I was watching an episode of Nova during the holidays and they were talking about the theory of everything or "string" theory. If you want a little background, visit the Nova page .

Anyway, I thought the show was interesting, but there was something said that really struck me as interesting. String theory can't be proved. Sure, they have an equation (the answer is 496), but as far as seeing an actual "string", it just can't be done. If a subatomic quark was the size of the earth, a string would approximately be the size of a tree. One of the proponents of the theory started talking about how great the theory was and how it explained how electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak forces all worked together to hold it all together and operate our universe, but admitted with a smile that it can't be proved. It didn't seem to bother him. Obviously there were those who disagreed with the theory and they discussed how there are 11 or so variants of the theory, but it was still pretty cool.

So what's my point?

Well, if some folks here at PTT are consistent with their "seeing is believing" philosophy, then they really can't embrace string theory because no one has ever (or will ever) see a "string". Now granted, I'd say they'd be more open to the possibility of the existance of strings than...say...oh, I don't know...God perhaps, but to be fair they shouldn't believe in the theory.

And just to add a little tweak of my own, I'll present another unprovable theory.

Party on, Wayne! B)

Last edited: Monday, January 03, 2005 at 1:37:15 PM

I saw that one a while ago, that was definetly an interesting show to watch, but it made my brain hurt. At least string theorists have it safe for now, until we invent a microscope that small, in which case if it's not strings, we'll know what it is because we can see that small.

But seriously, if anyone hasn't seen that Nova, watch it. It's a very well-done episode and I learned a lot from it.

You make a good point Rabban, but I have a question for you. Do you believe that other planets outside our solar system exist? The ones that scientists say they've discovered? I do. But the truth is, they haven't "seen" these planets any more than we'll "see" a string from string theory. What they do see is the effect of that planet on things like the star it orbits, such as the speed of the rotation of the sun, a wobble in the star, light that is bent by the gravitational force from the planet and so on. Our telescopes aren't quite powerful enough to see those planets just yet. But based on observations such as above, they know they're there.

Does that prove string theory? Nope. But if string theory happens to be correct, don't be so certain that science won't eventually come up with some way to detect a string. It may happen some day, just as we may be able to actually "see" those planets at some point. There was a tiem when we couldn't "see" an atom, but they theorized on it's existence anyway.

String Theory came about for a simple reason. Scientists observing particles that come out of these atom smashers were puzzled at the number of different particles they were seeing each time they conducted an experiment. It didn't make sense that so many different elementary particles made up matter as we know it. It seemed too random. String Theory states that these particles are really all the same underlying particle, just seen in a different vibration. Think of it as a guitar string. The string itself doesn't change it's size or composition, yet when played by a master guitarist, can produce an incredible range of vibrations or sounds. That is what string theory claims.

At the moment, it's only one theory, but it's one that makes sense to most of the scientific community. And therefore gets the most press. It may be proven wrong, and science will move on to something else.

OM, don't misunderstand my post. Obviously, I believe in the unseen, both secular and sacred. I just wanted to take a little jab at those folks who insist Christians produce God for their inspection before believing in him, claiming they have to see things first. AND I would hope everyone would take your position about being open to the possiblity that someday in the future being able to see something that can't be seen today. Just because God isn't walking down Maple St. Today doesn't mean he won't ever be arriving. ;)

Agreed. I actually meant to put in my post above, that God may appear to us one day as well, or He will allow himself to be detected by us, whichever scenario makes people more comfortable. ;)

I'd like to point out though, that the search for "strings" may very well turn out to be a search for evidence of God's work in the universe. I still don't believe that science and religion are as much at odds as some people would like us to believe. There are many scientists that believe in God, just not necessarily in the literal translation of parts of the Bible, such as Creation. It was Einstein who said "God is subtle, but not malicious"

Where's Pokemalo? 8o

Last edited: Monday, January 03, 2005 at 2:38:17 PM

I thought that I was the only person who watched public telivision :) but now I know. I saw that show a while ago, and was suprised about how Einstien ignored the theory of electro magnitism. And now they've discovered a total of 5 theories that describe the world. And to tie it all together, now they use string theory. I actually believe it even though you can't see the strings. I've now heard that there are strings of all sizes. And the part about all of the planes where strings exist. Man that just made you think about the possibilities of another universe, and foriegn life that has greater intelligence than us. Now I am going to go onto my yoga mat and ponder about the universe. :o

Meanwhile, on the seeing-is-believing campus: *crickets chirping*

Rabban, there's a difference in science between seeing and observing.
Can't see gravity either, but do you deny sticking to mother earth?
God and a string walk into a bar...
I do not see god, but I cannot deny his existence, because they did the crusades bit in his name, and then, well, he allowed my people to die in that holocaust thing.
I can't decide which hole to drive my reposnse through- I've got the sporadica.
I shall soon enliven and be ruffled.

Last edited: Monday, January 03, 2005 at 4:21:15 PM

As we all wonder, how was the universe created. Many scientists believe that the universe is only some billion years old. It is believed that it was created by some force explosion called "The Big Bang". The universe will probably will be wiped out some time later on, for as we all know, nothing lives forever. If you were to look at what the universe looked like around 5000 years of age, it may look like some huge weird bacteria moving around. Now if we were to look at a picture of it, when it was extremely old, in the millions, it would look like a bunch of high colors, like how the predator in "Predator" sees his victims. I really don't know how this goes with your question, Rabban, but it's something that is good to learn!

AncientOne

Sure, the "String Theory" is interesting, but I think a much more powerful force in the universe is the "G-String Theory". Talk about a gravitational pull eh?

How everything was made:

You may not know this, but we are technically made of stardust. We have evry single mineral inside of us, including gold and silver. All things were maybe by force. We don't know how this could work, but force seems to create all these things in the world. The gravitational force is able to in the terms "squish" something together, forming an object. This may help with your question, I think...... XD

AncientOne

I also saw that show a while back. Interesting stuff...

100 years ago we couldn't "see" atoms. Did they exist?

As of today, I still have not seen TankGirl in a G-String. Does it exist? XD

LOL^^^^^^

On the first day God created the cow. God said, "You must go to field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer.

I will give you a life span of sixty years." The cow said, "That's a kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. Let me have twenty years and I'll give back the other forty."

And God agreed.

On the second day, God created the dog.

God said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. I will give you a life span of twenty years."

The dog said, "That's too long to be barking. Give me ten years and I'll give back the other ten."

So God agreed.

On the third day God created the monkey.

God said, "Entertain people, do monkey tricks, make them laugh. I'll give you a twenty year life span."

Monkey said, "How boring, monkey tricks for twenty years? I don't think so. Dog gave you back ten, so that's what I'll do too, okay?"

God agreed again.

On the fourth day God created man.

God said, "Eat, sleep, play, have sex, enjoy. Do nothing, just enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. I'll give you twenty years."

Man said, "What? Only twenty years? No way. Tell you what, I'll take my twenty, and the forty cow gave back, and the ten dog gave back and the ten monkey gave back. That makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God. "You've got a deal!"

That is why for the first twenty years we eat, sleep, play, have sex, enjoy, and do nothing; for the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family; for the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain our grandchildren; and for the last ten years we sit in front of the house and bark at everybody.

@Cat: Classic! XD

I love string theory because it is SO versatile it can be used to explain EVERYTHING. Seriously, it's as versatile as a God:
Bob: The ball dropped.
Tom: God did it.
Al: Nah, just an attraction of matter as explained by string theory.

Is it true? I'm thinking string theory gets pretty close. It has a lot fewer holes than evolution (now, now, put down them shotguns). It'll be fun to hear the theories of how al these complex string came about, though. It takes a little more development than: BOOM! And then there was time, gravity, the limitation of the speed of light, and the universal disturbance of Brittany Spears! XD

String Theory was in the Discover magazine about a year ago. It mentioned how some scientists started believing in some "greater intelligent designer" due to the complexity and precision that the tiny parts would all come together.

In any case, we will eventually be able to prove or disprove it. We used to think the atom was stuffed like a chocolate chip cookie until we blasted a bunch of helium ions through it and found it was mostly empty space. Just have a little patience.

I still don't see how this proves or disproves God, though. All I know is that a G-String is a great power that should be used wisely. In the wrong hands (errr....cheeks?), the results can be devastating! :P

- Bomb…James Bomb

Shotguns? au contraire .
T'is the creationists who measure their worth in gauge .
As for disproving god? Impossible!
Why? Because the theologians have the scientists on a treadmill.
"You think you know, but you don't know, because you don't know, what we know."
"But look at what we know!"
"You don't know."

Last edited: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 at 2:46:35 PM

Believers in string theory seek proof.

Tally, this is scary! 4th day since the event and you are STILL drunk? The hangover is going to kill you! XD

- Bomb…James Bomb

Edit:

"You think you know, but you don't know, because you don't know, what we know."
"But look at what we know!"
"Are you drunk?"

Rabby, are you doing pennance or sompin? Why all the masochism in the forums lately? Why not just have someone drive some nails into your hands, pin you up in a walmart parking lot, and get it over with already?

You ok buddy?

Stink, please borrow some of Tally's meds, will ya? :P

Anyhow, it appears the String Theory is already under some fire.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000107.html
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000117.html

That's not to say that the whole concept is wrong, but that only certain adjustments to the theory may be required. Aerodynamics had some pretty rough growing pains (while maintaining most of the main concepts) until it settled into the simulated field of study we have now. Or, the whole theory could be wrong....who knows? Fun stuff!

However, there is hope that one might be able to test it after all:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/searching_way_test_string_theory.html?1352004

And that its for my web crawling. G'night!

- Bomb…James Bomb

That's why these things are called theories, not laws.

@44 - Your one liner there says a lot. Now it could be inferred that Christians aren't seeking proof of God, but we would say we already have it in Jesus Christ. Then it becomes a historical arguement rather than a scientific one and one of belief vs unbelief.

@stink - With this thread, I was just trying to show that even in science there are some things that can't be proven with "seeing is believing", but those things are still acceptable within the science community. I was just hoping to inspire a few to realize that if its OK to accept string theory without seeing a string, it might be OK to accept some spiritual concepts without having God come down and sit on the sofa for a little chat. :)

I know rabby, I know...but certainly you have other hobbies, other than trying to convert us all the time? What amazes me is just how resilient you guys are...after the beatings you took in my darwin thread, you come right back looking for another beating...that's masochism, isn't it? But then again, dogs bark, and cats meow...

What was that thing about the pot and kettle?

Stink, I generally like your posts, but you've put yourself on a mini-crusade against Rabban. Its like you're stalking the guy. He puts down one post, and you come in with a tsunami-worth of sarcastic rebuttals within the next 30 minutes. I assure you, he isn't making any more noise than you are.

He found an interesting parallelism between the belief of String Theory and a Superior Being. Yes, there are points and counter-points, and you are free to make them. But there's no need to hassle him about making the post in the first place. It's what we do in a general forum.

Debates are not beatings. I don't see Rabban hiding in a corner over what you say to him any more than I would see you scurrying into shelter because of this post. It ain't masochism, it's just the punches don't stick.

Ah, bugger. This turned out to be a pretty useless post. Sometimes I try to make a point, and it just fizzles like a shizzle. Ah well.

- Bomb…James Bomb

JB: dogs bark and cats meow...

But I will admit that fundie atheist thing set me off...as for me, I don't see the point in rehashing tired, boring, wobbly old arguments under new topic titles. Whats the point? If a guy sees god in everything...hats off to him. But what the hell do the rest of us care?

Why not keep your faith to yourself? Oh, I know: because our presidential monkey has won a mandate to save the world...a mandate he won because of the faithful hoardes...and these faithful bible wackers now feel empowered to sling their considerable girth around...but still get to claim "persecution." if I'm on a crusade, its against these crusaders. You say im attacking rabban, but I'm not...i'm just taking shots at his prosletyzing...and since he's the only one who really prosletyzes...well..there you have it. He comes down from the pulpit, I'm happy...i make all nice. But I don't sit nice while people attack me for not believing in a 3000 year old ghost story.

See what I mean?

JB, just so you know, "bugger" is a serious swear word in the UK. Just so you know.
~DJ Wings~

It is? Which wanker used "bugger"? We need to bugger that tosser...

And JB: dabates often have losers and winners. Some people have been beaten severly in some of our debates. Many of these people have no concept that they have been thrashed...because they aren't really logical or rational people in their core, they don't use logic or reason in debates, and they don't understand when their arguments take a sound thrashing at the hands of more reasonable arguments...so, onward they stumble, into the next "debate" and ply their flimsy wares...combine this with proseltyzing, and I get a tad past squeamish...plus, I been wearing the same skivvies for three days, and I've developed a rash...

But have a look at the opener: it starts out innocently enough...precedes on quit amiably, then seeds of doubt are sown, contradictions are manufactured, a strawman is eventually erected, the bible is summarily, and finally brought in. The air stinks with the scent of a murky equivocation...reason has been trumped for superstition, a kind of musty equilibrium re-attained

And my gag reflex spasms.

And then, in another place...a uncivil "prankish" attack on atheists chock to the brim with sophomoric, theological apologies masked as silliness, and hateful secular smears, are uncloaked.

So I don't sit by and play nice...people who want a culture war skirmish better bring a lunch.

I'm moving to Japan -- too goddamn interesting and charismatic to be sharing only cyberspace with you. Any chance you got a sister? You dress up nice?

Pissed my pants.

I grimmaced...like the first time I saw Tyson's right connect with Spinks' jaw.

A bite to Holyfield's ear.

Ribs crunching.

44: I bet you say that to ALL the atheists....so fresh!!!

Heh, I'll make a deal with you, Stink. Don't tell us to shut up, and we won't tell you to shut up. ;) Everyone has their beliefs. Some are very vocal about it. You, of all people, should know that. :P

Didn't know bu...er was such a bad word. Is it more or less profane than "bloody?"

Anyhow, carry on.

- Bomb…James Bomb

When did I ever tell anyone to shut up? Who am I? Bill O'Reilly? And who is "us" JB? Listen, I didn't start this thread...i was glad to put this topic to rest after the "darwin" thread...but up it pops again. And yeah, I gots a thing or two to say...and I respect that rabban does too. As a matter of fact, I have enjoyed reading his stuff in the past...but proseletyzing...i'm not a fan of. Debasing people because their lack of religious beliefs...yeah, that won't get by me easily. If someone wants to skirmish ala culture wars, and you need a blue state voice, well, I'm all for it.

But I have never told you to shut up. Please make a note of that.

Duly noted. Now shut up. :P

(Time for us to mess with some other thread.)

- Bomb…James Bomb

Wasn't this thread originally about G-Strings?

We quickly buried any concepts of G-Strings as soon as 44 and Stink entered the fray. Don't want to give them any ideas. We have the children to protect, y'know!

- Bomb…James Bomb

As soon as the topic changed from G-Strings to something scientific, I lost interest.

Can we change it back?


_{One for you too, TG}
Napalm

Last edited: Friday, January 07, 2005 at 7:51:14 AM

Nappy, did you take that screen shot of me when you were chasing me in the game last night?

(Nappy... LOL on the yucky guy photo.... Although I swing both ways, I MUCH prefer the sultry photo's of women.... Did you know that I am gay?)

Last edited: Friday, January 07, 2005 at 7:54:53 AM

Oh dear. Men should NOT be wearing G-Strings. That's just wrong! :S I'm not even sure I love the idea of a thin string of material snaking up anyone's butt crack.

Yes, I just wanted to keep some equality although I know this is primarily male community. There’s always pic's of women (which I appreciate) but I try to think of the other side as well. Of course you're not exactly the other side are you? More like the competition.

I also do know about your relationships. As long as you’re happy. Good for you! I should have waited just a bit longer with my tankcam, I believe the threads did hit the floor. But as usual, a g string and steelettos makes me a little trigger happy in anticipation. TT will do that to you.

Napalm

Last edited: Friday, January 07, 2005 at 8:04:04 AM

Ok...i shut up for long enough.

G strings look awful on everybody....nasty ol butt-floss.

Well, I've been mulling this over for a few days and I think my best response is...stink, I think you take me too seriously. I'm just trying to post what interests me and yes, I'm trying to challenge people to revisit their views on faith and other topics just like you like to do. It does seem like you're the one most opposed to what I have to say, and that's fine, but some people enjoy what I post so I don't see a reason to stop being me.

You brought up many points, but here are a few I want to address.

All the time? It may feel like that to you, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Besides, I feel I'm just trying to help people look at spiritual as openly as they might consider other issues of our time.

Don't you mean, "what the hell do I care? Some other folks here in the forums do care, so I don't think you can speak for everyone.

Since you're familiar with Jesus' teachings, then you know its part of my nature to want to share his message with others. You know he's also directed me to do so (not GW) and honestly, if I failed to ever try to share my faith I'd be to falling into that catagory of Christians that you despise so much. Those who claim to know him but fail to follow his teachings. Also, since I believe in my faith, I want them to experience the life and joy I feel as a result of knowing Christ, so why wouldn't I want to share it? Somehow, serving others and loving them has become a bad thing for you. And there's also those in the forums who want to hear or are curious about what I have to say. They're interested. Other believers are encouraged to see someone else sharing their faith, so I'm open for those groups. Besides, why not keep your political views to yourself? ;)

To you, it may seem that way because Christians look at the world in a different way. Sometimes they're not very good at presenting their positions. Just the other day I was watching a little "Bulls**t TV" on winamp hosted by Penn & Teller. They were discussing the evolution vs creation debate going on in some school system and they had video clips presenting the pro-creation side of things. Honestly, it was embarrassing (of course, I'm sure they chose the silliest fundies they could find) to see how the creationists presented their case, but they shouldn't be the leaders of the movement either. There are plenty of bona fide scientists who support creation and its their views on understanding creation that we should be looking at. Anyway, we're talking about completely different secular and spiritual views here, so just because you don't understand it doesn't make it irrational.

But debasing people because of the religious beliefs is ok? :) Look, I'm sorry the fundie atheist thing bothered you so much. I posted it in fun, but to me there was a grain of truth in it as well. There are people here in the forums who fit into some of those descriptions just like there are some here who fit into some of your "colorful" descriptions as well. I'm not trying to put anyone down for any other their beliefs.

Well, here in the forums I do feel like a minority and I feel like I have suffered some persecution via insults, debasement, caricatures and over simplification of my faith. Somehow, Christians are now synonymous with GW. Sure many voted for him, but that doesn't mean we support every single policy or position he takes. I don't think you supported everything Bill did. Do you feel Muslims are synonymous with Osama?

So anyway, I do think you want me to "shut up", at least about matters of faith. Well, I'm not going to do that. If something strikes me as being interesting or someone else brings it up, I'm going to comment on it. So I it guess its "GAME ON!" XD

Last edited: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 8:13:51 AM

Hey, when did you sneak this tidbit in, you ol rascal? FYI: I LIKED it! Very well reasoned! I applaud you, sir. But hey, did Jesus urge folks to proseletize? I don't rember that...hit the Book...quote me sompin...you know ya wanna.

And GDI! I keep saying, I was not a fan of Clinton! I only voted for the guy once! I felt he sold out the working class...didn't do enough for education either...i voted 3rd party the second time around.

In terms of conflating christians with GW: well, you all voted for the rotten liar, didn't you? Clearly, kerry was more Christ-like...that belicose butth*le bush got you all with his showy spirituality, but he's just about as rotten a president as we've ever seen, and certainly subterranean. You think he cares for the poor and the meek? He eats em for lunch...he and his nasty buddies...but all these corn-fed fundies, pasty, bad-hair white breads, all got in their minivans and voted for bush based on their "values." its astounding.

My question: if the GOP can convince the masses to vote for such a moronic, rotten, lying scoundrel like bush, what could they do with a good candidate...say, like mc cain? Of course, mc cain has far too much integrity to have much appeal to the party big wigs...

Anywho...i was a bit insensed by the mean-spirited and unhumorous link you provided...so what? I'm over it...

Pals?

Yes, I want to be your bud. You do recall my entreaty to you to return to PTT after the RWS scandal? I also want mutual respect. So sock it to me! ;)

And since you asked...

So go and make disciples is the last standing order.