Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by Walker » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:41 am

A: Why unexplained anomalies are acceptable to scientists in science but not in religion.

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/austr ... e-numbers/

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:00 am

Dark Matter.

I never quite get atheists who mock not being able to see God, nor test for him, despite the Ex Nihilo basis of Christian physics, insisting on observation and testing materials, with peer verification.... and then suddenly demand we buy into a invisible material that doesn't effect anything we can test it with, can't see or prove, and leave us with no way of disproving a negative. Honestly, try disproving Dark Matter doesn't exist to a believer in it, best of luck.

I say atoms are held together by angel farts, vibrating angle farts. Those very angels who used to dance on the head of a pin in the Middle Ages. No Anti-Matter periodic tables (which galaxies in the star maps are antimatter galaxies again, I keep being told half the universe is Anti-Matter, and get all these images of distant cosmos, apparently photons are both Matter and antimatter, so I should see some awesome pics of something if you tilt Hubble the other way around).

Dark Matter

Anti Matter half of the universe

Quantum Mechanics seems to exist primarily for the same reason the One exists in the Matrix, to fix a whole mess of all too perfect mathematics that can't otherwise stick together, and occasionally implodes. We should all be scheduled to storm Berkeley and MIT and just slaughter everyone here soon, and start again with a new Zion.

Had we just stuck with Monodology and adjusted our perspective just a bit, think we would of been as technologically advanced, or more so today. Boschovich wasn't exactly stupid, he built a advanced physics out of it. Our mental conception of physics and math won't every quite align with the universe, so don't care too much if a system is flawed, just so long as it is predictably useful, and broad in scope. We've produced a few systems over the centuries that fir that bill. I'm not too thrilled with the augers proclaiming the gospel of those sciences though, as it all smells rotten once you consider the implications. Honestly, had we even just kept with the Timeaus, think eventually a decent physics would of been developed enough for space travel out of it. Challenged in points, but the large Pythagorean presumptions would of stayed, and those astronauts wouldn't of cared one damn bit, so long as the platonic space shuttles fly, with good enough math. They would of had strengths and weaknesses over us, likely, if we could imagine comparing such a parallel world.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by -1- » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:50 pm

Dubious wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:34 am
Probably the one most likely to survive.
Just like humans. Jesus died at 33. Bobevenson is 104 years of age. (Not a fact. A conjecture on my part.)

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by -1- » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:59 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:41 am
A: Why unexplained anomalies are acceptable to scientists in science but not in religion.

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/austr ... e-numbers/
I would agree with you. Except there are no unexplained phenomenon in relijon. "It's God's will". Bang, everything is explained in one fell swoop.

There are NO unexplained phenomenon in religion. That's the basic part that science disagrees with religion for.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by -1- » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:02 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:00 am
Dark Matter.

I never quite get atheists who mock not being able to see God, nor test for him, despite the Ex Nihilo basis of Christian physics, insisting on observation and testing materials, with peer verification.... and then suddenly demand we buy into a invisible material that doesn't effect anything we can test it with, can't see or prove, and leave us with no way of disproving a negative. Honestly, try disproving Dark Matter doesn't exist to a believer in it, best of luck.

I say atoms are held together by angel farts, vibrating angle farts. Those very angels who used to dance on the head of a pin in the Middle Ages. No Anti-Matter periodic tables (which galaxies in the star maps are antimatter galaxies again, I keep being told half the universe is Anti-Matter, and get all these images of distant cosmos, apparently photons are both Matter and antimatter, so I should see some awesome pics of something if you tilt Hubble the other way around).

Dark Matter

Anti Matter half of the universe

Quantum Mechanics seems to exist primarily for the same reason the One exists in the Matrix, to fix a whole mess of all too perfect mathematics that can't otherwise stick together, and occasionally implodes. We should all be scheduled to storm Berkeley and MIT and just slaughter everyone here soon, and start again with a new Zion.

Had we just stuck with Monodology and adjusted our perspective just a bit, think we would of been as technologically advanced, or more so today. Boschovich wasn't exactly stupid, he built a advanced physics out of it. Our mental conception of physics and math won't every quite align with the universe, so don't care too much if a system is flawed, just so long as it is predictably useful, and broad in scope. We've produced a few systems over the centuries that fir that bill. I'm not too thrilled with the augers proclaiming the gospel of those sciences though, as it all smells rotten once you consider the implications. Honestly, had we even just kept with the Timeaus, think eventually a decent physics would of been developed enough for space travel out of it. Challenged in points, but the large Pythagorean presumptions would of stayed, and those astronauts wouldn't of cared one damn bit, so long as the platonic space shuttles fly, with good enough math. They would of had strengths and weaknesses over us, likely, if we could imagine comparing such a parallel world.
No sane atheist will mock you for not seeing god, unless you insist it can be seen.

No sane atheist will mock you for believing in god, unless you believe that "omnipotence" is an integral quality of God.
ETC.

As long as you believe in a god, and don't attribute qualities to it, atheists will never mock you. The mocking starts when you attach qualities to god that are obviously not possible for god to have.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by -1- » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:48 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:00 am
Dark Matter.

I never quite get atheists who mock not being able to see God, nor test for him, despite the Ex Nihilo basis of Christian physics, insisting on observation and testing materials, with peer verification.... and then suddenly demand we buy into a invisible material that doesn't effect anything we can test it with, can't see or prove, and leave us with no way of disproving a negative. Honestly, try disproving Dark Matter doesn't exist to a believer in it, best of luck.

I say atoms are held together by angel farts, vibrating angle farts. Those very angels who used to dance on the head of a pin in the Middle Ages. No Anti-Matter periodic tables (which galaxies in the star maps are antimatter galaxies again, I keep being told half the universe is Anti-Matter, and get all these images of distant cosmos, apparently photons are both Matter and antimatter, so I should see some awesome pics of something if you tilt Hubble the other way around).

Dark Matter

Anti Matter half of the universe

Quantum Mechanics seems to exist primarily for the same reason the One exists in the Matrix, to fix a whole mess of all too perfect mathematics that can't otherwise stick together, and occasionally implodes. We should all be scheduled to storm Berkeley and MIT and just slaughter everyone here soon, and start again with a new Zion.

Had we just stuck with Monodology and adjusted our perspective just a bit, think we would of been as technologically advanced, or more so today. Boschovich wasn't exactly stupid, he built a advanced physics out of it. Our mental conception of physics and math won't every quite align with the universe, so don't care too much if a system is flawed, just so long as it is predictably useful, and broad in scope. We've produced a few systems over the centuries that fir that bill. I'm not too thrilled with the augers proclaiming the gospel of those sciences though, as it all smells rotten once you consider the implications. Honestly, had we even just kept with the Timeaus, think eventually a decent physics would of been developed enough for space travel out of it. Challenged in points, but the large Pythagorean presumptions would of stayed, and those astronauts wouldn't of cared one damn bit, so long as the platonic space shuttles fly, with good enough math. They would of had strengths and weaknesses over us, likely, if we could imagine comparing such a parallel world.
This is a good policy. A devout Evangelist Christian can say to scientists, "You don't believe in my God? Oh yeah? Okay, then watch ME not believing in YOUR teachings! Nyah, nyah, nyah! An aye for an aye, a nay for a nay. Now, THAT's in the bible, not your stupid dark matter and anti matter."

If they deny your faith, all you have to do is deny theirs in retaliation.

eLindellDotCom
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:09 pm

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by eLindellDotCom » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:26 pm

Probably the curvature of space in general relativity.

I don't find this hard to believe so much as I find it incoherent.

I'm aware of claims that GR has been empirically confirmed to umpteen gazillion decimal places (umpteen gazillion and four, at last count).

But how do they know that light travels a straight path through curved space
rather than following a curved path through straight space?

Mathematics that justify one of these conclusions could equally well be used to justify the other.
I think scientists prefer the curved space interpretation so they can retain their cherished assumption of least-path.

But space cannot be curved except relative to something else, but there's nothing else to compare it to, shape-wise.

Along with others I've seen write on this topic, I find the claim somewhat off-putting, as if a claim is being made with the assumption that it will be accepted despite its incoherence.

But that's just me.

eLindellDotCom
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:09 pm

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by eLindellDotCom » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:30 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:29 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:20 pm
I know scientists accept the BBT which I find a struggle to accept myself, e.g.

PhilX
I take it you haven't read my blog http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk It explains why scientists believe the BBT. It also explains that, generally, the theories physicists use are the ones that work. There is a difference between a mathematical model and a concept of reality on which a mathematical model is based. The fact is that experiments and observations are still finding things we haven't seen before, so physicists are trying to think of causes for them, which you may or may not find believable, but in the meantime, the observations can be recorded, analysed and described mathematically.
Even Penrose, who I think is the main champion of the BBT, has claimed its improbability is staggering. One chance in a number so large that its exponent needs an exponent. Something like 10 ** 10 ** 120 ..

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by uwot » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:04 pm

eLindellDotCom wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:30 pm
Even Penrose, who I think is the main champion of the BBT, has claimed its improbability is staggering.
Well, Penrose's thing is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
eLindellDotCom wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:30 pm
One chance in a number so large that its exponent needs an exponent. Something like 10 ** 10 ** 120 ..
I'd like to see how he arrived at that figure, if you could cite the source. Anyway, not zero, and the evidence for a Big Bang is overwhelming.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:41 pm
Well, ya gotta distinguish between the ontology and the epistemology. Take the Ptolemaic model of the universe. We all know that the ontology is wrong-the Earth is not the centre of the universe. However, in epistemic terms, you can use the model to calculate where a particular planet (at least the ones which are visible to the naked eye) will appear in the sky. You don't even have to believe it; you look up and there it is, pretty much. With regard to something like String theory, it may well be the case that the properties and behaviour of particles can be described by mono-dimensional filaments vibrating in a whole bunch of dimensions, but personally, I find it much harder to believe that is actually the case.
Yet neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can say for certain, that they know the actual case. All that you can say with any sort of truth on your tongue is that you chose to buy into the most accepted theory on what is the case. But what does that necessarily say about either you or the actual case? Hmmm?

Peace, my friend! ;-)

Atla
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by Atla » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:17 pm

Matter-antimatter asymmetry, I just don't see it. These two should come in equal amounts. However most of the antimatter is not in the observable universe so we may be living in a huge Goldilocks zone.

Which sort of makes sense, since if the antimatter was here, we would blow up or at least be bathed in deadly radiation. That would be unpleasant, and would also go against the Anthropic principle - we are human, so therefore we must observe an environment that can sustain humans.

But that's just speculation - there is no proof.

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by uwot » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:14 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
...neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can say for certain, that they know the actual case.
Funnily enough I was just saying as much to Atla.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
All that you can say with any sort of truth on your tongue is that you chose to buy into the most accepted theory on what is the case.
Spheres, me old China, you have just accused me of falling for an argumentum ad populum. In a philosophical bar, that would get your metaphorical teeth kicked in.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
But what does that necessarily say about either you or the actual case? Hmmm?
Well that's the old 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
Peace, my friend! ;-)
You have a strange way of trying to achieve it.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:05 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:14 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
...neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can say for certain, that they know the actual case.
Funnily enough I was just saying as much to Atla.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
All that you can say with any sort of truth on your tongue is that you chose to buy into the most accepted theory on what is the case.
Spheres, me old China, you have just accused me of falling for an argumentum ad populum. In a philosophical bar, that would get your metaphorical teeth kicked in.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
But what does that necessarily say about either you or the actual case? Hmmm?
Well that's the old 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:24 pm
Peace, my friend! ;-)
You have a strange way of trying to achieve it.
uwot, don't ever take what I say personally!!! I've said that I like you, probably largely because you're a scientific mind like me. But to err is human, we all do it, every day, in one way or another. Look at what I say as my method of attempting to keep you on your toes. It's my 'gift' to you. ;-) I'll always be fair about it. And as far as that 'philosophical bar' goes, only if one is faster than my ability to block and counter with a wicked combination. I'm a Karateka after all. ;-) You lost me with the "beating your wife" thing. I've never heard that saying before!

As always PEACE, My Friend!! ;-) I'd blow you one kiss for each cheek, but you may not sympathize with the ways of the Italians! So I'll just bow in the ways of the Japanese Karatekas. Lower than you of course, all the while keeping an eagle eye on you. :lol: ;-)

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Which physics theory is hardest to believe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:14 pm

As far as the topic is concerned, I don't know where to start. Today I take the strictest of views before believing in any particular scientific proposition. When I was younger, like everyone, I took that which I read and was taught, on faith alone, especially if it seemed to be reasonable. But these days I'm a hard-ass. If it seems unfathomable out of the starting gates, I'll have to see it with my own eyes, ask as many questions as I can currently consider, that might cause a false conclusion, and stew on it for quite some time attempting to come up with any other thoughts that might lead to false conclusions, before I'd even consider it a viable theory. :twisted: ;-)

So I'll not list them as you may not care to read that long a list. ;-)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests