Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

cont. (to address the points in your latter reply)

Actually this is the case for a very large amount of science that people accept and take for granted.

The ideas of multiverses, string theory and the like are not completely untestable... in fact the reason that scientists and mathematicians continue to expound them are that they answer observable statistics we see around us. They were modeled to fit the data no less. As I showed above, the idea of an infinite universe does actually fit the data we have at the moment better than the idea of a finite universe.

These "out there" theories, are actually not much less "proven" than the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution... all of which are widely accepted despite not being thoroughly testable because the predictions they make have been consistent with the evidence we have.

I agree that many science types tend to take all this stuff dogmatically and become religious about it.

You will note that I didn't present any of this that way, and left it rather wide open as to what exactly is going on. Even giving multiple possibilities that could explain what we are observing. Who knows? Maybe the universe is infinite, M-Theory is real, AND we have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes... at any rate, speculating in such directions is not "new-age," but rather the province of the greatest minds in modern physics.

I love it too. But as a lover of it, you must realize that it is not chemistry, math, or biology. Much of physics lies beyond our ability to verify readily. The physics of the very large and the physics of the very small are both theoretical in their entirety. The scant bit of evidence we have for such things can be interpreted in many ways. String Theory and Cosmology are two extremes of this... but to say that they are not cutting-edge might be an issue of semantics. I meant the word in the sense that such theories as we are discussing are among the newest and most exciting theories we have rather than being older and more passé. Just as Quantum Mechanics was cutting-edge compared to Newtonian Physics (which dealt poorly with the very small)... so too is String Theory (& M-Theory) "cutting-edge" as there are no newer theories that match the data sets.

<blockquote data-quote="Hyperspace Fool" data-source="post: 3474096" data-attributes="member: 10791">cont. (to address the points in your latter reply)Actually this is the case for a very large amount of science that people accept and take for granted.&nbsp; The ideas of multiverses, string theory and the like are not completely untestable... in fact the reason that scientists and mathematicians continue to expound them are that they answer observable statistics we see around us.&nbsp; They were modeled to fit the data no less.&nbsp; As I showed above, the idea of an infinite universe does actually fit the data we have at the moment better than the idea of a finite universe.&nbsp; These &quot;out there&quot; theories, are actually not much less &quot;proven&quot; than the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution... all of which are widely accepted despite not being thoroughly testable because the predictions they make have been consistent with the evidence we have.I agree that many science types tend to take all this stuff dogmatically and become religious about it.&nbsp; You will note that I didn&#039;t present any of this that way, and left it rather wide open as to what exactly is going on.&nbsp; Even giving multiple possibilities that could explain what we are observing.&nbsp; Who knows?&nbsp; Maybe the universe is infinite, M-Theory is real, AND we have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes... at any rate, speculating in such directions is not &quot;new-age,&quot; but rather the province of the greatest minds in modern physics.I love it too.&nbsp; But as a lover of it, you must realize that it is not chemistry, math, or biology.&nbsp; Much of physics lies beyond our ability to verify readily. The physics of the very large and the physics of the very small are both theoretical in their entirety.&nbsp; The scant bit of evidence we have for such things can be interpreted in many ways.&nbsp; String Theory and Cosmology are two extremes of this... but to say that they are not cutting-edge might be an issue of semantics.&nbsp; I meant the word in the sense that such theories as we are discussing are among the newest and most exciting theories we have rather than being older and more passé.&nbsp; Just as Quantum Mechanics was cutting-edge compared to Newtonian Physics (which dealt poorly with the very small)... so too is String Theory (&amp; M-Theory) &quot;cutting-edge&quot; as there are no newer theories that match the data sets.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hyperspace Fool, post: 3474096, member: 10791"] cont. (to address the points in your latter reply) Actually this is the case for a very large amount of science that people accept and take for granted. The ideas of multiverses, string theory and the like are not completely untestable... in fact the reason that scientists and mathematicians continue to expound them are that they answer observable statistics we see around us. They were modeled to fit the data no less. As I showed above, the idea of an infinite universe does actually fit the data we have at the moment better than the idea of a finite universe. These "out there" theories, are actually not much less "proven" than the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution... all of which are widely accepted despite not being thoroughly testable because the predictions they make have been consistent with the evidence we have. I agree that many science types tend to take all this stuff dogmatically and become religious about it. You will note that I didn't present any of this that way, and left it rather wide open as to what exactly is going on. Even giving multiple possibilities that could explain what we are observing. Who knows? Maybe the universe is infinite, M-Theory is real, AND we have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes... at any rate, speculating in such directions is not "new-age," but rather the province of the greatest minds in modern physics. I love it too. But as a lover of it, you must realize that it is not chemistry, math, or biology. Much of physics lies beyond our ability to verify readily. The physics of the very large and the physics of the very small are both theoretical in their entirety. The scant bit of evidence we have for such things can be interpreted in many ways. String Theory and Cosmology are two extremes of this... but to say that they are not cutting-edge might be an issue of semantics. I meant the word in the sense that such theories as we are discussing are among the newest and most exciting theories we have rather than being older and more passé. Just as Quantum Mechanics was cutting-edge compared to Newtonian Physics (which dealt poorly with the very small)... so too is String Theory (& M-Theory) "cutting-edge" as there are no newer theories that match the data sets. [/QUOTE]