bad. It also gets
> science backward. A theory is >> > > > > used to generate testable
> hypotheses; hypotheses don't >> > > > > generate theories.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Ithas not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > No valid scientific theory is ever "proven" [sic].
> >> > > > > > Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >> > > > >
> Testing of >> > > > > hypotheses generated from theories either
> confirm the theory's >> > > > > predictions, or they contradict them.
> If they confirm, then >> > > > > the theory is tentatively accepted.
> If they contradict, then >> > > > > the theory is called into
> question. >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard who evidently
> >> > > > thinks that "proven" isn't a valid word?
> >> >
> >> > > Nothing in science is ever proved. The word has no meaning in
> >> > > science. Theory is as good as it gets.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
> >> >
> >> > I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's essays on the subject,
> mostly >> > because I'm not bright enough to understand the other
> philosophers >> > and found Russell much easier to read and so read
> him the most.
> > >
> >> Well, Russell did a lot of math proofs, but no proofs in science.
> And >> turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste
> of >> time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
> >
> > No question that Russell was a brilliant mathematician, but that's
> > not what I meant. I was referring to Russell's essays on the
> > problem of induction, i.e. agreeing with your statement that
> > "nothing in science is ever proved".
>
> Collogually, proved means "proved beyond reasonable doubt".
Of course. Russell's discussion explains it pretty well.
>
> > I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy
> > Rucker's math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
>
> This moron used to post as Kurt Godel, and he claimed that Godel
> proved God.
>
Ah now I see. :)
> He is fond of the incompleteness theorem which he doesn't understand
> only applies to formal, self-referential systems, and that Godel
> merely formalised what was already understood by anybody with any
> commonsense.
>
Perhaps for intelligent people like you, but the first time I heard of
it was in grad school and I was awed.
> He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
> that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
> with reality.
>
> Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
> they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
> described...
>
> cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
> snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
> for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
>
> But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
> etc are.
>
> If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
> the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
> we would be in trouble,
>
> But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
> the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
>
> That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
>
> Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
> from words which are labels for things we already know.
>
> The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
> religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
> belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
> the loop,
Did Godel believe in a sort of God, though? I don't remember.
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 3, 2016, 7:11:02 PM2/3/16
to
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:48:38 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Perhaps a couple of things when I was a child, helped/
My father would joke with us if we were going somewhere...
Dad: "We're going to the zoo - I don't know how to get there, so I'll
follow you"
Me: "But I don't know, either"
Dad: "So follow your sister. she's gong there"
Me: "But she doesn't know"
Dad: "That's OK - she's following your mother"
Me: "She doesn't know, either"
Dad: "She's following me, and I'm going there"
The other one was my class teacher when I was eight, trying to explain
her god to me, but she couldn't use any concepts outside her religion.
>> He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
>> that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
>> with reality.
>>
>> Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
>> they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
>> described...
>>
>> cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
>> snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
>> for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
>>
>> But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
>> etc are.
>>
>> If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
>> the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
>> we would be in trouble,
>>
>> But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
>> the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
>>
>> That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
>>
>> Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
>> from words which are labels for things we already know.
>>
>> The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
>> religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
>> belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
>> the loop,
>
>Did Godel believe in a sort of God, though? I don't remember.
Neither do I.
It never occurs to me whether somebody is theis unless they make a
fuss about it - but then I'm English. where one's religion is their
own business and there are comparatively few serious religionists.
Checks Wonkypedia...
Gödel was a convinced theist, in the Christian tradition.[24] He held
the notion that God was personal, which differed from the religious
views of his friend Albert Einstein.
He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes
that there are many relationships which today's science and received
wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the
afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to
perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with
known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning,
then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."[25]
My father would joke with us if we were going somewhere...
Dad: "We're going to the zoo - I don't know how to get there, so I'll
follow you"
Me: "But I don't know, either"
Dad: "So follow your sister. she's gong there"
Me: "But she doesn't know"
Dad: "That's OK - she's following your mother"
Me: "She doesn't know, either"
Dad: "She's following me, and I'm going there"
The other one was my class teacher when I was eight, trying to explain
her god to me, but she couldn't use any concepts outside her religion.
>> He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
>> that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
>> with reality.
>>
>> Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
>> they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
>> described...
>>
>> cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
>> snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
>> for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
>>
>> But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
>> etc are.
>>
>> If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
>> the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
>> we would be in trouble,
>>
>> But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
>> the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
>>
>> That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
>>
>> Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
>> from words which are labels for things we already know.
>>
>> The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
>> religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
>> belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
>> the loop,
>
>Did Godel believe in a sort of God, though? I don't remember.
It never occurs to me whether somebody is theis unless they make a
fuss about it - but then I'm English. where one's religion is their
own business and there are comparatively few serious religionists.
Checks Wonkypedia...
Gödel was a convinced theist, in the Christian tradition.[24] He held
the notion that God was personal, which differed from the religious
views of his friend Albert Einstein.
He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes
that there are many relationships which today's science and received
wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the
afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to
perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with
known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning,
then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."[25]
0 new messages