Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #721419 > unrolled thread

Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 03:16 -0800
    Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2018-12-29 13:24 +0100
      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 05:39 -0800
        Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2018-12-29 15:11 +0100
          Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 08:19 -0800
            Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2018-12-29 17:29 +0100
      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-29 15:48 -0600
    Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 08:27 -0800
      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 00:08 -0800
        Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 11:46 +0000
          Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 05:49 -0800
            Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 13:11 +0000
              Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 03:21 -0800
                Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 16:36 +0000
                  Shut up and calculate. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-01-01 15:01 -0800
                  Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 18:50 -0800
                    Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 20:50 -0800
                      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2019-01-02 11:55 +0100
                    Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 13:46 +0000
                      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 06:17 -0800
                      Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world alal65536@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 06:44 -0800
                        Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:10 +0000
                          Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 07:19 -0800
                            Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:57 +0000
                              Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 08:42 -0800
      Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 08:54 -0800
        Re: Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 05:11 -0800
    Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:42 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#721419 — Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world

Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.

But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“God is an atheist”

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#721420

On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> 
> But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 
> “God is an atheist”
> 

You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721421

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 5:54:45 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
> On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> > 
> > But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor
> > 
> > “God is an atheist”
> > 
> 
> You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.

What kind of scientist are you, that you take this quote as proof?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“I will fear no evil”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721422

On 29-12-2018 14:39, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 5:54:45 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
>> On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>>
>>> But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>> “God is an atheist”
>>>
>>
>> You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.
> 
> What kind of scientist are you, that you take this quote as proof?
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 
> “I will fear no evil”
> 

How did you come to the conclusion that i am a scientist?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721426

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
> On 29-12-2018 14:39, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 5:54:45 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
> >> On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> >>>
> >>> But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.
> >>>
> >>> Abhinav Lal
> >>> Writer & Investor
> >>>
> >>> “God is an atheist”
> >>>
> >>
> >> You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.
> > 
> > What kind of scientist are you, that you take this quote as proof?
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor
> > 
> > “I will fear no evil”
> > 
> 
> How did you come to the conclusion that i am a scientist?

So, what are you?  You know what I am.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“The truth shall set you free”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721430

On 29-12-2018 17:19, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
>> On 29-12-2018 14:39, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 5:54:45 PM UTC+5:30, Luuk wrote:
>>>> On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new theories can improve on old theories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>
>>>>> “God is an atheist”
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.
>>>
>>> What kind of scientist are you, that you take this quote as proof?
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>> “I will fear no evil”
>>>
>>
>> How did you come to the conclusion that i am a scientist?
> 
> So, what are you?  You know what I am.
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 
> “The truth shall set you free”
> 

i'm just an 'random innocent reader', who is leaving this discussion 
pretty soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721480

On 12/29/2018 6:24 AM, Luuk wrote:
> On 29-12-2018 12:16, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified,
>> and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are
>> a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>
>> But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable.  And new
>> theories can improve on old theories.
>>
>> Abhinav Lal
>> Writer & Investor
>>
>> “God is an atheist”
>>
> 
> You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.

true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721428

Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 

Not all scientific beliefs have been verified. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721547

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
> 
> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.

String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it hasn’t been empirically verified?  Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?


Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“Science, ain’t a perfect science”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721550

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
>> 
>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> 
> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
> hasn’t been empirically verified?  

No. It has to be testable. 

Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 

> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?

String theory does. 

> 
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721553

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
> >> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
> >> 
> >> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> > 
> > String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
> > hasn’t been empirically verified?  
> 
> No. It has to be testable. 
> 
> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
> 
> > Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
> 
> String theory does. 

What testable predictions has string theory made?

How do you test science about the fate of the universe?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
— Albert Einstein 


> 
> > 
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721722

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>>>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
>>>> 
>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>>> 
>>> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?  
>> 
>> No. It has to be testable. 
>> 
>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
>> 
>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>> 
>> String theory does. 
> 
> What testable predictions has string theory made?

Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
between branes, and several others. Try googling. 

> 
> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?

That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out. 

> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> — Albert Einstein 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>> Writer & Investor 
>>> 
>>> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721889

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >>>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
> >>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> >>> 
> >>> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
> >>> hasn’t been empirically verified?  
> >> 
> >> No. It has to be testable. 
> >> 
> >> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
> >> 
> >>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
> >> 
> >> String theory does. 
> > 
> > What testable predictions has string theory made?
> 
> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
> between branes, and several others. Try googling. 

I don’t need to.  To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not testable within our current abilities.

> 
> > 
> > How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
> 
> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out. 

So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“The great unknown”
> 
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> > — Albert Einstein 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Abhinav Lal 
> >>> Writer & Investor 
> >>> 
> >>> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721900

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>>>>>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
>>>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>>>>> 
>>>>> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
>>>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?  
>>>> 
>>>> No. It has to be testable. 
>>>> 
>>>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
>>>> 
>>>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>>>> 
>>>> String theory does. 
>>> 
>>> What testable predictions has string theory made?
>> 
>> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
>> between branes, and several others. Try googling. 
> 
> I don’t need to.  To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not
> testable within our current abilities.

That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling. 

Don’t go by what you THINK you know. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
>> 
>> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
>> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out. 
> 
> So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?

Some, yes. Even without string theory. That of course will never be put to
direct test. 

> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> “The great unknown”
>> 
>>> 
>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>> Writer & Investor 
>>> 
>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>> — Albert Einstein 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>>> 
>>>>> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721961 — Shut up and calculate.

The Copenhagen Interpretation still dominates: Shut up and calculate;
-- stop making ABSURD assumptions about Schrodinger's cat.

Otherwise, you'll be led down the science FICTION path,
like multi-worlds and superstring theory.

Truth can be crippling, and falsehoods can be liberating,
-- science FICTION pays better than the REAL deal;
hence Christianity, Marxism, and other apocalypse cults.

The hot dense sun evaporates into the cold vacuum;
the sun is losing 4.3 million tons/second.

Eventually, all eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
but none of the "eXergy" ( a type of energy that can do physical work,
force * distance ).

Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us 
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
   is the most likley outcome.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722016

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 10:06:33 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >>>>>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
> >>>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
> >>>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?  
> >>>> 
> >>>> No. It has to be testable. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
> >>>> 
> >>>> String theory does. 
> >>> 
> >>> What testable predictions has string theory made?
> >> 
> >> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
> >> between branes, and several others. Try googling. 
> > 
> > I don’t need to.  To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not
> > testable within our current abilities.
> 
> That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling. 
> 
> Don’t go by what you THINK you know. 

I know that string theory has not been verified.

I have already read that it is not verifiable.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“Truth is under attack”

> 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
> >> 
> >> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
> >> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out. 
> > 
> > So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?
> 
> Some, yes. Even without string theory. That of course will never be put to
> direct test. 
> 
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > “The great unknown”
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Abhinav Lal 
> >>> Writer & Investor 
> >>> 
> >>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> >>> — Albert Einstein 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Abhinav Lal 
> >>>>> Writer & Investor 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722023

The truth is meant to be known. Hell was always the problem.
Spinoza canceled it out by believing into an impersonal God.

Einstein was the same. His impersonal God was still God.
At his end he said the atheists were his problem all along
and didn't know it.

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722040

On 2-1-2019 05:50, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> God creates gravity.

creates? or created

If beleive is that this is an ongoing process, than i agree with creates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722042

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 10:06:33 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>>>>>>>> apply throughout the earth and more.  While religious beliefs are a
>>>>>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> String theory has not been empirically verified.  Is it science, when it
>>>>>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No. It has to be testable. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> String theory does. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What testable predictions has string theory made?
>>>> 
>>>> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
>>>> between branes, and several others. Try googling. 
>>> 
>>> I don’t need to.  To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not
>>> testable within our current abilities.
>> 
>> That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling. 
>> 
>> Don’t go by what you THINK you know. 
> 
> I know that string theory has not been verified.

That’s true but I already gave you several examples of theories that went
unverified for decades. 

> 
> I have already read that it is not verifiable.

And that’s wrong. 


> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> “Truth is under attack”
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
>>>> 
>>>> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
>>>> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out. 
>>> 
>>> So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?
>> 
>> Some, yes. Even without string theory. That of course will never be put to
>> direct test. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>> Writer & Investor 
>>> 
>>> “The great unknown”
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>>> 
>>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>>> — Albert Einstein 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>>>>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722044

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 5:46:28 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >> That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling. 
> >> 
> >> Don’t go by what you THINK you know. 
> > 
> > I know that string theory has not been verified.
> 
> That’s true but I already gave you several examples of theories that went
> unverified for decades. 
> 
> > 
> > I have already read that it is not verifiable.
> 
> And that’s wrong. 

String theory is just a serious of conjectures.  It is not falsifiable.

You can't Google truth, you moron.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web