Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

M-Theory and You

Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:06:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

I don't see how that necessarily follows. We are made of atoms and they exist within 3D space.

My understanding is that the extra dimensions proposed by the theory are curled up on themselves at the sub-atomic scale which is why they are undetectable to us. I don't profess to know what that means though. :-)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:56:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

My understanding is that the extra dimensions proposed by the theory are curled up on themselves at the sub-atomic scale which is why they are undetectable to us. I don't profess to know what that means though. :-)

While superstring theory declines to make significant, testable predictions, I'm not sure anyone knows what it means. :)
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 1:49:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.

The growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies? Where?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 2:10:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Sure, no one knows if M-Theory is real or not, but the question is framed supposing M-Theory is correct. Given that, if what we are made of also exists in seven other dimensions the implications are profound at least. The next question then becomes is what we can see just the tip of the iceberg or is what we can see the part of the iceberg that is under water?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 2:27:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Our ability to visualize even three dimensional things is limited. These are pictures of gravity wells.

https://www.google.com...

A gravity well exists in all directions at once, it's not just a deformation in a plane. How could you visualize that?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 1:49:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.

The growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies? Where?

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:03:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:02:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 1:49:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.

The growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies? Where?

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

Well by that standard you could say there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot. Do you believe in Bigfoot?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 2:47:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

With all the make-believe required to be a creationist I'd have thought M-Theory would be a piece of cake!
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:12:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:03:53 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:02:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 1:49:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.

The growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies? Where?

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

Well by that standard you could say there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot. Do you believe in Bigfoot?

What standard? Creationist sources? Don't be childish. Address the science and don't concern yourself with the philosophical/religious beliefs of the scientist.

I think a large ape could possibly exist, however it is unlikely to have not been conclusively discovered yet. Until such evidence is made available, I remain a skeptic. The evidence for bigfoot is a farcry away from coming close to the evidence for creation, so this is a bad comparison. But of course you mean to be insulting, right?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:21:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 2:47:07 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

With all the make-believe required to be a creationist I'd have thought M-Theory would be a piece of cake!

Make-believe? In what way? Because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence for creation? Or because you are simply ignorant of the evidence?

The creation model requires only one overarching axiom, namely that the Bible is truly God's perfect, inspired word. And since the Holy Spirit gives us evidence by communing with us through our spirit, this is a very easy axiom to accept. And the Bible IS testable and falsifiable.

Name me a single naturalistic model of history which does not involves a whole spectrum of wild assumptions, speculations, and "just-so-stories."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:17:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.

It has strong bearing on whether doctrinaire theological propaganda is on-topic in a forum called Science.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:22:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:17:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.

It has strong bearing on whether doctrinaire theological propaganda is on-topic in a forum called Science.

How can something arbitrary have strong bearing? Lol. Red herrings don't erase evidance. The Bible is supported by the observable data.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:46:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:22:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:17:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.

It has strong bearing on whether doctrinaire theological propaganda is on-topic in a forum called Science.

How can something arbitrary have strong bearing? Lol. Red herrings don't erase evidance. The Bible is supported by the observable data.

By your trollish argument, CT, I understand you to have tacitly conceded that Creationism is pseudoscience. Thank you for that surprising and amusing concession. :)

Regardless, this thread is about superstring theory. So if you wish to make a case that the epistemological standards of science are arbitrary and should not be used in certain situations, please do so in a separate Science thread and I'd happy to discuss it with you there.

Alternatively, If you'd like to explain why you believe in Genesis despite a world full of science-literate Christians who don't, please do so in Religion, and you won't lack for scientifically-informed response there.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:54:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:46:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:22:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:17:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.

especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)

Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.

It has strong bearing on whether doctrinaire theological propaganda is on-topic in a forum called Science.

How can something arbitrary have strong bearing? Lol. Red herrings don't erase evidance. The Bible is supported by the observable data.

By your trollish argument, CT, I understand you to have tacitly conceded that Creationism is pseudoscience. Thank you for that surprising and amusing concession. :)

Regardless, this thread is about superstring theory. So if you wish to make a case that the epistemological standards of science are arbitrary and should not be used in certain situations, please do so in a separate Science thread and I'd happy to discuss it with you there.

Alternatively, If you'd like to explain why you believe in Genesis despite a world full of science-literate Christians who don't, please do so in Religion, and you won't lack for scientifically-informed response there.

How have I conceded? And no, I am not interested in a debate about your arbitrary definition of science. Thsnks for the ad hominem by the way. Why continue engaging a science illiterate like myself? No need to reply.

Shalom.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:26:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:54:34 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:46:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:22:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:17:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 6:15:02 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 8:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration,
Indeed.
especially given the increasingly sophisticated pseudoscientific rhetoric in support of creationist cosmologies.
Fixed. :)
Your arbitrary definition of "scientific" has no bearing on the evidence in support of the biblical creation model.
I understand you to have tacitly conceded that Creationism is pseudoscience. Thank you for that surprising and amusing concession. :)
If you wish to make a case that the epistemological standards of science are arbitrary and should not be used in certain situations, please do so in a separate Science thread and I'd happy to discuss it with you there.
How have I conceded?

Usually doctrinaire creationists claim their views are scientific, but can't say accurately what science means. I'm aware that you don't know what science means, else you'd have used a better line of argument. Instead, you argued that 'my' definition of science is arbitrary while conceding that your beliefs are pseudoscience under that definition, perhaps in the vain hope that I too, don't know what science is. :)

Unfortunately for you, the definition isn't mine and isn't arbitrary. That's why you'd benefit from taking this to another thread, CT.

If you do so, and ask sincere questions, I undertake to give you researched, referenced and respectful answers. I believe I'm not the only member who'd do so.

No need to reply.
Asking a question to which you won't consider answers would be an example of not asking a sincere question.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 10:27:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 6:12:15 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:03:53 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:02:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 1:49:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/27/2016 7:36:46 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/26/2016 5:40:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
If there are eleven dimensions as M-Theory asserts would that mean that the majority of what we are made from exists in the seven other dimensions?

No, not necessarily. A dimension is simply an angle or frame of refrence in which to describe a singular reality. In a 4D universe likened to a baloon where our 3D world exists on the surface of the baloon, describing the expansion of the universe within a 3D context would not exactly be innacurate, it would simply be an incomplete picture of the universe. Likewise, a 3D or 4D explanation of the expantion of the universe would be an incomplete picture of the universe if M-theory truly described our reality. Unfortunately M-theory requires far too many axioms and untestable claims for me to be able to give it any serious consideration, especially given the growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies.

The growing body of evidence in support of creationist cosmologies? Where?

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

Well by that standard you could say there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot. Do you believe in Bigfoot?

What standard? Creationist sources? Don't be childish. Address the science and don't concern yourself with the philosophical/religious beliefs of the scientist.

I think a large ape could possibly exist, however it is unlikely to have not been conclusively discovered yet. Until such evidence is made available, I remain a skeptic. The evidence for bigfoot is a farcry away from coming close to the evidence for creation, so this is a bad comparison. But of course you mean to be insulting, right?

The primary difference between you and I is that you want there to be a god and it's impossible for you to be objective as a result. I have no interest in god, the things that interest me are a bit more down to earth and accessible.

For you, your life has no meaning or purpose without god because that is what you have been taught. I can't say that I think it's good to teach people that, in fact it sounds a little cruel, but then again so does your god.