Discussion:
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory
(too old to reply)
Gordon
2016-01-30 16:07:01 UTC
Permalink
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
Jeanne Douglas
2016-01-30 16:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
It
has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
Post by 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?

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
2016-01-30 16:43:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-30 17:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
It's up to its proponents to show that it is valid. Not for "we" to do
that.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-01-30 19:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-01-30 19:30:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
never be. Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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...
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-30 19:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
and they all say or imply that the "proof" is not here yet and may
never be. Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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...
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
ITS PROPONENTS ARE WORKING ON IT, imbecile.

It's nobody else's job to do that they come up with something
testable.

Idiot.
Post by Gordon
Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 08:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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...
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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.
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 15:56:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
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.
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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...
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 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 17:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
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.
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
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%.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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...
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 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
Anyone who accepts anything, including any god, without evidence of any
kind is a delusional moron.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 17:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:12:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
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.
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
Grow up and stop being such a stupid liar.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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
They have to provide objective JUSTIFICATION - which hasn't been done.

Why are you still pretending you don't understand this?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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.
Post by Gordon
We agree on this point if by "evidence" you mean objective proof.
You have neither.
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
Post by Gordon
but I'm still not fully edumacated on this.
Or anything else, apparently.
Post by Gordon
Gordon
unknown
2016-02-01 19:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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.

Satan knows objectively that god exists, yet he exercised a
totally sovereign choice to reject god.

Adam & Eve talked with god daily, yet they exercised a
totally sovereign choice to disobey god.

Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
Gordon
2016-02-01 19:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
Post by unknown
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
Post by unknown
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
Post by unknown
Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-02 00:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by unknown
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:54:43 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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"?
Post by Gordon
Post by unknown
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by unknown
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?
Post by Gordon
Post by unknown
Even the bible shows you are wrong on this one.
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Turtle Island
2016-01-30 20:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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:

"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]
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 08:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 16:04:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 16:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
Absolutely correct in every way. This applies to accepting and knowing
God, too.
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?
Post by Gordon
We must study
Why, moron?
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
MUST adjust our mind-set back to the mind-set of those ancient people
LIAR.
Post by Gordon
who wrote the information that is available to us.
WHAT FUCKING "INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US", liar?
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
modern, scientifically educated people can easily understand it if we
There's nothing to understand, imbecile.
Post by Gordon
don't block our minds against it. Gordon
You are a disgusting, dishonest, personally nasty liar.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 17:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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.
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 18:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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.
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 18:50:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 19:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Why would you think it would?
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 19:58:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:17:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Why would you think it would?
Those who refuse to respond to anything from God claim that He doesn't
exist. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 20:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:17:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Why would you think it would?
Those who refuse to respond to anything from God claim that He doesn't
exist. Gordon
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-02 00:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:17:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:17:10 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
correspondence with you this would confirm that you do not exist?
Gordon
Why would you think it would?
Those who refuse to respond to anything from God claim that He doesn't
exist. Gordon
Respond to what? And who claims that god doesn't exist?
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Ted&Alice
2016-02-01 18:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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
What are your criteria for believing that somebody exists?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 18:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:25:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:57:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
One of the chief purposes of being human and having human intelligence
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.
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
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?
b***@m.nu
2016-01-30 19:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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
2016-01-30 19:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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
And it rtemains just a speculation until its proponents comeup with
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
2016-01-30 17:04:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
It
has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
Post by 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.
He has no idea what he is talking about.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Those interested in it are working on it.

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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Why do you think it will never be objectively proven?
It might be - but I have no idea how.

It will start by the discovery of some phenomenon where the math
works, but the current math doesn't.

And this will be investigated.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
As long as it hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to stop studying
it. Why do you want to?
He doesn't even know what these extra dimensions are - they're not the
alternate dimensions of science fiction.
b***@m.nu
2016-01-30 19:45:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:04:38 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:27:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
It
has not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
Post by 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.
He has no idea what he is talking about.
not in the slightest. he wants approval by the atheists so he can feel
intelligent
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
Don't Touch Me There
2016-01-30 17:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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
2016-01-30 18:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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?
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-30 19:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Nothing in science is ever proved. The word has no meaning in science. Theory is as good as it gets.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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?
Ted&Alice
2016-01-30 22:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-31 05:47:48 UTC
Permalink
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Ted&Alice
2016-01-31 08:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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".

I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy Rucker's
math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-31 13:16:27 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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".
I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy Rucker's
math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-31 14:07:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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".
Post by Ted&Alice
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.

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,
Ted&Alice
2016-02-03 23:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present
just a >> > > > > > > theory.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make
it >> > > > > > a theory.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something
"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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 >> > > > > 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. >> > > >
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
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.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted&Alice
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. :)
Post by Christopher A. Lee
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.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
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
2016-02-04 00:10:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:48:38 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present
just a >> > > > > > > theory.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make
it >> > > > > > a theory.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something
"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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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 >> > > > > 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. >> > > >
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
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.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted&Alice
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. :)
Post by Christopher A. Lee
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.
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Christopher A. Lee
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]

Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-30 19:34:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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?
Yes. This is Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard,
Rudy Canoza
2016-01-30 20:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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?
Yes.
"Proven" isn't a word. The correct past participle is "proved."
Ted&Alice
2016-01-30 22:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a
theory. >> >
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make it a theory.
Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something "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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Is this Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard who evidently thinks
that "proven" isn't a valid word?
Yes. This is Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard,
The headers indicate that it's Rudy's sockpuppet.
Rudy Canoza
2016-01-30 20:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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?
It isn't a word. The past participle of "prove" is "proved" - only.
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-30 19:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Yep.
Post by Don't Touch Me There
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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
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
2016-01-30 18:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
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
Gordon
2016-01-30 19:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
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
2016-01-30 19:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God???
Idiot.
Post by Gordon
Gordon
Gordon
2016-01-30 19:36:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-30 19:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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.
Gordon
2016-01-30 23:47:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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? Please respond in a civil manner. All
I am seeking is prudent answers to this set of questions. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-31 00:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Couldn't answer this, imbecile?
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
idiot this makes you?
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
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.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 01:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by 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.

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
Gordon
2016-02-01 16:10:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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. 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
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 16:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Couldn't answer this, so you went off on another red herring?
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-01 17:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Because it's a theoretically possible solution to some problems.

If scientists only studied things that were already proven, science
would never move forward.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Gordon
2016-02-01 18:10:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
idiot this makes you?
Post by Gordon
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
interesting conjecture that may prove true....sometime. Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Because it's a theoretically possible solution to some problems.
If scientists only studied things that were already proven, science
would never move forward.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 18:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated like the
idiot this makes you?
Post by Gordon
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
interesting conjecture that may prove true....sometime. Gordon
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.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-01 18:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:41:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:50:15 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
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?
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by 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?
Because it's a theoretically possible solution to some problems.
If scientists only studied things that were already proven, science
would never move forward.
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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?
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.
Ted&Alice
2016-01-30 20:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or
all of these strings together in a way that functions like the
synapses in our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist, Gordon. They
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.
Rudy Canoza
2016-01-30 20:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or
all of these strings together in a way that functions like the
synapses in our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist, Gordon. They
seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental axiom of logic that,
"if x cannot be proven false, then x is necessarily true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck. That's
a stupid logical fallacy.
Ted&Alice
2016-01-30 22:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some
or all of these strings together in a way that functions like
the synapses in our brain, this may be the mind of God???
Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist, Gordon.
They seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental axiom of
logic that, "if x cannot be proven false, then x is necessarily
true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck.
That's a stupid logical fallacy.
Do you claim that "axiom" isn't a word, or that I misused it?
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-31 05:51:38 UTC
Permalink
You misused it. At a minimum.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
"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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some
or all of these strings together in a way that functions like
the synapses in our brain, this may be the mind of God???
Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist, Gordon.
They seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental axiom of
logic that, "if x cannot be proven false, then x is necessarily
true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck.
That's a stupid logical fallacy.
Do you claim that "axiom" isn't a word, or that I misused it?
Ted&Alice
2016-01-31 08:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:12:24 -0600, Gordon
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
between each black card. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting
because it confirms what we've always known about His
Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from one of our
"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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links
some or all of these strings together in a way that
functions like the synapses in our brain, this may be the
mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that
refutes what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist,
Gordon. They seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental
axiom of logic that, "if x cannot be proven false, then x is
necessarily true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck.
That's a stupid logical fallacy.
Do you claim that "axiom" isn't a word, or that I misused it?
You misused it. At a minimum.
Neither, Kurt. It's a valid word and I used it correctly.
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-31 13:17:32 UTC
Permalink
It's not an axiom, he's right.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:12:24 -0600, Gordon
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
between each black card. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting
because it confirms what we've always known about His
Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from one of our
"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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links
some or all of these strings together in a way that
functions like the synapses in our brain, this may be the
mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that
refutes what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist,
Gordon. They seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental
axiom of logic that, "if x cannot be proven false, then x is
necessarily true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck.
That's a stupid logical fallacy.
Do you claim that "axiom" isn't a word, or that I misused it?
You misused it. At a minimum.
Neither, Kurt. It's a valid word and I used it correctly.
Ted&Alice
2016-01-31 13:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Kurt Kurt
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:12:24 -0600, Gordon
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
between each black card. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting
because it confirms what we've always known about
His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from one of our
"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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements
links some or all of these strings together in a way
that functions like the synapses in our brain, this
may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that
refutes what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist,
Gordon. They seem to be incapable of grasping the
fundamental axiom of logic that, "if x cannot be proven
false, then x is necessarily true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled
fuck. That's a stupid logical fallacy.
Do you claim that "axiom" isn't a word, or that I misused it?
You misused it. At a minimum.
Neither, Kurt. It's a valid word and I used it correctly.
It's not an axiom, he's right.
But that's not what I meant. Rudy insinuated that I either misused the
word "axiom" or that it isn't a word at all. He's done that before with
the word "proven".
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-31 05:49:19 UTC
Permalink
heh heh...
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:13:42 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>>>
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
"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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or
all of these strings together in a way that functions like the
synapses in our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Idiot. (Christopher's signature)
Christopher, can you provide any rational information that refutes
what I've said? Gordon
You're wasting your time trying to reason with an atheist, Gordon. They
seem to be incapable of grasping the fundamental axiom of logic that,
"if x cannot be proven false, then x is necessarily true".
That's not an "axiom" [sic] of logic, you dumb drug-addled fuck. That's
a stupid logical fallacy.
unknown
2016-01-30 19:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Naw. Let's just say in unison, "Goddidit", and call it good.
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Corn starch holds all the noodly goodness together.
God is busy poofing up new multi-verses in the 12th
Dimension.
b***@m.nu
2016-01-30 19:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
This may be the rantings of an idiot
Christopher A. Lee
2016-01-30 19:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
This may be the rantings of an idiot
No "may be" about it, it _is_.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-01-30 19:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote from
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
What are you basing that silly notion on?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Ted&Alice
2016-01-30 22:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
It >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and
may >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Are you Pastafarian too?
Gordon
2016-01-30 23:40:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:12:01 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present just a theory.
It >> has not and maybe never will be objectively proven. Yet, the
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
mathematics seems congruent with that which we do understand and
may >> eventually provide means for proving SS-M.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it confirms
what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness. Here's a quote
“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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or all
of these strings together in a way that functions like the synapses in
our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Are you Pastafarian too?
Sounds like it would be fun if I liked pasta. I might get by if I wore
a colander on my head. Gordon
Ted&Alice
2016-01-31 00:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:12:01 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:02:24 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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. >>
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
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
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Thank you, Gordon. I find String Theory exciting because it
confirms >> > what we've always known about His Noodly Goodness.
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
“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. >> >
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
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
And, if something similar to quantum entanglements links some or
all >> of these strings together in a way that functions like the
synapses in >> our brain, this may be the mind of God??? Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Are you Pastafarian too?
Sounds like it would be fun if I liked pasta. I might get by if I wore
a colander on my head. Gordon
You're a cool guy, Gordon. :)
Kurt Kurt
2016-01-30 19:30:18 UTC
Permalink
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.
Olrik
2016-01-31 04:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
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.

<snip abuse of physics>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Malcolm McMahon
2016-02-02 10:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
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.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-02-02 11:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Gordon
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?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Malcolm McMahon
2016-02-02 13:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Gordon
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.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-02-02 14:22:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:16:09 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Gordon
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.
Loading...