Is 'String' the next big thing?: Theories about cosmic evolution dangle by a thread

Creation Magazine ^ | Gary Bates

[COBOL2Java]

A world without string is chaos.
   - Rudolf Smuntz

[atlaw]

Trailer-park Bob says “sientists is stoopid, but Vanna White's a babe."

placemarker

[Tolsti2]

This isn’t even about evolution though.

[Nathan Zachary]

"PS for one. Wouldn’t be possible if they couldn’t correct for the time shifting due to the satellites’ velocities."

Time shifting huh ? And it's a real bugger when satellites shift over into another dimension altogether as well.

[Nathan Zachary]

"This isn’t even about evolution though."

I guess the auther put 'cosmic evolution' in the title just for giggles.

[Tolsti2]

Are you implying the universe is in some sort of static state and doesn’t ‘evolve’?

[BipolarBob]

I know Trailer-Park Bob.

Trailer-Park Bob is a friend of mine.

You're no Trailer-Park Bob.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Are you implying the universe is in some sort of static state and doesn’t ‘evolve’?" Where did I "imply" anything about the universe? Static or otherwise?

And no, the universe does not "evolve" in the sense you imply. Anything it does follows the laws of it's creator.

[BipolarBob]

Did the universe have a beginning? Has it always been here? If so, why hasn’t it achieved entropic equilibrium? If it has not always been here, then from what and where did it originate? God knows.

[El Gato]

A gross mis-characterization. String Theory is not a “replacement” for the Big Bang, it’s more of a new physics/mathematics able to work in the conditions of the early universe, very early.

[El Gato]

Whenever your theory requires undetectable forces to work, you might want to re-examine your theory. Doesn’t mean the undetectable factors might not exist, but assuming their existence isn’t very scientific.

Actually what is done is to assume they exist, and then figure out what observable things that should be seen if they do. Then you go look for those things or effects.

[GreenOgre]

Creationists hate science when it contradicts their superstitions. Notice all the name calling that belongs on a kindergarten playground.

Superstition can not be tested. There is no corraborating evidence to support these superstitions. Just references from one and only one book.

Hail Odin

[Nathan Zachary]

"String Theory is not a “replacement” for the Big Bang, it’s more of a new physics/mathematics able to work in the THEORETIC conditions of the early universe, very early.

In otherwords, to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

[El Gato]

it just shows hte lengths theorists go through to exclude God from the picture

Hawking does not exclude God from the picture, which you would know if you'd listened to any of his lectures. Rather Hawking is trying to understand and appreciate exactly what it was He did do.

[BipolarBob]

Just references from one and only one book.

Yes but what a Book!! The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me . . .

[El Gato]

Time shifting huh ? And it's a real bugger when satellites shift over into another dimension altogether as well.

You know very well, I hope, that he meant "time dilation" effects of objects in relative motion. And yes, GPS must take relativistic time dilation into account when synchronizing the clocks aboard the spacecraft with ground based clocks. One could say that with GPS, time is of the essence.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Creationists hate science when it contradicts their superstitions"

? Really? How can that be when no "science" has ever contradicted the TRUTH of the Word?

Real science is and always has been embraced by the church, as there is no fear of discovering the truth, which will only lead to the Lord because the Lord IS truth.

Evo's consistently LIE and accuse the church of suppressing science, but recorded history proves otherwise. In fact there have been many Pagan rulers of history who have suppressed science. The age of the Church brought with it enlightenment, and took us out of the dark ages.

As for name calling, that is usually what Evo's resort to very early on in every thread, as you have just proved.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Agreed. First Cause.of the Big Bang is unknown. True Scientists would leave the cause unknown until further info becomes available.

[El Gato]

And no, the universe does not "evolve" in the sense you imply. Anything it does follows the laws of it's creator.

This is different from other "evolution", exactly how. The laws of physics are fully enforced.

[DesertRhino]

You can’t *seriously* believe that time runs slower 250 miles high, than it does on the ground. And please dont point me to the silly a clock in an airplane experiment, thats a pretty obvious mechanical measurment issue, not as issue that time magically goes slower.