How do you disprove physics?

sup guerrilla. ok i have a rule of thumb that i have found to be quite reliable. check it out, goes like this:
people who use the word "they" usually dont know what they're talking about.

i know it sounds like a broad generalization but read some threads about conspiracies and you will see what i mean, its always "they" who are controlling us, or "they" who wage wars, but nobody ever really goes into who "they" are.

so in your post "they" are called theoretical physicist. and i dont think any self respecting theoretical physicist would be brazen enough to say "yea all my theories which have not been tested are absolutely factual."

i think its quite the opposite, if you watch any good documentary or read any good book, everything theoretical physicist say is usually couched with "some scientists believe....yada yada yada" or "this theory says yada yada yada". i have never read or heard any theoretical physicist say "oh i think this is absolutely true becuase yada yada yada...."

and that is the one aspect that makes science diffrent from religion. scientists admit that we do not have absolute knowledge, if data shows that a certain theory is wrong, thats a good thing! it means we can use this data to refine theories and make them even more accurate.

there is also something i didnt like in your post, which is a common misconception about "string theory". string theory arose from mathematics that scientists noticed described our reality better. its a theory but it litterally came from math and logic. a guy didnt just smoke a joint and say "hmm, what if everything is made up of little strings dude....."

i wont emberrase myself and claim that i know the super complex math that goes into string theory but it just pisses me off that people who have no clue behind the math required to come up with these theories try to deny their validity.

 

Still the empirical evidence that strings truly exist within the substance of orderly repetitive correlations of quanta is something they observed.

 

tldr

but i suppose to prove religion above science is to use science against itself

for instance... if they someday prove space is infinite

you should really consider infinity and its relationship with certainty

in an infinite place and time doesn't everything become completely certain? i mean if time and space went on forever...

the probability of anything happen is 'definite'

so god would definitely, eventually, have to exist. sort of

lololololol

 

yeah, i thought about this, if time and space are infinite, it literally means any possibility will eventually come into existance, but doesnt mean that possibility will exist in our current universe. thats where multiverse thoery kicks in, and god could possibly live in a universe with diffrent properties and diffrent physical constants.

 

Aside from diffusing the argument to my perceived poor word choice, (I'm writing on Hip Forums here not for an established journal or article of any sort) The point remains that some of these 'scientific' concepts are being passed off as fact in scientific articles and magazines when they have no supporting observational or empirical data to support them.

The book addresses this issue as well, I just don't feel like writing a book summary here for every point it brings up nor have I have I finished reading the book. I recalled this thread when I was reading the book though and thought to post it in before I forgot. Anyways, the author acknowledges those points however the author suggests that the 'scientists' are using the mathematics to 'fill in' the gaps of any holes than current understanding rather than attempting any empirical observations or data to show for it.

The takeaway I get the book is that some physics is getting more into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy rather than science.

 

i do agree that when people use the word "they" that it's just a paranoid opinions and the person most of the time when challenged cannot provide any real evidence on the subject .. who the fuck is "they" .. good question .. but i just know that "they" are doing this shit, i just know

 

Better be careful of some of the science articles you read then. :daisy:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-multiverse-really-exist/

 

lol i just know they are!! lol

dude, dude, math is the empirical data. and there are also practical experiments. like i said im not an expert and im sure there are people reading this who know more than me (see thats the way real scientists talk), but i know of two mathematical principles that were predicted by string theory and scientists can actually do experiments in real life that prove this.

1. supersymmetry: every boson has a partner (superpartner) that makes up matter. at higher energy scales we should be able to see a pattern of this symmetry emerge. this can be tested and scientists should be able to get emperical data that may prove string theory.
2. more dimensions: many scientists that contributed to string theory kept on discovering new mathematical dimensions to solve equations. these dimensions correctly solved equations and also did not contradict current physics. it was basically all done by math but this mathimatical data is considered emperical data.

either show us these articles where these smug scientists are passing off their untested concepts as facts, or, appologize to all the poor scientists you are slandering.

 

Bro, Bro, I just posted a scientific article where they use the word "they" which is your basis for the lack of validity of an article. I don't feel the need to justify anything else...


Look I've read books by Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, I find the concepts, science and ideas very interesting. For instance in Kaku's book, he talks about the possibility of advanced civilizations, which are categorized by the level of influence they have over the galactic environments. In the most advanced civilization, he lends an idea that they would be able to have such control over galaxies that they would perhaps send material into other universes, that could potentially spawn life in another universe. When I read that, I was in awe as it seemed the most balanced perspective of the ideas of allowing for something like a 'deity' as well as for stuff like emergence and scientific concepts, which is apparent in our universe. I've never said there is anything smug about ideas such as this or theoretical scientists, just as I wouldn't say there is anything smug about Greek philosophers, at the same time I understand the view that theoretical physics is not necessarily subjected to the same rigor of the scientific method as is many other branches of science. (Although I'm sure the mathematics is extremely complex)

So I also find the dissenting opinion in the book which I am currently reading interesting as well. I like science, otherwise I wouldn't spend my time reading it, however I think the book provides a good warning as to not blindly accept everything at face value that falls under the umbrella of science. I think it's good that science not become as dogmatic as religion in it's own way.

 

ok bro ill pass you the peace pipe, but in the future i think one of the basics of logic is that if you say something like "scientists are doing so and so" then you should just show us some examples because im sure it would enlighten us.

i think true scientits should be humble and accept the fact were not dealing with absolutes.

 

For some pertinent articles on the subject, check out:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/16/has-physics-gone-too-far
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.0788.pdf
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.0788.pdf

 

Even in an infinite universe somethings are just infinitely impossible.For God to exist or not exist would be equally amazing.Infinity and finitude are equally impossible.But the idea of infinity and eternity exists in our minds.Does that make them real? Does not life feel like a cosmic universal conspiracy that we just happen to be experiencing for no apparent purpose? If all conscious life on Earth ended,would not the universe become dark,as there would be no beingness to see the light?

 

Well, physics doesn't justify people turning to good over evil, like angels from the government and wicked ISIS can. Thank God the last two aren't proven yet. Thus it is to justify "good" jobs. Maybe in the near future.

 

how lame and asinine.
Who "they" are in GB's post/article is very obviously given in the context.

conspiracy idiots who use "they" or "them" rarely are as clear about who "they" actually are.
That is not the case with the above post.

I have been saying the same thing for years, there is a ton of stuff being presented as "fact" and being accepted as such by the general public, yet are nothing more than theories.
Black holes are a perfect example of this.

 

^
Just like the big bang. We know the universe is expanding but not have the exact fact how it started at all. It is not called a theory for nothing.

 

Why not? What about conservation of energy?

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2014/rxj1131/

On the question of black holes there are observable celestial perturbations that are being named black holes by astrophysicists. These areas of space exist but whether they exist as we think they do is another question.

 

You might mean that physics falsifies the possibility for doing evil instead of good. In any case, is that substantially a true mechanism or syllogistic action? We need a new meaning of energy. Ha, ha, ha,... like God.

 

I say it inductively as seen in redundancy. If I am a substantially true mechanism then yes. Perception is learning and knowledge is being shared.

 

the theory of relativity is also a theory, but it produced predictions that were testable and eventually verified to be true.

same as string theory, same as black holes, same as any other "theory".

and i disagree with your premise that physicists claim that their theories are facts (before they are tested, proven and widely accepted).

i think you would be hard pressed (not saying they dont exist) to find an article where physicists are making a claim that their theories are facts before they are tested and proven.
in fact, i challenge you to find an article and post it here that shows this. the reason why your premis is not true is because when physicists publish a paper, they know that their audience is going to be other physicists, some who are even more educated on the very subject they are writing about.

example: the very articles that okiefreak posted at the top of this page, you will find that they refer to their study as theories, and what they "purport", never referting to their theories as absolutely true, or as fact.

also, if you think black holes are a perfect example of theories presented as fact, you should read up on how they are actually widely accepted by the scientific comunity. in fact if you search "black hole" in google news you will see that they had an article yesterday about NASA finding a supermassive black hole.