A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

[Apotheosis]

String theory and religion are one in the same. A bunch of absurd claims with no physical proof. It's funny that you mention that I'm a programmer though. I'm a programmer because logic is what drives me. With no logic, I cannot believe something to be true. When you have no proof, you have no logic. Furthermore, there is no proof for string theory. The only thing that supports it is the math that they tweaked to support it.

Show me proof and my knees will buckle, until then I stand firm.

Also, go do some reading, the LHC has already disproved a lot of fundamental string theory. Your videos are outdated.

it is a theory, a theory can be prooven false or true, and the theory evolves, not like god.....
if you use logic.... you know how hard it is for 1 theory to explain all the theories that are related to the universe ? thats not chance LOL
approving/dispproving videos dosnt matter, the string theory its still and approved and released theory, until they officially shut it down, then that theory its done, finito, bb.

thats why its called a theory, if you dont belive in theories, well the big bang "its a theory" , theres a tons of other theories, that cant be prooven and it seems you know or at least you like to think they do exist, just your thread name :

A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy...mation_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

the world of science dosnt and will never support a BELIVE, its not what you think it may happend, its the data we have along this years, string theory its the one that suits 60% of the scientist community

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp

The LHC actually hasn't debunked superstring theory directly. The theory maintains that everything in the universe is actually made up of extremely small vibrating strings. The strings, if they exist, would need to be much smaller than even the smallest particles that are known, and it's impossible for current science to probe such tiny scales.

again this its not a right or wrong debate, i cant be wrong and you cant be wrong but its not logical that you found your point of view on a "belief" when everything points out that the string theory "fits" ofcourse another universes seem kind of silly and stupid, but then again physics it self didnt deny the posibility of them, it has to be founded by physics principals, you cant just made those up <_<, this is the theory that suits the best posible ecenario from a singularity to the hole universe, now that fits dosnt ment it is, or that its the right 1, we are probably far from it, but compare a theory that has decades of research with god, you have to be on drugs.

science its based on theories, you cant say o well i want to belive 2+3 isnt 5, " and you know this ", the world we live in has its own rules, now if you dont "think that theory suits the rest of the theories or that the scientist are wrong" please enlight us, send them a propousal with your arguments, and you just might became the very next einstein.

1 final request, i bet your not studing science, just like i didnt, you just like me just like to dig on whatever its out there, but dont post stuff you cant intelligent disprove or prove, and if your going to post your opinion do it, as your own opinion dont come posting stuff like this :

When you have no proof, you have no logic. Furthermore, there is no proof for string theory. The only thing that supports it is the math that they tweaked to support it.

<_< dosnt make sence of anything you said till now, so i have no proof of the big bang, you got no proof of it, scientist have no proofs of it, ofcourse theres cosmic disposal and etc, that it selfs proofs and even happend, dosnt ment it was the big bang, so then again your basing your point of view in a belief, thats what religion fanatics do.

[DarkstaR]

The Big Bang, Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and even Uncertainty Principle (the entropy I'm referencing) all have evidence supporting them. Physical and tangible evidence which say they are in fact the case unless a huge part of the picture was missed.

The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe, footprints from the trillions of nuclear fusion reactions which lead to the creation of the more advanced matter, and the fact that we've tested the scenario based on the reactions observed from anti-matter and matter collisions. How it happened, we don't know. But we know it happened.

Einstiens Theory of Relativity was proven when he showed that not only does gravity effect light, but moving faster warps ones experience of time - as you move at the speed of light you are time-independent.

And Entropy in this context isn't even a theory, its a fucking property of the Universe.

You can sit here and run circles around what I say all day but it doesn't change the fact that there is no proof behind String Theory. Why is it considered a theory, then, instead of a hypothesis? Don't ask me, cause I don't think it should be.
String Theory is, no doubt, genius in its design. It's very well thought out and organized, but it is not only unproven but also very general. In its broadest sense it can be "shown" by many scenarios in nature which leads experiments to almost be biased to it. That doesn't, however, change the fact that when you get down to the nityy-gritty dirty factual principals of string theory, we have yet to find proof.

For the final time: I'm not saying String Theory is wrong. I'm saying I want proof. and I think its absolutely fucking stupid of you to be arguing for something I'm not even arguing against. I'm asking for proof and your saying "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF." Ignorance in its purest form.

[Moses]

HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

The following is an actual question given on a University of
*Washington *chemistry
mid-term.
...
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it
with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the
pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs
heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas
cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need
to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which
they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets
to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how
many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that
exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these
religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can
project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are,
we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now,
we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law
states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the
same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter
Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all
Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take
into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two
must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen
over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

[Moses]

not linked but a good read ^

[Apotheosis]

The Big Bang, Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and even Uncertainty Principle (the entropy I'm referencing) all have evidence supporting them. Physical and tangible evidence which say they are in fact the case unless a huge part of the picture was missed.

The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe, footprints from the trillions of nuclear fusion reactions which lead to the creation of the more advanced matter, and the fact that we've tested the scenario based on the reactions observed from anti-matter and matter collisions. How it happened, we don't know. But we know it happened.

Einstiens Theory of Relativity was proven when he showed that not only does gravity effect light, but moving faster warps ones experience of time - as you move at the speed of light you are time-independent.

And Entropy in this context isn't even a theory, its a fucking property of the Universe.

You can sit here and run circles around what I say all day but it doesn't change the fact that there is no proof behind String Theory. Why is it considered a theory, then, instead of a hypothesis? Don't ask me, cause I don't think it should be.
String Theory is, no doubt, genius in its design. It's very well thought out and organized, but it is not only unproven but also very general. In its broadest sense it can be "shown" by many scenarios in nature which leads experiments to almost be biased to it. That doesn't, however, change the fact that when you get down to the nityy-gritty dirty factual principals of string theory, we have yet to find proof.

For the final time: I'm not saying String Theory is wrong. I'm saying I want proof. and I think its absolutely fucking stupid of you to be arguing for something I'm not even arguing against. I'm asking for proof and your saying "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF." Ignorance in its purest form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Process theory is a commonly used form of scientific research study in which events or occurrences are said to be the result of certain input states leading to a certain outcome (output) state, following a set process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theory

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
.

The Big Bang is proven by the expansion of our universe

Now theres 2 problems here, first of all you you got its the microwaves to actually pull that statement off, second theres no way to proof that the expansion of the universe its the same in every single sector or galaxy, "you cant prove it" its the very same argument religous fanatics make, you cant proof this or that because you where not alive when it happend, the big bang its not a proven theory, im guessing thats why you call it the big bang theory.....
then if you say that you dont belive in any theory, because they have no evidence?? when theres clearly advanced physics that support that theory otherwise it will never be a theory, you cant just go there and publish "i have an invisible octopus that eats people in the garbage truck theory"

a theory its a "this might be posible, because of this", just liek the big bang the relativity, the black holes "that just a few years ago they found a black hole, still we dont know the exact properties of them, those are still a theory just like wormholes"

and when you tell me that string theory has nothing, no evidence to support it, your making an amazing claim about any other theory out there, i belive you will understand this in this post.
the question is very simple, do you actually know whats time ?
time its relative it self, you cant messuare time, time its time itself, ofcourse you got a watch and gives you the hour, but thats based on our solar system, with day and nights, by the rotation of the earth and so on, 1 hour here, its not 1 hour in space, and its not 1 hour on mars, or pluton (stupid example but you get the point, theres stuff you cant proof or touch, but you can do the math)


does your program Xenobot really exist ? or does it exist in another universe (www)? can you touch xenobot ?
if you cant touch it, you cant hold it, you cant see it physicly, then it dosnt exist right (according to you)?

so in other words if you belive that string theory has no reseach and can assume that xenobot, just pop-up out of nothing you didnt do anything, and why should peoplebelive you that its undetectable, i cant touch it, i cant see its safe or the best way to safety, i didnt saw you making it, therefor at your sight xenobot dosnt exist, and its just "ITS REAL LOOK AT WHAT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE SAY WITHOUT PROOF.

following your previous argument xenobot isnt real, can be detected, you said it your self "this other people say its safest", see how that shitt works ?
not that funny when you applied those thoughts into something you cant touch isnt it, xenobot isnt a theory, its a program, and that was just another stupid example, i hope you open your eyes, a theory its something scientist have done research and theres evidence, may be they are wrong on some aspects ofcourse they could be wrong, thats why theres a theory, and theories evolve with time, the big bang theory now has a start point the singularity.

with nothing else to add, if you didnt notice yet, your claim about theories its wrong, i cant help ur case.

[DarkstaR]

I did not say I don't believe in any theory, I said I don't believe in String Theory. All the theories I've mentioned have some tangible proof to back them up. Yes, as you said, there are loopholes which make it possible that they aren't true, however the evidence, found after they were theorized, backs them up. On the other hand, String Theory's evidence was tailored to fit. The had to readjust their algorithms multiple times to make it fit, and that didn't even work until they made up 6 new dimensions. And Einstein's Theory of Relativity is irrefutably proven, it just keeps the word theory because science will never declare fact when part of the picture is missing. Because of the general lack of narrowness in the definition of the word theory, there are some theories with ample evidence and other with little to none. My "claim about theories" isn't wrong, I just value the more narrow sense instead of the broader one such as people like you do.

Me: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and be seemingly proven correct every consecutive test.
You: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and found to fir the made-up math which was created to fit every scenario.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

[Syntax]

@Wesker: the universe is not expanding at the same rate, but it is relative. The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

[DarkstaR]

It is inversely proportional to the gravitation from the center of the universe. In other words, the less gravity from the super-massive blackhole at our core, the faster it expands.

[Syntax]

Mr. Detail has to add detail.

[Apotheosis]

I did not say I don't believe in any theory, I said I don't believe in String Theory. All the theories I've mentioned have some tangible proof to back them up. Yes, as you said, there are loopholes which make it possible that they aren't true, however the evidence, found after they were theorized, backs them up. On the other hand, String Theory's evidence was tailored to fit. The had to readjust their algorithms multiple times to make it fit, and that didn't even work until they made up 6 new dimensions. And Einstein's Theory of Relativity is irrefutably proven, it just keeps the word theory because science will never declare fact when part of the picture is missing. Because of the general lack of narrowness in the definition of the word theory, there are some theories with ample evidence and other with little to none. My "claim about theories" isn't wrong, I just value the more narrow sense instead of the broader one such as people like you do.

Me: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and be seemingly proven correct every consecutive test.
You: A theory is a widely accepted idea which can be tested scientifically and found to fir the made-up math which was created to fit every scenario.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

heres my problem with your arguments, you use the word "belive", the problem with that its that theres nothing to "belive", if 2+2=4 you dont belive its 4, YOU FUCKING KNOW ITS 4, now dosnt matter what you may think or not about whats a theory, in earth (the planet i live currently) the theory of relativity its and is still a theory, theories are things that arent tangible, but you can explain them, refute them, decrease it, something like laws in mathematics, you cant touch them or see them, dosnt ment you belive in them

" in science theres no space for a belief "

thats the diference between atheist and theist....... and you cant go around well i will belive in god when i see it, if your using belief to describe everything around you right ?

now if you instead sayed something like " i think the string theory cant fit the aspects of physics it self it sounds silly to made up alternative universes, to me that theory needs more reasearch, i dont think that new universes can explain the particules and everything else in the nodes of the theory "

now that is your personal view on something, you cant say theres not enought evidence, because there is LOL.
the collider has as hes main porpuse to proof or disprove all the theories that exist, a few years or months ago, you might remember they disprove a part of einsteins theory about mmm i think gravitons... whatever not relevant...

when people try their best to come up with theories and explain them, with and under the laws of physics its enought research, its not like we gather jo3, you,mao, ekx and we publish our beggening of the universe theory, im almost sure it wont make fucking sence at all <_<.

so back to the point, stop using belief in science, and all the theories have background to sopport them, until the theory its disproven, remains "truth" if you want to call it truth, im going to say that its probably something that evolves with time, and more reasearch


about :

I'm not saying it's wrong. I just want to see un-tailored proof.

i cant help you with it, i dont have a degree in anything related to physics, and you probably like my self, even if 1 of those scientist explains you the physics behind it, you wont understand anything, its not like kindergarden math LOL, eigther way if you want to prove or disprove that theory, it is posible and any1 in the world can do it, the papers are publish and released, if you want to disprove it with evidence i belive you have to send a letter to the boston science department or something like it, i am not that smart on physics and like i said it is way over my head to even try to explain what it is, with math, maybe you do advance math and etc, i do not know........
if you do then well, you can post valid points why string theory cant do x layer or whatever, if you just dont like string theory, its fine, but you cant ever say theres no research, it didnt appear from nothing.....


once again you dont belief in theories, you rather acknowledge them to be true or false, but then again if they are proven to be false they are no longer theories