Anyone care to post????
Debate Tournament, 3rd Round: JB1 Vs OIMD: The Bermuda Triangle, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 25-7-2003 @ 12:56 AM by onlyinmydreams
Well,
To be frank, I have no idea how to begin responding to John Bull's opener. It was almost like a poem or mystic incantation of some sort... beautiful in many ways... but it gave me nothing to really respond to. I'll grant to JB1 that there may very well be more than 3 or 4 dimensions within the universe... in fact, many leading physicists do, in fact, believe that these extra dimensions are real. However, as JB1 failked to mention, the extra dimenions they describe are not 'alternative realms' that you can fly a plane into. By their very definition, all existing objects must, simultaneously, exist in these dimension, but there is no way for them to be compacted into these dimensions alone. The crux of multi-dimensional theories is that they are all over the place, co-existing with us, but that we cannot detect them because we lack the senses to do so. we are, in effect, 'flatlanders' living on a piece of paper, whom, when the paper folds, still feel that their universe is flat. However, while we cannot detect these dimensions, they are nevertheless a part of the universe, existing within the same space as us... They are not alternate worlds that one can walk into and exist as oneself. To be perfectly clear, dimensions are measurements of time and space, as can be perceived by conscious beings -- they are not self-contained worlds within which things exist in accordance with the four dimensions we are all familiar with. As such, by DEFINITION, there is no 'porthole' in which a plane can fly through an enter another dimension.
So, I concede, right away, that there may be extra dimensions in the universe... it's just that they're 'dimensions' and not self-conatined places. Perhaps this debate should have been entitled "The Bermuda Triangle leads to a parallel universe"...
Anyways, to get back to the Trinagle itself, I've provided, below, a short, easy to read article on it. It comes from PBS and accompanies a TV series called "Savage Seas":
www.pbs.org...
Originally, I had intended to provide links to NOAA -- the agency which is entrusted with keeping accurate navigational and weather records for sailors and airmen -- with the hopes that you could all see that, in looking through their maps, that there was really nothing bizarre going on in the Triangle area... But I realized that many of you are not trained as pilots or sailors. Plus, as a government agency, I knew JB1 could claim that, like the Navy and Coast Guard sites (which both deny that anything weird is going on within the area in question), they were 'conspiring' against thousands of mariners and pilots by hiding 'hazards' from them. As it is, I hope that a PBS series narrated by Leonard Nimoy will convince you: Spock cannot tell a lie, remember?
Again, I grant that ships and planes have been lost in the Triangle area... But so they are lost everywhere. The Great lakes are filled with Iron and wooden hulls... Is there a stargate over Chicago and Milwaukee?
Basically, because a craft is lost, and has not been acounted for, does not mean that it entered some realm that only Star Trek fans or theoretical physicists can describe. If anything, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof--- And there IS NO PROOF or EVIDENCE which points to any craft, in the history of this region, being swallowed up by a black hole or dimensional porthole or whatever. So, not only must JB1 prove that extra dimensions exist as separate, breachable worlds with portholes... he must also prove that such breaches occured with the various craft that have been lost in the Triangle. I'm betting that he can offer no such proof.
Before I hand this back to JB1, I'll admit that there is only circumstantial evidence out there in regards to the loss of the famed "Lost Squadron" of TBF Avengers, or the USS Cyclops many years before... but such lack of direct data does not automatically mean that paranormal or fantastic forces must be at work. As any pilot or sailor knows, bad stuff can happen quickly when you are out alone on the seas or in the sky. As a kayaker, I can attest to about a half dozen times when I was surprised by a sudden storm and almost sank in conditions where my remains would not have been recovered. In short, very earthly events can cause very dramatic, and mysterious, losses.
To be frank, I have no idea how to begin responding to John Bull's opener. It was almost like a poem or mystic incantation of some sort... beautiful in many ways... but it gave me nothing to really respond to. I'll grant to JB1 that there may very well be more than 3 or 4 dimensions within the universe... in fact, many leading physicists do, in fact, believe that these extra dimensions are real. However, as JB1 failked to mention, the extra dimenions they describe are not 'alternative realms' that you can fly a plane into. By their very definition, all existing objects must, simultaneously, exist in these dimension, but there is no way for them to be compacted into these dimensions alone. The crux of multi-dimensional theories is that they are all over the place, co-existing with us, but that we cannot detect them because we lack the senses to do so. we are, in effect, 'flatlanders' living on a piece of paper, whom, when the paper folds, still feel that their universe is flat. However, while we cannot detect these dimensions, they are nevertheless a part of the universe, existing within the same space as us... They are not alternate worlds that one can walk into and exist as oneself. To be perfectly clear, dimensions are measurements of time and space, as can be perceived by conscious beings -- they are not self-contained worlds within which things exist in accordance with the four dimensions we are all familiar with. As such, by DEFINITION, there is no 'porthole' in which a plane can fly through an enter another dimension.
So, I concede, right away, that there may be extra dimensions in the universe... it's just that they're 'dimensions' and not self-conatined places. Perhaps this debate should have been entitled "The Bermuda Triangle leads to a parallel universe"...
Anyways, to get back to the Trinagle itself, I've provided, below, a short, easy to read article on it. It comes from PBS and accompanies a TV series called "Savage Seas":
www.pbs.org...
Originally, I had intended to provide links to NOAA -- the agency which is entrusted with keeping accurate navigational and weather records for sailors and airmen -- with the hopes that you could all see that, in looking through their maps, that there was really nothing bizarre going on in the Triangle area... But I realized that many of you are not trained as pilots or sailors. Plus, as a government agency, I knew JB1 could claim that, like the Navy and Coast Guard sites (which both deny that anything weird is going on within the area in question), they were 'conspiring' against thousands of mariners and pilots by hiding 'hazards' from them. As it is, I hope that a PBS series narrated by Leonard Nimoy will convince you: Spock cannot tell a lie, remember?
Again, I grant that ships and planes have been lost in the Triangle area... But so they are lost everywhere. The Great lakes are filled with Iron and wooden hulls... Is there a stargate over Chicago and Milwaukee?
Basically, because a craft is lost, and has not been acounted for, does not mean that it entered some realm that only Star Trek fans or theoretical physicists can describe. If anything, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof--- And there IS NO PROOF or EVIDENCE which points to any craft, in the history of this region, being swallowed up by a black hole or dimensional porthole or whatever. So, not only must JB1 prove that extra dimensions exist as separate, breachable worlds with portholes... he must also prove that such breaches occured with the various craft that have been lost in the Triangle. I'm betting that he can offer no such proof.
Before I hand this back to JB1, I'll admit that there is only circumstantial evidence out there in regards to the loss of the famed "Lost Squadron" of TBF Avengers, or the USS Cyclops many years before... but such lack of direct data does not automatically mean that paranormal or fantastic forces must be at work. As any pilot or sailor knows, bad stuff can happen quickly when you are out alone on the seas or in the sky. As a kayaker, I can attest to about a half dozen times when I was surprised by a sudden storm and almost sank in conditions where my remains would not have been recovered. In short, very earthly events can cause very dramatic, and mysterious, losses.
reply posted on 25-7-2003 @ 08:10 AM by John bull 1
As everyone can apreciate this is a very difficult subject to describe and if my opening did not make absolutely clear that the dimensions I refered
to were spatial/time dimensions and not alternative realities or Sub-Universes in a Multiverse/Polyverse system then I apologise.It was not my
intention to mislead and I'm sorry if OnlyInMyDreams did not grasp what I was trying to say.
As the amount of Sub-Universes or Alternative Realities is likely to be infinite it would be silly of me to restrict their number to 11.The existence of multiple realities is something I will return to later in the debate.
The existence of atleast 11 dimensions now plays a strong role in current "String Theory" which as everyone here will except is at the cutting edge of theoretical physics.
There are many sites that discuss this on a Google search key words should include "11 dimensions-String theory-spatial-time".Here is a link to one site that may explain it better than I.
www.astronomycafe.net...
It is important that this is not thought of as a crank theory.It is not.It is a corner stone of String Theory.
Now,In the next post I hope to explain how Sub-Atomic Particles have been found to move between our Multiverse system or between Aternative realities which will,I hope, show that the maximum distance between you and any time/place in this Universe is less than the width of a molecule.
However,I must take some time here and now to deal with some of the points OIMD has raised.
If you read carefully what OIMD has already written you will find that he appears to be making a lot of arguments for me.There is a reason for this.There is the argument that OIMD wishes or hopes that I will make and the argument that I am actually making.The one that OIMD wishes I was making is one in which I will rehash lots of stories about mysterious green,hazy lights,Airplanes,and boats disapearing,of a conspiracy to cover up these mysteries.That is not my argument at all and I will not be entering into this argument.
Instead I am basing my argument on science.
The topic of this debate is that the Bermuda Triangle is an Interdimensional Portal.I intend to show this is infact true by.
a)Showing,as I hope I already have,that our perception of the Universe is incomplete and far more complicated than we actually can conceive.
b)Showing that leading quantum phycisists except that matter on a sub-atomic level can and does move,aparently at will,between different realities,or planes.
c)This happens everywhere and all the time including the Bermuda Triangle.
d)The Universe,Existence,Everything(Pick you own word)is by it's nature Interdimensional.
e)So it follows that the Bermuda Triangle is Interdimensional.
f)There is only one portal and it exists everywhere including but not specifically the Bermuda Triangle.
g)Therefore,the Bermuda Triangle is an Interdimensional Portal
Now,OIMD states that I must not only show how this is true but Prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
It is the nature of debate that the burden of proof should fall equally on both of our shoulders.I will indeed endeavour to show as clearly as I can why what I state is infact true but I also expect OIMD to not rely on the preconceptions of those that will read this debate and ultimately judge this debate.I expect OIMD to seek to prove me wrong.
So now that OIMD has a clearer understanding of the argument I am making I hope we can all steer clear of quoting Spock,Captain Kirk,Yoda,or Robbie the Robot.
As the amount of Sub-Universes or Alternative Realities is likely to be infinite it would be silly of me to restrict their number to 11.The existence of multiple realities is something I will return to later in the debate.
The existence of atleast 11 dimensions now plays a strong role in current "String Theory" which as everyone here will except is at the cutting edge of theoretical physics.
There are many sites that discuss this on a Google search key words should include "11 dimensions-String theory-spatial-time".Here is a link to one site that may explain it better than I.
www.astronomycafe.net...
It is important that this is not thought of as a crank theory.It is not.It is a corner stone of String Theory.
Now,In the next post I hope to explain how Sub-Atomic Particles have been found to move between our Multiverse system or between Aternative realities which will,I hope, show that the maximum distance between you and any time/place in this Universe is less than the width of a molecule.
However,I must take some time here and now to deal with some of the points OIMD has raised.
If you read carefully what OIMD has already written you will find that he appears to be making a lot of arguments for me.There is a reason for this.There is the argument that OIMD wishes or hopes that I will make and the argument that I am actually making.The one that OIMD wishes I was making is one in which I will rehash lots of stories about mysterious green,hazy lights,Airplanes,and boats disapearing,of a conspiracy to cover up these mysteries.That is not my argument at all and I will not be entering into this argument.
Instead I am basing my argument on science.
The topic of this debate is that the Bermuda Triangle is an Interdimensional Portal.I intend to show this is infact true by.
a)Showing,as I hope I already have,that our perception of the Universe is incomplete and far more complicated than we actually can conceive.
b)Showing that leading quantum phycisists except that matter on a sub-atomic level can and does move,aparently at will,between different realities,or planes.
c)This happens everywhere and all the time including the Bermuda Triangle.
d)The Universe,Existence,Everything(Pick you own word)is by it's nature Interdimensional.
e)So it follows that the Bermuda Triangle is Interdimensional.
f)There is only one portal and it exists everywhere including but not specifically the Bermuda Triangle.
g)Therefore,the Bermuda Triangle is an Interdimensional Portal
Now,OIMD states that I must not only show how this is true but Prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
It is the nature of debate that the burden of proof should fall equally on both of our shoulders.I will indeed endeavour to show as clearly as I can why what I state is infact true but I also expect OIMD to not rely on the preconceptions of those that will read this debate and ultimately judge this debate.I expect OIMD to seek to prove me wrong.
So now that OIMD has a clearer understanding of the argument I am making I hope we can all steer clear of quoting Spock,Captain Kirk,Yoda,or Robbie the Robot.
reply posted on 25-7-2003 @ 07:52 PM by onlyinmydreams
Well, actually, I understood that 'dimesnions' were just that... measurements of space and time... and so my argument was that a plane couldn't
'fly into' an extra one...
But John Bull1 has done something pretty clever, here. He's not even going to touch tales of ships and airplanes vanishing... instead, he's saying that some theoretical physicists believe that there are extra dimensions THROUGHOUT the universe, and that, as particles MAY be able to cross between them, that the area southwest of Bermuda is, by default, a porthole between dimensions, as all the universe is possibly an interdimensional porthole...
...but that's 'if' the theories that call for extra dimensions are correct...
John Bull1 has dedicated his position to science, and not cute articles about Atlantians from Argosy magazine, a position which brings this debate into the realm of facts and data. He's also challenged me to provide evidence discounting the idea of extra dimensions, which, as the representative of the more conservative argument, here, I am not required to do. Still, I am more than happy to bring up such evidence, as even the most mundane evidence, which, by its nature, makes an entire theory an impossibility, cancels-out even the best, and most poetic, theories.
...Well, basically, the scientific basis for 'extra dimensions' comes out of what is called String Theory, which is an attempt to 'unify' all the forces of nature into one basic equation. To do this, it postulates that extra dimensions exist in a 'curled up' state that we cannot as yet observe. To be honest, I am not versed enough in quantum physics to explain why this must be so, but I do understand that these 'strings' must exist, within our current science, for extra dimensions to exist... and that, in practice, it is string theory that serves as the basis for all hyperdimensional theories.
Now, an effect of these 'strings' of curled extra dimensions is that they MUST distort or alter gravity, itself, at an ultra microscopic scale/level. It is not the case that these 'strings' can exist and not alter gravity... as such alterations are inherently worked into the 'unification' theories that brought about string theory in the first place. So, to clarify, if 'strings' exist, and, in turn, if extra dimensions exist, gravity MUST do weird things at extremely microscopic levels...
The problem is... Gravity doesn't do this. In February, the highly respected, peer-reviewed journal 'Nature' published a paper that carried the results of an experiment in microscopic gravity. Using new technology, the scientists were able to show that, at the levels in which gravity SHOULD magnify due to extra dimensions, it DOESN'T. In fact, it acts pretty much like how Newton, hundreds of years ago, said it should.
Below is a link to an article from 'New Scientist' magazine that sumarizes these findings:
www.newscientist.com...
To be perfectly clear, here, and leave no misunderstandings among readers, this new data disproves the fundamental ideas behind the only scientifically acceptable theories that support the notion of extra dimensions. This is also not old data that the people who created hyper-dimensional theories new about when they created String Theory in the 80s... This is modern data which says that their theories are flatly wrong.
So... Perhaps, after all, JB1 would really like to get back into the world of Commander Spock, Green lights, and Atlantis, as his admirable scientific efforts are, due to scientific data, misguided....
I look forward to hearing about missing ships, now
But John Bull1 has done something pretty clever, here. He's not even going to touch tales of ships and airplanes vanishing... instead, he's saying that some theoretical physicists believe that there are extra dimensions THROUGHOUT the universe, and that, as particles MAY be able to cross between them, that the area southwest of Bermuda is, by default, a porthole between dimensions, as all the universe is possibly an interdimensional porthole...
...but that's 'if' the theories that call for extra dimensions are correct...
John Bull1 has dedicated his position to science, and not cute articles about Atlantians from Argosy magazine, a position which brings this debate into the realm of facts and data. He's also challenged me to provide evidence discounting the idea of extra dimensions, which, as the representative of the more conservative argument, here, I am not required to do. Still, I am more than happy to bring up such evidence, as even the most mundane evidence, which, by its nature, makes an entire theory an impossibility, cancels-out even the best, and most poetic, theories.
...Well, basically, the scientific basis for 'extra dimensions' comes out of what is called String Theory, which is an attempt to 'unify' all the forces of nature into one basic equation. To do this, it postulates that extra dimensions exist in a 'curled up' state that we cannot as yet observe. To be honest, I am not versed enough in quantum physics to explain why this must be so, but I do understand that these 'strings' must exist, within our current science, for extra dimensions to exist... and that, in practice, it is string theory that serves as the basis for all hyperdimensional theories.
Now, an effect of these 'strings' of curled extra dimensions is that they MUST distort or alter gravity, itself, at an ultra microscopic scale/level. It is not the case that these 'strings' can exist and not alter gravity... as such alterations are inherently worked into the 'unification' theories that brought about string theory in the first place. So, to clarify, if 'strings' exist, and, in turn, if extra dimensions exist, gravity MUST do weird things at extremely microscopic levels...
The problem is... Gravity doesn't do this. In February, the highly respected, peer-reviewed journal 'Nature' published a paper that carried the results of an experiment in microscopic gravity. Using new technology, the scientists were able to show that, at the levels in which gravity SHOULD magnify due to extra dimensions, it DOESN'T. In fact, it acts pretty much like how Newton, hundreds of years ago, said it should.
Below is a link to an article from 'New Scientist' magazine that sumarizes these findings:
www.newscientist.com...
To be perfectly clear, here, and leave no misunderstandings among readers, this new data disproves the fundamental ideas behind the only scientifically acceptable theories that support the notion of extra dimensions. This is also not old data that the people who created hyper-dimensional theories new about when they created String Theory in the 80s... This is modern data which says that their theories are flatly wrong.
So... Perhaps, after all, JB1 would really like to get back into the world of Commander Spock, Green lights, and Atlantis, as his admirable scientific efforts are, due to scientific data, misguided....
I look forward to hearing about missing ships, now
reply posted on 26-7-2003 @ 10:30 AM by John bull 1
I'm very pleased that OIMD has given us a link to that article in Nature as it gives me the oportunity to tell a story about a cat(Thereby making my
argument more popular to all animal lovers)Dr Ewin Shroedinger was so frustrated by the perculiarities inherent in scientific experimentation and
observation at a quantum level that he developed this nice little fictional experiment to show it.(no cat is ever put in any danger)
A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, and the geiger-counter detects an alpha particle,a hammer hits a flask of prussic acid (HCN), killing the cat. The paradox lies in the clever coupling of quantum and classical domains. Before the observer opens the box, the cat's fate is tied to the wave function of the atom, which is itself in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus, said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box,"observes'' the cat, and "collapses'' it's wave function.Thereby killing it.
To put it more simply the very act of observing effects the experiment.Sub-atomic particles are so small and sensitive that the act of viewing through an electronic microscope effects any experiment and that is why quantum physics is almosts entirely theoretical.
(nb,No one is quite sure why Shroedinger's cat went so willingly into this box.My own theory,for what it's worth,is that the bell around Shroedinger's cat's neck was forever setting off Pavlov's dog salivating and that the box,with all it's inherent dangers was an effective shelter against a continual stream of drool.)
Now I would like to move on to some experiments and observations that have been made recently.
"Ahhh ha!" I hear you cry "How can I,on the one hand,show how the story of Shroedinger's cat put's any observations on a sub-atomic level in a dubious light,while producing observed sub-atomic reactions to prove my own case."
The answer is quite simple.It is one thing to observe a reaction that remains in the realms of established possibility,it is quite another when a particle,while observed,disappears completely and turns up 5 minutes later in a completely different place.Whether by observing it has effected the experiment or not an effort must still be made to explain the phenomenon which until very recently would have been thought to be impossible.Only String theory has a credible explanation for it.
Here is a link.I apologise for the fact that is so complicated and I've cut and pasted the most relevent section so you don't have to struggle to get there.
instruct.tri-c.edu...
"The seemingly impossible really happens:
(Back to the double slit later.) Nature defies common sense, and this really happens: an electron or other particle can disappear in one location and simultaneously reappear at another location if the wave associated with the particle extends to the other location. After you buy that, we can make sense out of the rest of it. Here are some examples of the disappearing-reappearing magic:"
If you scroll down to that bit and read from there onwards you will understand better what I mean.
String theory has it that the particle moves from one version of reality to another or even exists,perhaps similtaneously in different realities.
I'd like you to imagine an empty circular swimming pool.Now we fill it with water from a large hose into it's centre.The main lights are turned off and and a strip light the diameter of the pool which emits a laser beam the width of a molecule is shone down on into it.A thin sheet of illuminated water is visible but around it it is dark.That thin sheet of illuminated water represents the reality you perceive.Now you have to remember that there has been a lot of energy expended into the water as it filled the pool.The sheet of light appears constant to you yet it's fabric is in flux.Different molecules are being illuminated and others are moving into darkness into unviewed realities.
Now this is only model and one that does not fully describe the complexities of the universe.The swimming pool is finite in size and each molecule would have to be adjacent to every other similtaneously to fully show what I'm trying to show.
Finally,I'd like to comment on OIMD's claim that his standpoint represents conservative science.I would have to agree with him.But I would point out that it has been the case in the past that conservative science has always been left behind.15 years after Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published conservative scientists were still disputing it and so I believe it is the same with String Theory.The number of those that adher to String Theory is growing and those that adher to Field Theory is shrinking
A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, and the geiger-counter detects an alpha particle,a hammer hits a flask of prussic acid (HCN), killing the cat. The paradox lies in the clever coupling of quantum and classical domains. Before the observer opens the box, the cat's fate is tied to the wave function of the atom, which is itself in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus, said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box,"observes'' the cat, and "collapses'' it's wave function.Thereby killing it.
To put it more simply the very act of observing effects the experiment.Sub-atomic particles are so small and sensitive that the act of viewing through an electronic microscope effects any experiment and that is why quantum physics is almosts entirely theoretical.
(nb,No one is quite sure why Shroedinger's cat went so willingly into this box.My own theory,for what it's worth,is that the bell around Shroedinger's cat's neck was forever setting off Pavlov's dog salivating and that the box,with all it's inherent dangers was an effective shelter against a continual stream of drool.)
Now I would like to move on to some experiments and observations that have been made recently.
"Ahhh ha!" I hear you cry "How can I,on the one hand,show how the story of Shroedinger's cat put's any observations on a sub-atomic level in a dubious light,while producing observed sub-atomic reactions to prove my own case."
The answer is quite simple.It is one thing to observe a reaction that remains in the realms of established possibility,it is quite another when a particle,while observed,disappears completely and turns up 5 minutes later in a completely different place.Whether by observing it has effected the experiment or not an effort must still be made to explain the phenomenon which until very recently would have been thought to be impossible.Only String theory has a credible explanation for it.
Here is a link.I apologise for the fact that is so complicated and I've cut and pasted the most relevent section so you don't have to struggle to get there.
instruct.tri-c.edu...
"The seemingly impossible really happens:
(Back to the double slit later.) Nature defies common sense, and this really happens: an electron or other particle can disappear in one location and simultaneously reappear at another location if the wave associated with the particle extends to the other location. After you buy that, we can make sense out of the rest of it. Here are some examples of the disappearing-reappearing magic:"
If you scroll down to that bit and read from there onwards you will understand better what I mean.
String theory has it that the particle moves from one version of reality to another or even exists,perhaps similtaneously in different realities.
I'd like you to imagine an empty circular swimming pool.Now we fill it with water from a large hose into it's centre.The main lights are turned off and and a strip light the diameter of the pool which emits a laser beam the width of a molecule is shone down on into it.A thin sheet of illuminated water is visible but around it it is dark.That thin sheet of illuminated water represents the reality you perceive.Now you have to remember that there has been a lot of energy expended into the water as it filled the pool.The sheet of light appears constant to you yet it's fabric is in flux.Different molecules are being illuminated and others are moving into darkness into unviewed realities.
Now this is only model and one that does not fully describe the complexities of the universe.The swimming pool is finite in size and each molecule would have to be adjacent to every other similtaneously to fully show what I'm trying to show.
Finally,I'd like to comment on OIMD's claim that his standpoint represents conservative science.I would have to agree with him.But I would point out that it has been the case in the past that conservative science has always been left behind.15 years after Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published conservative scientists were still disputing it and so I believe it is the same with String Theory.The number of those that adher to String Theory is growing and those that adher to Field Theory is shrinking
reply posted on 26-7-2003 @ 11:01 PM by onlyinmydreams
Hold the train, here...
JB1 says that he's not going to wage a debate on the basis of fanciful stories and that he will use science to prove his position, yet he has now made an argument to the effect that 'just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it's not there. Well... Science is all about observation and understanding the world based on deductions which can be made from these observations... It is NOT about coming up with a theory that 'explains everything', then, when evidence has been uncovered that completely undermines this theory, saying that it must be correct because it 'explains everything.' To be frank, not only is such thinking circular and without any type of archimedian point, it borders on religious mysticism.
Yes, religion. String theory is closer to religious dogma than hard science simply because it is based on 'transcendant' (just to be clear, I use that word mockingly, here) knowledge that has not been supported by real-world data, with said 'knowledge' being presumed to be true simply because it sounds nice... it 'explains everything.' Like a religion, or cult, in this case, it commands followers who believe in the 'explanation' for everything more than they believe in every 'thing.'
JB1 has, here, stated that he can prove, scientifically, that the Bermuda Tringale is an interdimensional porthole. He has based his argument on a scientific theory... But this theory, it turns-out, is based entirely on something that people want to be true. It is a theory that came about so as to achive a goal (unifying all known physical forces), but not so as to explain something that had been observed, and, as such, its supporters can say anything, or make any argument, to protect it simply because it is ALL argument, and no hard facts.
And, now, JB1 has asked you all to ignore data simply because, all of the sudden, the universe cannot be observed! Is that science or Hindu mysticism?
Below is a link to a web page from 'Nature' that also links to the paper I mentioned before. The author puts it best when he says something to the effect of, "String Theory is the best candidate for a theory of unification, yet in terms of evidence it is lacking":
www.nature.com...
Like JB1's stories above, String theory is just a story. It is no different than the tale of Paul Bunyan. Early settlers invented Paul Bunyan as a way to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon to their children. The canyon is a huge cut into the Earth, so somone had to cut it, right? In the same way, String theory would have us believe that, since the forces of the universe are believed to be linked, somehow, and as bundles of extra dimension would do that, these extra dimensions must exist. Right?
But I have made a mistake, here, too...
There is shame on me for failing to notice that the way JB1 is using String theory is, really, no different than the one, discredited by both sides, here, that would have you believe that an airplane can fly into 'another dimension'. What I failed to notice is that JB1 is making that argument, which he himself thought I was trying to rope him into, but at a microscopic level, as he is saying that particles can go back and forth between our dimensions and the 'stringed' ones. remember his comments about how all the universe was an 'interdimensional porthole' because particles could appear and dissapear within it? Well, in essence, a particle that can, somehow, 'go' between invisible multi-dimensional strings and the three dimensional normal world is just like a plane that is traversing between two different realms of existence -- Or atleast it is like that in JB1's reasoning.
Besides all the things I've said before about how an object can't 'go into' a dimension, the String theory which JB1 is relying upon, itself, does not show how such a thing can be possible. This is because String theory holds that all of the universe is composed of strings, which are themselves bundles of dimensions that have 'nothing' within them. That is, under the theory, strings ARE the universe (you, me, my computer, etc.). So, how can a particle go 'between' the world of strings and the regular world if one is composed of the other? Again, a string isn't some 'other place' or 'sinkhole' or microscopic black hole... It is the building material of the universe itself. Saying that a particle can go in and out of a string is like saying that I can go in and out of my own cells.
The key, here, is the 'porthole' aspect of this debate. There may very well be other, unknown, dimensions, but I have yet to see JB1 show how things can go in and out of them... or between them.
JB1 says that he's not going to wage a debate on the basis of fanciful stories and that he will use science to prove his position, yet he has now made an argument to the effect that 'just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it's not there. Well... Science is all about observation and understanding the world based on deductions which can be made from these observations... It is NOT about coming up with a theory that 'explains everything', then, when evidence has been uncovered that completely undermines this theory, saying that it must be correct because it 'explains everything.' To be frank, not only is such thinking circular and without any type of archimedian point, it borders on religious mysticism.
Yes, religion. String theory is closer to religious dogma than hard science simply because it is based on 'transcendant' (just to be clear, I use that word mockingly, here) knowledge that has not been supported by real-world data, with said 'knowledge' being presumed to be true simply because it sounds nice... it 'explains everything.' Like a religion, or cult, in this case, it commands followers who believe in the 'explanation' for everything more than they believe in every 'thing.'
JB1 has, here, stated that he can prove, scientifically, that the Bermuda Tringale is an interdimensional porthole. He has based his argument on a scientific theory... But this theory, it turns-out, is based entirely on something that people want to be true. It is a theory that came about so as to achive a goal (unifying all known physical forces), but not so as to explain something that had been observed, and, as such, its supporters can say anything, or make any argument, to protect it simply because it is ALL argument, and no hard facts.
And, now, JB1 has asked you all to ignore data simply because, all of the sudden, the universe cannot be observed! Is that science or Hindu mysticism?
Below is a link to a web page from 'Nature' that also links to the paper I mentioned before. The author puts it best when he says something to the effect of, "String Theory is the best candidate for a theory of unification, yet in terms of evidence it is lacking":
www.nature.com...
Like JB1's stories above, String theory is just a story. It is no different than the tale of Paul Bunyan. Early settlers invented Paul Bunyan as a way to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon to their children. The canyon is a huge cut into the Earth, so somone had to cut it, right? In the same way, String theory would have us believe that, since the forces of the universe are believed to be linked, somehow, and as bundles of extra dimension would do that, these extra dimensions must exist. Right?
But I have made a mistake, here, too...
There is shame on me for failing to notice that the way JB1 is using String theory is, really, no different than the one, discredited by both sides, here, that would have you believe that an airplane can fly into 'another dimension'. What I failed to notice is that JB1 is making that argument, which he himself thought I was trying to rope him into, but at a microscopic level, as he is saying that particles can go back and forth between our dimensions and the 'stringed' ones. remember his comments about how all the universe was an 'interdimensional porthole' because particles could appear and dissapear within it? Well, in essence, a particle that can, somehow, 'go' between invisible multi-dimensional strings and the three dimensional normal world is just like a plane that is traversing between two different realms of existence -- Or atleast it is like that in JB1's reasoning.
Besides all the things I've said before about how an object can't 'go into' a dimension, the String theory which JB1 is relying upon, itself, does not show how such a thing can be possible. This is because String theory holds that all of the universe is composed of strings, which are themselves bundles of dimensions that have 'nothing' within them. That is, under the theory, strings ARE the universe (you, me, my computer, etc.). So, how can a particle go 'between' the world of strings and the regular world if one is composed of the other? Again, a string isn't some 'other place' or 'sinkhole' or microscopic black hole... It is the building material of the universe itself. Saying that a particle can go in and out of a string is like saying that I can go in and out of my own cells.
The key, here, is the 'porthole' aspect of this debate. There may very well be other, unknown, dimensions, but I have yet to see JB1 show how things can go in and out of them... or between them.
reply posted on 27-7-2003 @ 09:36 AM by John bull 1
First let me say that the story of Shroedinger's cat is not the product of my own fertile imagination.It was developed by Dr Ewin Shroedinger to give
vent to the frustrations he felt when dealing with matter at a quantum level.I sense those same frustrations in the tenor of OIMD last post.It is
frustrating.Science isn't mean't to be this way we are taught at school but that is how it is.
OIMD says that String Theory is unproven and he is correct.
Dr Stephen Hawking,probably the most esteemed theoretical scientists of our time,agrees,atleast on that point, with OIMD.He says that although String Theory has come along way in the last 20 years it still remains unproven and that it could take a further 20 years before it will be proven.
Notice that he does not agree with OIMD that it is fantasy.He believes and even expects that the theory will prove to better explain the Universe than present "conservative" theory.
www.space.com...
So what heinous crime has String Theory committed?
Well it is able to explain everything that "Conservative" Theory does and where "Conservative" theory ceases to work it offers credible if as yet unproven answers.String Theory's crime is to offer answers where "Conservative"Theory fails.
Think about that for a moment.
Sub Atomic particles have been observed to disappear.That is a fact.
It is the nature of quantum mechanics that Sub Atomic particles do not follow the Physical laws that govern classical science,fact.
I am not trying to show that an Airplane can disappear.I said early on I wouldn't do that and I am not.I am saying that sub atomic particles do disappear.
But do they disappear??
If you and I were sitting in my living room watching TV and you turned around and saw I was no longer there and then 2 minutes later you turned around and I was there again.Would you say I had disappeared?Or would you look at the 2 beers I have in my hand and guess I'd walked into the kitchen, opened the refridgerator ,and brought back a cold beveredge for us both?
It is not that I had disappeared only that you were no longer able to perceive me.
It is the same with the particles that have been observed to disappear.They still exist.They just temporarily exist in a reality we are unable to perceive.
I'd hoped that my opening statement would show that we do not perceive everything.
Many scientist now believe that we perceive only one of an infinite number of alternative realities.An infinite number of those you would perceive to be no different from this one.On the other hand an infinite number would be different.There would be a reality that represented every choice you had ever made.Ones where Elvis is still churning out hits and less fortunately dodgy movies.Ones where Hitler won the Second World War.Our consciousness anchors us to our reality.But sub atomic particles are not anchored and they slip effortlessly between these alternative realities.
Now OIMD says that the key to this debate is the "Porthole" aspect.By this he means Portal but I except the words are interchangable.Porthole,Portal,Door,Gate,Cat Flap.I'm happy with any word as long as it is excepted that we are placing a name on something we are unable to perceive.Therefore we should not be looking for a phenomenon that has the physical characteristics of a Porthole or Door.I don't want this debate to slide into a battle over semantics.I don't want OIMD to say that what I describe is not a Porthole because it has no frame or handle.
I would also ask readers to put out of their minds images that they may have of what a Portal looks like.I'm as big a fan of StarGate as any one else but the reality is nothing like it.
A sailor in a yacht may sail from the Pacific Ocean across into the Indian Ocean and not know that he has crossed over.
So I will give you my word.OIMD has Porthole.I will give you Threshold
OIMD says that String Theory is unproven and he is correct.
Dr Stephen Hawking,probably the most esteemed theoretical scientists of our time,agrees,atleast on that point, with OIMD.He says that although String Theory has come along way in the last 20 years it still remains unproven and that it could take a further 20 years before it will be proven.
Notice that he does not agree with OIMD that it is fantasy.He believes and even expects that the theory will prove to better explain the Universe than present "conservative" theory.
www.space.com...
So what heinous crime has String Theory committed?
Well it is able to explain everything that "Conservative" Theory does and where "Conservative" theory ceases to work it offers credible if as yet unproven answers.String Theory's crime is to offer answers where "Conservative"Theory fails.
Think about that for a moment.
Sub Atomic particles have been observed to disappear.That is a fact.
It is the nature of quantum mechanics that Sub Atomic particles do not follow the Physical laws that govern classical science,fact.
I am not trying to show that an Airplane can disappear.I said early on I wouldn't do that and I am not.I am saying that sub atomic particles do disappear.
But do they disappear??
If you and I were sitting in my living room watching TV and you turned around and saw I was no longer there and then 2 minutes later you turned around and I was there again.Would you say I had disappeared?Or would you look at the 2 beers I have in my hand and guess I'd walked into the kitchen, opened the refridgerator ,and brought back a cold beveredge for us both?
It is not that I had disappeared only that you were no longer able to perceive me.
It is the same with the particles that have been observed to disappear.They still exist.They just temporarily exist in a reality we are unable to perceive.
I'd hoped that my opening statement would show that we do not perceive everything.
Many scientist now believe that we perceive only one of an infinite number of alternative realities.An infinite number of those you would perceive to be no different from this one.On the other hand an infinite number would be different.There would be a reality that represented every choice you had ever made.Ones where Elvis is still churning out hits and less fortunately dodgy movies.Ones where Hitler won the Second World War.Our consciousness anchors us to our reality.But sub atomic particles are not anchored and they slip effortlessly between these alternative realities.
Now OIMD says that the key to this debate is the "Porthole" aspect.By this he means Portal but I except the words are interchangable.Porthole,Portal,Door,Gate,Cat Flap.I'm happy with any word as long as it is excepted that we are placing a name on something we are unable to perceive.Therefore we should not be looking for a phenomenon that has the physical characteristics of a Porthole or Door.I don't want this debate to slide into a battle over semantics.I don't want OIMD to say that what I describe is not a Porthole because it has no frame or handle.
I would also ask readers to put out of their minds images that they may have of what a Portal looks like.I'm as big a fan of StarGate as any one else but the reality is nothing like it.
A sailor in a yacht may sail from the Pacific Ocean across into the Indian Ocean and not know that he has crossed over.
So I will give you my word.OIMD has Porthole.I will give you Threshold
Pages: ^^TOP^^
