Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Hold on. I was never making a definitive claim. Seriously. Can you tap the breaks high speed? I am clearly not a physicist. I just like Dr. Kaku. That's something I heard, and I suggested the possibility of what he said. Chill the fuck out. I completely agree that Dr. Kaku says "if string theory is correct." Is this not already understood?
Not to mention, if you go to my original fucking post, you'll see I said "if string theory is correct..." So quick to jump to conclusions. What motivation do I have to be manipulative? Seriously, learn to calm down.
oKAY BREAKS ARE ON......
Apologies for coming off strong. I do see where you were saying you were not exactly certain,. Like others. I have been looking at String theory for a long time. Perhaps it will go someplace some day. As for now.... It is fantasy.
Michio Kaku is a fantasist. His research is only chalkboard research. Even his supposed hypotheses are completely and absolutely untestable. A hypothesis MUST be testable through scientific methods. Otherwise it is nothing more than a fantasy.
Trust me. I have listened to Kaku live and watched his TV shows and his YouTube videos. His ideas are thought provoking. However, ultimately, they are still fantasies. This is why I no longer listen to him or watch his videos. Great ideas for a science fantasy story, but that is all they are.
rmfr
That makes sense. I'm glad he's going that route though. I like people to think outside the box, but yes, I definitely see what you're saying. Thanks.
@ vaporwave (and ALL Americans)
Sorry for the late response. But yes, I also enjoy the fact that he (Kaku) is thinking outside the box. I actually LOVE his ideas. They are so cool. They are deeply thought provoking. And I also sit with fingers crossed hoping for the day they can become testable hypotheses. But as a volcanologist helping to study the Yellowstone Caldera, I am too used to gathering actual facts to believe his ideas are actual hypotheses, let alone being theories. Due to this, I have to always look at his ideas as being fantastic ideas and nothing more.
As another posted, I would love to have warp drives and star gates that create wormholes to other destinations. But until we can actually prove such and build such devices, those ideas shall remain in the realm of science fantasy. Although I would so love to have them, I seriously doubt such will ever be possible in my lifetime. And that is what I truly hate. I shall never see them. BUMMER.
I have always dreamed that by now we would have had a huge orbital space station like the one in 2001: A Space Odyssey, an active moon base, even a colony on Mars. However, the moon and Mars just do not have the gravity to hold an atmosphere to make such bases worthwhile. They would have to be able to manufacture their own air (probably possible on Mars, but not the moon), or we would have to bottle Earth's atmosphere and take it there. That is why I say finding ways to get to other star systems and find other planets that are self-sufficient and self-sustainable for our species is a top priority. Otherwise, the expenses are too much. However, we still need to take it one small step at a time before we can make the giant leap.
Especially with the Religious Absolutists putting too much of a choke hold on scientific advancement, especially here in America, it is going to be the rest of the world that shall do it. The United States is falling into a big shit-hole with strangling scientific education. The Religious Absolutist just cannot see that it is SCIENCE that is advancing our society. NOT religion. Look at China. The most atheist country in the world. I guarantee China will be more technological advanced than the US in 50 to 100 years. Their scientific education is advancing much faster than ours. And that is due to the fact that the mentally retarded masses here keep electing equally mentally retarded politicians.
Neil deGrasse Tyson even said once that to have an educated government, the politicians should be "scientifically" educated. The only problem is that those who tend to go into scientific education also tend to be too intelligent to be wrangled into a political office. And he is so damned correct in that assessment. I was even told in high school that my debating skills meant I was destined to be a politician. However, I always remembered what me dad told me, "A politician can go into politics straighter than an arrow, but due to the pressures of being a politician, they come out crookeder than the Mississippi." That is why I always pursued education into the sciences.
OK. Enough ranting.
rmfr
I am with you on this one. Although I studied the string and m things, I shall never, ever, except their ... their ... damn, what's the frikin word I just lost. I shall never accept the string or m things as theories. I do not even accept them as hypotheses because there is absolutely no way to "test" them. Remember a hypothesis MUST be testable through scientific methods. Since neither of those fantasies can be tested, well, they shall just remain fantasies until I see irrefutable objective hard empirical evidence. I just wished those assholes would quit calling them theories. They are nothing more than imaginative fantasies.
rmfr
EDIT: added omitted words since my fingers can't type as fast as I think. And below PS
P.S. — And that multiverse bullshit is just that. Bullshit. There is only ONE universe and unfortunately we have to share it with those damnable Religious Absolutists.
I'm with you most of the way there pal...
Especially as string theory models all require extra dimensions.
However, if they could make models based on our four dimensions then perhaps falsifiable tests could be made.
I believe they tested already for thermodynamic jets the current models predicted at the Cern LHC... it failed though.
Who knows what will happen, I try to keep an open mind but just confess that I'm not entirely swayed.
And I agree with you also. I always have my fingers because, Hell, those are some damn cool ideas. I just have to objectively state that as far as I am concerned, being a volcanologist and used to hard empirical data, I have to say they are fantasies. But, damn, even my imagination can create some cool science fantasy stories from them.
As Nyarlathotep said, they are bleeding edge ideas, but still only ideas. Until they can be tested, they'll never even be a hypothesis in my book.
rmfr
I agree with you Arakish, i would like to have a warp drive, or to see wormholes, but we have no proofs.
Cognostic,
What's missing here is your theory of "facts" and "evidence". A few years ago on this forum I had a debate with an atheist fellow who after much prodding eventually gave a definition of "fact". it was a link to a site that defined "fact". The definition, that was satisfactory to him, stated that facts rely on the assumption that the method used to arrive at the fact was reliable. Similarily with "evidence".
usually I get the naive answer, 'Oh its the scientific method'. since when was the inductive reasoning of the scientific method infallible? since never. Since when was "emperical" observation infallible? Even de Grasse Tyson stated emperical observation was the most unreliabe method to arrive at reliable claims (facts and evidence).
@ Apollo
FACTS — Formulated Accurately Codified Truth in Science; or if you prefer, "a concept whose truth can be proved."
Evidence – "an indication that makes something evident"
And since you are a Religious Absolutist,
FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery and Hogwash, "an inexorable belief in something that cannot be proven."
rmfr
EDIT: forgot to add the definition for "faith"
@ Apollo
Referencing: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/how-did-entire-universe-come-nothing?page=11#comment-123193
BTW: The Scientific Method is NOT inductive. It is Deductive, Logical, Analytical.
And his name is Neil deGrasse Tyson!!
You just ain't got a damn thing correct yet have you?
rmfr
HUH? Comparing me to an idiot is like comparing your absurd notion of god to something real. Facts are congruent with Pragmatic and Empirical naturalism. I challenge you to find anything called a fact that can not be supported by these. Simply put, facts can be measured, observed, repeated and used. Show me something that is a FACT and does not fit. I will change my mind.
Assumptions? Most facts begin with observation. The assumption might be a causal relationship or something of that nature but this is all cognitive. A fact must be testable. You must be able to take it out of your mind, demonstrate it, measure it, explain it. The mind is easy to fool. That is why we have testing. That is why we take things out of the realm of thought and establish them as pragmatic, usable in the world we regard as real. If you deny these "facts" your life will not be long. They are the foundation of physics, science, medicine, mechanics, education, psychology, and the rest of the sciences as well. These facts have put men on the moon and taken people to the deepest parts of the ocean. YOUR GOD HAS DONE NOTHING AT ALL LIKE THAT. NOTHING.
vaporwave,
"...how laws came about in the first place....."
I sort of think that if something has no mass, it doesn't really exist. What is the mass of "laws". Zero? If so the "Laws" don't really exist. But wait, some people talk of these laws, and spend a great deal of time discussing them. So they must exist. But where? Only in the mind. So that's where the laws originated, in someones mind.
Perhaps you mean "forces", in lieu of "laws". Like the force of gravity. magnetic force. Strong and weak nuclear forces. Such things would exist before the mind existed. But laws only exist as inventions of the mind.
Yes?
Really?
Light has no mass, yet it exists.
Both Photons and Gluons have no mass yet exist.
How about gravity?
That's an odd claim to make.
Thanks, I'll check into that further. you might have inspired me to learn something new.
In the meantime, I'll still stick with laws don't have mass, didn't exist until some one invented them, and exist only in the mind.
For you physics and algebra buffs, help me out. If E=MCsquared, what does M=?
E*c^(-2)
OK. thank you. I'll take your word for it, as I have no ready to hand way of ratifying it.
Now a question. If I just take your word for it, and memoriize it, do I know it?
What has to happen before it can validly be said that somone knows M=E*c^(-2)?
Hopefully the answer to that is generalizable to knowledge in general.
Seems to me, that memorizing something then repeating it as if it were one's own knowledge, isn't really knowledge.
You can validate with simple algebra. You know, the math you learned in 4th grade.
rmfr
Right, it isn't like I did ritual bathing, put on magical vestments, journeyed to the enchanted library of Ra, retrieved the eternal tombs of knowledge bound in the hide from the beast of eternity; and pronounced this wisdom to the world:
I just divided by c^2.
ROFLMAO
Damn you Nyarlathotep. You found my ticklish spot...
rmfr
It isn't just memorized. Deriving special relativity is actually quite simple, if you know the correct postulates. As it was suggested earlier it doesn't require anything much more than algebra and geometry. I've derived it several times from first principles, it is a fun exercise. The genius of Einstein wasn't solving some high-school algebra problem; the genius was knowing what postulates to start with to set up that algebra problem. Any idiot like me can push the symbols around on the paper to get the solution, once someone has already done the hard part.
OK. thank you. I'll take your word for it, as I have no ready to hand way of ratifying it.
Now a question. If I just take your word for it, and memoriize it, do I know it?
What has to happen before it can validly be said that somone knows M=E*c^(-2)?
Hopefully the answer to that is generalizable to knowledge in general.
Seems to me, that memorizing something then repeating it as if it were one's own knowledge, isn't really knowledge.
That isn't how it works, and that isn't how the subject is taught. I've heard many versions of your complaint over the years; and it comes from people who just haven't studied the material. Those formulas are supposed to be derived by the student, not passed down from upon high. You memorize the result of your derivations, so you don't have re-derive it again each time you need it in the future.
I often just skip the memorization part. In fact, I never bothered to memorize that equation, I simply derived it myself when you asked the question. Took less than one second (why bother to memorize something you can figure out in 1 second?). In fact, I hate memorizing stuff; it is one of the reasons I became a mathematician; often times I can just re-derive anything I need.
Also, formulas are dangerous to use with only memorization: they are only applicable under the conditions in which they were derived. An example of this kind of danger: the formula you wrote is only valid when the momentum of the object is 0!
@Apollo
So does that mean you memorizing or reading from the Bible isn't knowledge?
Does that mean you saying that god is real, is not knowledge?
Does that apply to the law of god?
Randomhero1982,
Ahhh law of God? Huh?
Please be specific. What is the law of God?
I believe nature was created by God.
Some people endeavored to understand nature more deeply. So engaged they noticed regularites that were otherwise taken for granted. When such regularities were studied enough, and no one could figure out anyway such regularites would vanish, or otherwise become irregular, they decided to call them laws of physics. Nothing wrong with that. They are just regularites that are believed to be, for all current practical purposes, everlasting and reliable.
I believe that the regularites, and irregularites of nature are all part of Gods creation.
As to the Law of God you mention, I am mystifed, so I'll need you to specify it, before I can discuss it.
Sure, so I deliberately left it open for you as I know it covers a wide range of things.
You have law established by god such as...
The law of god
The law of moses
The royal law
The law of faith
Etc.....
But we could also consider the commandments and so on...
Please define what you mean by nature? And at what point did God intercede?
Randomhero1982,
I'm not a fan of deriving laws from the Bible. I guess I have to say this again: The Bible is not a rational book, it is not a history book, it is not a science book. God didn't dictate the Bible to Moses, or anyone else. So why do you say "you have law established by god such as...."? I don't get your interest in the law. Deriving such things from the Bible is not something I value highly.
What I mean by nature is what you see around you every day. Science seeks to understand it in a deeper way that every day ordinary experience. I'ts unclear to me what you mean by when did "God intercede". You mean when did he intercede in nature? or Intercessory prayer? I believe in a creator God, creatro fo nature and natural processes. As such, the hand of God (a metaphor for literalists) is ever present. its not a specific time, I believe its all the time. Your question is similiar to 'When does God stop and start evolution?". I have no idea that God stops and starts evolution, as far as I know, it is ongoing.
Pages