TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- String Theory
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

it's bulshit!!! there are no strings!!! waht would the strings be made of? all there is at that level IMO is pure energy. movement is time and time is existence.

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON it's bulshit!!! there are no strings!!! waht would the strings be made of? all there is at that level IMO is pure energy. movement is time and time is existence.

you have any complex equations to back up your theory?

dozens of the smartest string physicists on the planet do.

equations are shit. you need measuring tools to prove anything. if you didn't realise that then don't be arguing with me.

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON equations are shit. you need measuring tools to prove anything. if you didn't realise that then don't be arguing with me.

hah. arguing with you would have the same effect as arguing with a brick wall. go measure us 2 grams of depression with your measuring tools, boy.

OHH YAHH!! .. I watched it. The show was one hell of a trip. I missed/didnt catch some parts so I'll probably watch it online...

If anyone is interested they have it up on their website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

... and as soon as the website comes backup, I'll post the direct link

quote:

Originally posted by loconet OHH YAHH!! .. I watched it. The show was one hell of a trip. I missed/didnt catch some parts so I'll probably watch it online... If anyone is interested they have it up on their website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html ... and as soon as the website comes backup, I'll post the direct link

ah, it's finally up, nice


but wtf, i only saw an hour of it... and it consisted of several chapters from all 3 parts... wtf...

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers hah. arguing with you would have the same effect as arguing with a brick wall. go measure us 2 grams of depression with your measuring tools, boy.

these "glorious" equatiuons of yours mean nothing without something to back them up. why the hell else would they call it a teory and not a law.. they... AND me.. just might as well be philosophizing. how would you know witout proof? and eqation is not proof of matter. and equation is little different from english. it just helps us understand and to attempt a prediction. an adequate equation cannot be made if we do not know of all the variable.. and obviously since we still have to have "ideas" about what's out there we do not know of all the variable. as i said do not argue with me!

quote:

Originally posted by FunkySimon So explain to me wath this program is about! I'm really excited after reading this thread!

The theory of everything

Give your brain a treat, it'll thank you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Did anyone else feel insignificant after watching the show?

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON as i said do not argue with me!

you haven't made a single valid argument, just random mumbling with bad spelling errors. i wouldn't even want to start arguing because your ego obviously seems to be bigger than the sun itself. random flaming responces is all i can offer.


FunkySimon, IMO you should see this, i'm on the 2nd hour right now and it absolutely rocks, although it seems to be down ATM. i find it interesting how this theory might also combine science with philosophy. einstein's the man, btw.

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON these "glorious" equatiuons of yours mean nothing without something to back them up. why the hell else would they call it a teory and not a law.. they... AND me.. just might as well be philosophizing. how would you know witout proof? and eqation is not proof of matter. and equation is little different from english. it just helps us understand and to attempt a prediction. an adequate equation cannot be made if we do not know of all the variable.. and obviously since we still have to have "ideas" about what's out there we do not know of all the variable. as i said do not argue with me!

A law is defined by equations. Without the equations you have nothing. Equations are what describe the behaviour of the world. But really, you're as thick as a nuclear power plant reactor casing, so there indeed is no reason to argue with you.

um.. i just said that the equations explain the law... you know.. where i put math is pretty much just like english? only the measurments can allow you to "see" the law.. the world doesn't exist on paper you know? and what spelling errors? i forgot two s's? you're trying to say that my spelling ability has anything to do with reasoning of physics? and what aobut your ego m&m man.. you think because you see a t.v. show that the t.v. show is right? and that in turn makes you right? your ego is just as big... just not as lound.. you can even see the similarity between us... so why do you argue with me.. how would you prove anything without measuring tools. theories are not laws.. that's because we haven't proven them with measurements due to the fact that we don't have the tools to measure what's being theorized about.. what i am saying is that these scientist are silly philosophers that think they can understanding the universe even without knowing all the players... your equations may say they (themselves) are correct.. but only the universe can tell you what is and what isn't.. if you can honestly argue with that then you have no hope at all of grasping this... that ain't ego there.. that's truth... and yes.. it is different than when you compared my typing/spelling ability to my ability to reason.


and i do apologise for flamming.. it just pisses me off that these people think they know anything at all when they have NO measurements and the dojn't even know what all the players are... they don't even know waht dark matter and dark energy are... IMO=theory=idea=fantasy until proven

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON and what aobut your ego m&m man.. you think because you see a t.v. show that the t.v. show is right? and that in turn makes you right? your ego is just as big... just not as lound.. you can even see the similarity between us... so why do you argue with me..

ha, m&m man, good one, i might have a large ego, but i keep it in my pants whereas yours is trying to get out of every single hole. but, to all honesty, what you think is my large ego is my self-confidence, and no, i cannot see any similarity between us at all, thank god.


if conservatives like you ruled the world, we'd still be living in a geocentric universe on the flat earth and people would still be burned alive for their beliefs. if i shouldn't completely discard this whole theory they showed on tv that is being developed by the smartest physicists alive, then why should i believe what they teach me in school? don't even get me started on that. but just because we can't prove it we can't assume it doesn't exist. i'll be sceptical about it until they find really solid proof, but as of now i am more prone to believe in what all equations and proofs says exists than to completely discard it.


just because we can't measure something with measuring tools, doesn't mean it's bullshit, as you stated before:

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON it's bulshit!!! there are no strings!!! waht would the strings be made of? all there is at that level IMO is pure energy. movement is time and time is existence.

strings ARE energy, FYI.

i'm not gonna continue this any longer because this just becomes useless offtopic flaming based on a difference of opinions (although i still think mine > yours ), and i still stand strong on the fact that YOU DON'T NEED MEASURING TOOLS to prove things exist.

case closed.

how do you know the energy is in the form of a string?
(i did apologise for the flamming.. and there shall be now more from me... but a good debate can be nice)

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers ha, m&m man, good one, i might have a large ego, but i keep it in my pants whereas yours is trying to get out of every single hole. but, to all honesty, what you think is my large ego is my self-confidence, and no, i cannot see any similarity between us at all, thank god. if conservatives like you ruled the world, we'd still be living in a geocentric universe on the flat earth and people would still be burned alive for their beliefs. if i shouldn't completely discard this whole theory they showed on tv that is being developed by the smartest physicists alive, then why should i believe what they teach me in school? don't even get me started on that. but just because we can't prove it we can't assume it doesn't exist. i'll be sceptical about it until they find really solid proof, but as of now i am more prone to believe in what all equations and proofs says exists than to completely discard it. just because we can't measure something with measuring tools, doesn't mean it's bullshit, as you stated before: strings ARE energy, FYI. i'm not gonna continue this any longer because this just becomes useless offtopic flaming based on a difference of opinions (although i still think mine > yours ), and i still stand strong on the fact that YOU DON'T NEED MEASURING TOOLS to prove things exist. case closed.

Well said, And I agree.

explain to me how you can prove something without measuring it? just ask any scientist.. you are being very unscientific. but the show did state that they don't really know what the hell is at that level... (i watched the first part) and that this MAY be a bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON explain to me how you can prove something without measuring it? just ask any scientist.. you are being very unscientific. but the show did state that they don't really know what the hell is at that level... (i watched the first part) and that this MAY be a bad idea.

You are right, it does seem very unscientifc. It's call theoretical physics.

These people might have some interesting points regarding this discussion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/viewpoints.html

Pffh, if you really want to be disproved, here it goes...

quote:

Originally posted by MERTON it's bulshit!!! there are no strings!!! waht would the strings be made of? all there is at that level IMO is pure energy.

First of all, as whiskers mentioned already, strings are not physical strings, but energy strings.

quote:

movement is time

Movement is a ration of the translation through three dimentions of space relative to the translation in dimension of time. Therefore movemenit is dependant on time, but it is not time itself.

quote:

and time is existence.

So an object frozen in time doesn't exist? Hardly.

quote:

equations are shit. you need measuring tools to prove anything. if you didn't realise that then don't be arguing with me.

The only thing measuring tools can do is prove theories are wrong or incomplete if measurements don't fit with the theoretical model. They can't even prove they're right, only that they're not very far from approximating the truth. Besides, a theory with set equations that don't have any loopholes in them is likely a correct one. Even if it is not proven, it still holds more credibility than random suspicions.

quote:

how do you know the energy is in the form of a string?

Well, we don't know that definitely. It is currently just a theory, and an uncomplete one, that is. However, some equations (confirmed by measurements) indicate that it might be so.

Man this is hella cool and all but I think some of the scientists should just chill and some a dub.

My question is, so what if this exists? What will is do for us? It doesn't sound like much ebcause how do you manipulate a 'string'?

Not trying to start a fight just curious

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.