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.

___________________
[alk]

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

___________________
[alk]

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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

___________________