Some Inconsistencies that cannot be resolved.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 02, 2008, 04:29:43 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 04:17:14 AM

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.

The whole point of a theory is to provide predictions. What gives you the authority to claim that string theory doesn't?

Because no-one has tested it yet and most scientists agree it probably never will be tested. This is accepted scientific thinking. Both of you need to do more  reading on ST, because clearly you have a severe misunderstanding of where the theory is in terms of development and what it can/can't do.

Considering that Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking would disagree with you, I'm going to aswell.

Here's a little challenge: physically test for me that 2+2=4

Well, I'm no scientist, but I have read both The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of The Cosmos by Brian Greene. Science for dummies maybe, but it gives me a fair backround. And I can tell you for a fact that all scientists agree that it is unlikely we will see any test that can prove the veracity of ST for a long, long time, if ever. This is accepted wisdom. I just checked wikipedia for gods sake, and it's there too.

Well, I'm no scientist, but I have read both The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of The Cosmos by Brian Greene. Science for dummies maybe, but it gives me a fair backround. And I can tell you for a fact that all scientists agree that it is unlikely we will see any test that can prove the veracity of ST for a long, long time, if ever. This is accepted wisdom. I just checked wikipedia for gods sake, and it's there too.

Are you listening to a word I say? They can't physically test it, I am agreeing with you! It's a bit like trying to navigate blindfolded. You can't be sure this is a car you are walking into but you have to assume it is. If ST can provide answers to something, it is getting closer to the truth, not moving away, regardless of when it does it or to what accuracy.

It's an argument from ignorance to assume it's wrong because it can't be tested.

It doesn't matter what crazy theories they come up to describe the make-up of matter, it will never be physically testable.

No it isn't. I'm not saying that it's wrong, jsut that it can never be tested. Tell me, what is the point of a theory that can never be tested? How would you know if it's correct?

No it isn't. I'm not saying that it's wrong, jsut that it can never be tested. Tell me, what is the point of a theory that can never be tested? How would you know if it's correct?

If it provides an explanation for every phenomena in the universe. That's how.

There may be many theories that can do this, and only one could be right, no doubt about that. But you gotta start somewhere, and so far ST is doing a good job, and M Theory apparently even better.

But it's an untestable theory with, in all likelihood, no predictive power. A scientific theory has to be backed up by empirical evidence. It's the basis of science.

But it's an untestable theory with, in all likelihood, no predictive power. A scientific theory has to be backed up by empirical evidence. It's the basis of science.

I'm beginning to think you're stupid. For the umpteenth time, I'll say it one last time: The theory is supposed to explain what consitutes sub-atomic particles. Any theory of this type cannot be tested empirically. Not a single one of them.

And once again, another RE'er stoops to name calling. Have you even wiki'd ST as I suggested? I'm at work, so I can't get books out and give you proper references, and it's too busy for me to go hunting down more reputable links, but read this section and then come back to me.

And once again, another RE'er stoops to name calling. Have you even wiki'd ST as I suggested? I'm at work, so I can't get books out and give you proper references, and it's too busy for me to go hunting down more reputable links, but read this section and then come back to me.

*facepalm* YES. There can be no empirical evidence! It diverges from the scientific method! I know! You've made that point!

MY point is that it CANNOT be tested to any real degree! Any theory of that kind cant! The only thing you can do is slowly but surely try all the possible avenues and induce which is the correct one!

And again, the argument from ignorance. Nobody said ST is correct, but that doesn't make it false.

This is the last time I'm saying this. I'm getting bored of having to write the same thing over and over.

And how are you going to 'induce' that? Do you mean guess? Do you mean assuming? Because that's what a scientific theory without proof is: an assumption. You know, you'd swear this was a FE criticism of ST. It's not. It's a widely accepted point of view within science, and many highly reputable scientists are highly critical of ST for precisely this reason.

Not only is ST not agreed upon, but there may be an infinite number of equally possible versions of it, and as it can't be tested, and they are all equally possible, it has no predictive power and may be entirely worthless. These are facts, so stop trying to avoid them. Whatever the reason, and whatever the cause, if you can't prove something is either true or false, and their are an INFINITE (it's hilarious really; not just 7, or 9, but an INFINITE) number of equally possible theories, then that theory is merely possible, and not even probable.

Thus there is no one version of RE physics, and QM & GR are still left as incompatible theories on which modern physics are based, which was my original point.

And how are you going to 'induce' that? Do you mean guess? Do you mean assuming? Because that's what a scientific theory without proof is: an assumption. You know, you'd swear this was a FE criticism of ST. It's not. It's a widely accepted point of view within science, and many highly reputable scientists are highly critical of ST for precisely this reason.

Not only is ST not agreed upon, but there may be an infinite number of equally possible versions of it, and as it can't be tested, and they are all equally possible, it has no predictive power and may be entirely worthless. These are facts, so stop trying to avoid them. Whatever the reason, and whatever the cause, if you can't prove something is either true or false, and their are an INFINITE (it's hilarious really; not just 7, or 9, but an INFINITE) number of equally possible theories, then that theory is merely possible, and not even probable.

Thus there is no one version of RE physics, and QM & GR are still left as incompatible theories on which modern physics are based, which was my original point.

You induce it by seeing if it is succesfull in bringing QM and GR into one theory, and since these are so mutually exclusive it erases the ability to literarly have an infinite amount of theories that can explain it. And please, don't say I'm avoiding the facts: if you read up you'll find that I was the first to say that there could possibly be many theories to explain it.

And again, as I stated, this is the very beginning of trying to find a theory of everything. I would be very surprised if we were already succesfull in finding a correct one. You gotta take it slow and take each avenue seperatelly. There is nothing that says ST is wrong, which is why they are still working on it.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 01, 2008, 03:16:45 PM

For the clowns, here again:

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.
RET has possible explanations for the mechanics of the universe.
RET has photographic proof.

1) Because they have a number of different theories, many of which are incompatible,

This was my original point. Currently, we are still left with an infinite amount of string theories, and several related but distinct theories, none of which can be empirically confirmed and none of which have actually conclusively brought QM & GR together.


Point made, case closed.

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.

This model isn't ST. ST could apply to FE (apart from the fact that FE doesn't have any explanation as to where the universe came from). RET on the otherhand has a pretty good idea of where the universe came from, how it came to be the way it is today, and how the planets, stars, galaxies, etc move.

Quote

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.

This model isn't ST. ST could apply to FE (apart from the fact that FE doesn't have any explanation as to where the universe came from). RET on the otherhand has a pretty good idea of where the universe came from, how it came to be the way it is today, and how the planets, stars, galaxies, etc move.

it has two imcompatible theories, GR & QM, which is what I said in the beginning, and then the various ST theories designed to tie them together.

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 02, 2008, 06:42:08 AM

Quote

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.

This model isn't ST. ST could apply to FE (apart from the fact that FE doesn't have any explanation as to where the universe came from). RET on the otherhand has a pretty good idea of where the universe came from, how it came to be the way it is today, and how the planets, stars, galaxies, etc move.

it has two imcompatible theories, GR & QM, which is what I said in the beginning, and then the various ST theories designed to tie them together.

It does have two incompatible theories, but these aren't what explain how the planets came to be the way they are and how they move (well GR does have a part in it, but QM doesn't apart from at the very early universe).

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the universe.

The accepted model of our solar system explains all movements of all natural celestial bodies perfectly, including gravitation and the fact that the Earth is round. It can be used to accurately predict stellar events decades into the future without fail.

RET has possible explanations for the mechanics of the universe.

Possible explanations for the observed behaviour of the universe, such as gravity, string theory etc. Notice the word possible, as most of these are just theories.

RET has photographic proof.

Terabytes of images made by government and private organisations all across the globe since the 50's, showing clearly that the mechanics of the universe work just as we can see from Earth - not to mention that the Earth is round.



EDIT: Aaaaaand before the usual suspects start barking "Conspiracy!" and "Appeal to authority fallacy!", remember the so-called conspiracy is merely a baseless accusation and that an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is not an authority. Since NASA, ESA etc. are the only organizations who have sent people to space, there is currently no better authority than them.

Quote

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the universe.

The accepted model of our solar system explains all movements of all natural celestial bodies perfectly, including gravitation and the fact that the Earth is round. It can be used to accurately predict stellar events decades into the future without fail.

But only for celestial bodies; at smaller levels it doesn't work. Then we use QM, which doesn't work at larger levels. Thus incompatible.

No you did not. In FET it's unknown how high the atmosphere stretches, or whether space is a perfect vacuum. Many FE (and RE) models suppose that empty space is filled with an aether medium. This accounts for the refraction of the sun's light.

FE has theories that use an aether medium, and they might even use the concept of luminiferous aether to transmit light, but for RE physics...

In physics there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether.

Wikipedia Page on Aether Theories

It does mention that at quantum levels that quantum foam could be an equivalent to aether...

Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being "bitty" at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. Instead of being "smooth", the vacuum is described as looking like "quantum foam". It has been suggested that this seething mass of virtual particles may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.

Wikipedia Page on Aether Theories

I have seen no suggestion that quantum foam or particles can be responsible for refraction of light.  Even the classical aether of the 1800s believed that aether just transmitted the light without effecting it in any fashion.

Username has a few good calculations for aethethic refraction.

This thread on Aether?

I just read through it.  There was some discussion about vacuum and what characteristics that aether might have, but I saw no formulas and no proof about the existence of an aether that can refract light.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 02, 2008, 06:52:03 AM

Quote

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the universe.

The accepted model of our solar system explains all movements of all natural celestial bodies perfectly, including gravitation and the fact that the Earth is round. It can be used to accurately predict stellar events decades into the future without fail.

But only for celestial bodies; at smaller levels it doesn't work. Then we use QM, which doesn't work at larger levels. Thus incompatible.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is not concerned with "smaller" levels. Neither is FET in general and neither am I for that matter. My point was that RET has a working, proven and reliable model for the solar system based on fundamental laws of physics, while FET has an abundance unexplainable of phenomena, no consistent laws and gaping holes that are filled with arbitrary explanations that make you want to gouge your eyes out with a plastic spoon and then commit suicide by shoving a copy of Earth not a Globe up your nose and into your brain.

And my point, simply, was that RE had a number of conflicting theories, which is absolutely true and which no-one here can refute. This is the point I made, this is the point you and Zotoaster chose to argue, and the fact is I was absolutely and undeniably correct.

And my point, simply, was that RE had a number of conflicting theories, which is absolutely true and which no-one here can refute. This is the point I made, this is the point you and Zotoaster chose to argue, and the fact is I was absolutely and undeniably correct.

Granted.

It doesn't matter what crazy theories they come up to describe the make-up of matter, it will never be physically testable.

Why is your beloved concept of science so religious in nature, I wonder....

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 02, 2008, 05:02:24 AM

It doesn't matter what crazy theories they come up to describe the make-up of matter, it will never be physically testable.

Why is your beloved concept of science so religious in nature, I wonder....

Why is your method of argument so polemic in nature, I wonder...

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 07:43:59 AM

And my point, simply, was that RE had a number of conflicting theories, which is absolutely true and which no-one here can refute. This is the point I made, this is the point you and Zotoaster chose to argue, and the fact is I was absolutely and undeniably correct.

Granted.

MadDog, you're a good poster. You're not childish, don't resort to insults, and you're not an asshole. Stick around.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 02, 2008, 07:44:36 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 07:43:59 AM

And my point, simply, was that RE had a number of conflicting theories, which is absolutely true and which no-one here can refute. This is the point I made, this is the point you and Zotoaster chose to argue, and the fact is I was absolutely and undeniably correct.

Granted.

MadDog, you're a good poster. You're not childish, don't resort to insults, and you're not an asshole. Stick around.

Thanks. Although my slate is not clean in the insult department. Sometimes I get carried away.

Quote

I thought I just did, mathematically. Unless you can come up with a FE model that isn't susceptible to a perpetually shown sun, and give me a good mathematical reason (you can't use "conspiracy" in math) that what I said was wrong, I accept my calculations as a fatal blow to FET.

No you did not. In FET it's unknown how high the atmosphere stretches, or whether space is a perfect vacuum. Many FE (and RE) models suppose that empty space is filled with an aether medium. This accounts for the refraction of the sun's light.

Username has a few good calculations for aethethic refraction.

Aether is a slower medium than lead? (by 4x?) That is downright ridiculous. Firstly, there is an experiment that you can use to disprove aether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

You could probably buy the equipment necessary to do that with not too much money these days... But if you aren't satisfied by things you can see, just like a flat earth, let's find out how ridiculous your claim is.

Proof aether is immaterial: Let's do a fun experiment real fast that only involves a pane of glass, a vacuum pump, and a laser. For aether to compensate for the refraction we saw, it would have to have a refractive index of 10.881, right? Now, a vacuum must have a refractive index of 1. If the refraction results in this experiment do not compensate, then the only other option is for the aether to be immaterial, or present also in a vacuum.

Proof aether can not now produce the results you expect: If aether is omnipresent (which I have just proved has to be mutually accepted with the notion of aether), then there is aether in the vacuum where the sun emitted it. If the refractive index does not change throughout an experiment, there is no refraction that takes place. Therefore, your theory is invalid, via experiments doable with even a low budget.

I can say with quite a bit of certainty that I just destroyed FET for anyone who is sensible in mathematics at all.

I derived what the refractive index for this magical aether or whatever would have to be to make the assumption that the sun is visible half of the day, with "visible" meaning it can only be seen until its position is about 1 degree (this isn't always true, but it's a good range, and I could refine the calculations but these pretty much sum up everything.) Well, the refractive index would have to be 18.48. That is huge (the last one I took was just finding stuff off of Tom's illustration, not really calculating what it would really require.) Now, I applied this refractive index to see the expected angle in the sky for the sun at 11 or 1 o'clock (the sun shifts 2pi/24 radians in the circle.) The results were stunning. I should expect, with this aether, to see the sun at an angle of .0475 radians, or 2.727 degrees. That is at 1 o'clock... And you could barely see it given the assumption that 1 degree makes it invisible. Good bye, FES.

EDIT: If anyone is skeptical, I could show the mathematics behind it, but I decided to keep it out because it's a little lengthy to type... It isn't that hard to find with the refractive law and simple trigonometry.

Don't worry, FET isn't going away that easily.  Proving FET wrong is one thing.  Getting an FE'er to accept your proof is something else entirely.

Don't worry, FET isn't going away that easily.  Proving FET wrong is one thing.  Getting an FE'er to accept your proof is something else entirely.

Alright then. I declare FET invalid until one person can find an error or alternate solution to the aether calculations I made, or can construct a FET that does not need an extremely refracted immaterial aether. Note this isn't a logical fallacy. What you believe is false until you reconstruct it. There.

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2008, 04:37:53 PM

Don't worry, FET isn't going away that easily.  Proving FET wrong is one thing.  Getting an FE'er to accept your proof is something else entirely.

Alright then. I declare FET invalid until one person can find an error or alternate solution to the aether calculations I made, or can construct a FET that does not need an extremely refracted immaterial aether. Note this isn't a logical fallacy. What you believe is false until you reconstruct it. There.

Whew, thank god we don't care what you declare!