100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What The Bleep Do We Know....... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 07/28/10 01:20 PM
|
|
Does anyone here know what we are talking about here? I don't know string theory, and I don't know the people mentioned as quoted. But I know that other conversationalists on this thread talk about the M theory as an object with no outstanding issues, something that everyone is assumed to know what it is. I would like to claim that those who take this assumption for granted, have no idea what the string theory or the M theory states. I will not make this claim, but I insist that the opposite claim can also not be made. The arguments in this thread about the theories consist of quoting people who are not on this website, and saying that one is more trustworthy for his or her opinion than the other. But people very carefully steer away from the theories, or what people criticise the theories for. I hear a lot of people quote other people who are not on the site with attributing them general moral- and emotion-laden statements, which the quoted people have said about the opinions of still other people who are also not participating in this thread, and the participants of this thread feel very strongly about these moral-value statements, which reveal nothing about M theory or the String theory. But nobody mentions anything actual. This is a bit tiresome for me, but then again, you are not me, so please, don't listen to me. (I said "please" because I am Canadian. Culture issue, not a racial issue.) I disagreed, however I gave specific problems with the theories, please read my last two large posts which state specific major problems, I even provided the lame excuses provided by professionals working on this topic. The three major problems with Strings are as follows. -The landscape problem. -The vacuum energy problem. -The higgs supper symmetric particles problem. (Needing 124+ new particles) The thing here is really about how a untested, unfalsifiable set of ideas are being used to prop up a even more untestable philosophy of spiritual dualism that is the heart of the JZ Knight cult. ____ Edit: Good article that explains these problems in the proper context: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2002/3/is-string-theory-even-wrong/2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else think that we should just use the Earth for its Agricultural benefits and beauty and take to the sky in which we should of done years ago, or least be close to it by now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else think that we should just use the Earth for its Agricultural benefits and beauty and take to the sky in which we should of done years ago, or least be close to it by now? Food for thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else think that we should just use the Earth for its Agricultural benefits and beauty and take to the sky in which we should of done years ago, or least be close to it by now? Food for thought. FFT. You bet. Is Agricultural Benefit the same as FWB? Because there is a lot of eating and licking going on, I hear. If that's the case, yeah, count me in. I want to hear a cabbage or an edible oil product scream in ecstasy and call my name out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else think that we should just use the Earth for its Agricultural benefits and beauty and take to the sky in which we should of done years ago, or least be close to it by now? Food for thought. that's kinda what this whole topic is .... food for thought . just off hand though taking the header and answering it directly ... an acronym comes to mind .... SFA |
|
|
|
|
