Skip to comments.String theory “philosophy” challenged
Posted on 06/14/2009 9:41:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
String theory philosophy challenged
The big bang is fundamental to cosmic evolution or the idea that somehow the universe made itself. The article majored on the varying ideas that emanate from big bang philosophy, such as dark energy and dark matter etc. that are used to solve some of the science problems of the big bang. It then went on to say that string theory is just another one of these ideas with no basis in experimental science...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“String theory philosophy challenged”
That’s a relief. Now, I can stop trying to understand it.
I am not a proponent of string theory but my cat is. We can play around with this topic for hours if I let him.
Thanks for the ping!
Funny; I thought it correctly defined Biblical creation. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
Duh, of course not. It’s gluon based plasma, it’s not slippery, it’s sticky. People sticks and falls on them like on flypaper. Adequate knowledge of this teory could indeed save lifes.
Sisters’ stuck to gluons are often bitten by Moose...
The basic premise of the article seems to be that the Theory of Evolution and String Theory and Big Bang cosmology are based on the assumption that God does not exist, or that God had no hand in Creation.
Why would that be the case?
Personally, I am not a man of religious faith.
However, I have no problem accepting the idea that God might exist, and I have no problem accepting the idea that Evolution or String Theory might be the product of Intelligent Design.
Time will tell.
Very, very few biologists or physicists try to use Evolution or String Theory to “prove” that God does not exist.
Although it may be true that many scientists are not religious, my impression is that the most scientists are motivated by a simple passion...they want to understand the the incredibly complex and confusing facts of the natural world.
I’m all shocked the evo-cultist/science-purists weren’t challenging string theory. Just shocked!
String theory is quite objective. What atheists use to challenge the existence of God are oxidation-reduction reactions and the gas “laws”.
You’re shocked that biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc aren’t challenging string theory? Why would they? Those fields of science could hardly be more different. That’d be like like nuclear physicists tackling meteorology.
String theory philosophy challengedDuh .. yeah, by Physicists, and has been for a few years now. Because, it didn't *work* as there were FIVE of THEM. And that's Four too many in physics. /s
The new thing is the Membrane Theory. Or 'M Theory', or just 'brane'. That *works* as they took the String Theory and 'added' another dimension. String theory has Ten Dimensions of spacetime, the Membrane Theory has Eleven Dimensions of spacetime.
It answers the Big Bang and *proves* time existed before the Big Bang and solves that singularity 'thingy' (technical term). It also *proves* that there are Alternate Universes - unlimited Alternate Universes.
And this does not mean there is No God. As 'someone' had to make the Membranes and Alternate Universes in the first place.
As to the Red Shift of Stars & Earth Centric stuff of Hubble. That's another matter (pun intended)
Evolutionary ideas like string theory start from a worldview framework that there is no God.
—That is one of the funniest things I have ever read!
The big bang, and string theory which is being used to support it, are ideological attempts to explain away the appearance of design in the universe (no first cause etc.) and therefore explain the universe without God.
—Ive never seen anyone try to use string theory to support the Big Bang. Sure, string theorists attempt to EXPLAIN the Big Bang using their theory just like they try to use the theory to explain particles, matter, energy, gravity, etc but scientists often like to try to apply their theory to stuff theyre funny that way. Applying a theory in this way is also how one comes up with tests for a theory (a common charge against string theory is how hard it is to test, and even that its untestable and so they are keen to find ways to test the theory. Perhaps a collision of branes can cause a Big Bang; if so, what implications would that have on the WMAP pics? Might the theory be tested this way?)
How is it anti-God or anti-design to attempt to tie together quantum physics and general relativity into a single consistent mathematical theory/model? Thats all string theory is. Thats about as anti-God/anti-design as Newton explaining the moons orbit and falling apples into a single theory.
But equally the evolutionist and indeed the string theory advocate would also say that it is unscientific to investigate the universe with the assumption that God is Creator.
—Considering that so many do, thats an odd comment. He should really do about 30 seconds of research before writing an article.
i have always believed that the “big bang” was the noise made by God when he clapped his hands and created the univers. i cannot understand why some people must insist it was either one way or the other but not both.
I love Sheldon! But I would never attempt to argue with him. A friend tried to explain string theory to me once. I just don’t get it.
I sat and listened to a discussion of string theory for an hour and a half or thereabouts once and the BS meter was absolutely pegged the entire time.
Yeah, you must have been thinking about Slipons.
==Funny; I thought it correctly defined Biblical creation.
It most certainly does not. Indeed, Stephen Hawking et al have admitted that they *deliberately* built their atheist assumptions into the modern Big Bang theory so as to eliminate the idea that our galaxy occupies a special place in the Universe. They also admitted that they built in their atheist assumptions, even though the Universe appears isotropic, which, they confess, would “ordinarily” imply that we occupy a very special place in the Universe, such as being at or near its center. But instead, the modern Big Bangers decided to insert what Hawkings and Ellis call an “admixture of ideology” into their cosmological equations so as to make our galaxy as non-special as possible, even though their observations suggested just the opposite. Most people are not aware of the the slight of hand they pulled, and the sooner the word gets out the better!
All the best—GGG
LOL. More wit from the back of the classroom. ;-)
==How is it anti-God or anti-design to attempt to tie together quantum physics and general relativity into a single consistent mathematical theory/model? Thats all string theory is. Thats about as anti-God/anti-design as Newton explaining the moons orbit and falling apples into a single theory.
According Leonard Susskind, widely considered by string theorists to be the father of string theory, without string theory “...we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.”
Just like the Darwinists insist that Biology is the study of complicated things that give the illusion of having been designed for a purpose, or the modern big bangers claim that our universe gives off the illusion of having been designed for a purpose, or the string theorists who attempt to come up with a mathematical theory of everything to escape design and purpose, it’s all just an attempt by the enemies of God to banish Him from His own creation. This has been admitted by Darwinists such as Dawkins, Hawking et al with respect to the big bang, and Susskind has let the cat out of the bag with respect to string theory. And yet, somehow these practitioners of materialist religion get to call their nature worship “science.”
Speaking of God haters!
The motivation behind science doesn't change the nature of science. Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
As I linked to before, string theory is showing promise with super fluids. To say that string theory isn't science because you don't like the philosophy or motivation behind its development is childish, petty, and doesn't help your cause.
==The motivation behind science doesn’t change the nature of science.
Oh, ok, so does that mean that you are in full support of the work of Creation and Intelligent Design scientists?
Oh, ok, so does that mean that you are in full support of the work of Creation and Intelligent Design scientists?The REAL question is at which stage the Intelligent Design scientists attempt to 'define' (literally: describe God's 'thought process' when he created 'the world') the mind of God in this process; I say they are putting God 'in a box' (literally: conforming him and his methods to that extent that humans can conceive, and that is limited since we are 'limited' in our intellect and ability in contrast to God) when they do this ...
Yup....moreover, they also blabber endless noise about "repeatable, verifiable, predictable" when demanding creationists "prove" their theory, meanwhile turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to their ilk when it comes to string and multiverse theory.
As I've said before, if the people with so many multiple hang-ups with God shrieked a fraction about global warming, and various nonsense that actually DOES harm science, they'd maybe have a shred of legitimacy.
But they don't.
Definitely not guilty!
Thanks for the ping!
Never said that. Never implied that. I was supporting a science that was showing promise in expanding human understanding. Calling science a religion is just as bad as calling religion a science.
Basic reality seems to be that string theory is meant to provide enough universes to get past the problems which evolution has with basic probabilities, and evolution is perceived as necessary to prevent puritanical redneck Christians from outlawing sex. The whole thing is about sex.
Nigel Tufnel: ...What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.LOL.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder
Didn’t you know that step #1 in all science reasearch and theorizing is to first consider whether or not God exists?
Why would that be the case?
Because anything else would leave room for something other than YEC creationism.
Id been swimming in a luxurious, long, deep pool in the San Fernando Valley at. 83° by a thermometer in the water while 100°+ in the air.
Sitting in the Sun, feet dangling in the water, I could see the lights refracted patterns (Snells law) from its surface along the bottom of the pool.
Id seen video documentary mock-ups to show how existence looks at or near the Planck Scale.
Yet here and now was an example even clearer.
Envisioning part of the pool bottom as a slice of quantum space, filaments fleeted into - and out of - existence, each having been created by that gone before. And out of them bits of brightness, (again, reflections of the Sun along the surface, cast on the bottom and sides) would move along the length of each segment, intersecting with their ends...such strings quickly dissipating here, and reappearing there with each such interaction.
Moreover, there would enter waves of interference (by admittedly moving my legs) that would yield to the strings an even greater sense of overall excitation.
In a stretch, this might be seen as a representation of the Uncertainty Principle where at the quantum level, virtual entities come into and go out of existence, yet perhaps summing to an actualization of reality, which however even billions of years hence, may as likely decay and zap back into the void from whence they came.
And Id bet too that this could all be worked out mathematically.
But, as I said, its merely a representation of such conditions, which is all that can ever be achieved at the Planck Scale anyway.
So, as this lazy days imaginings gave rise to other waxings, into the water I went, even in that second of submergence, to childhood again.