Discussion:
The Exact Age of the Earth is . . .
(too old to reply)
Andrew
2016-06-16 03:53:42 UTC
Permalink
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.

Now you know.
MarkA
2016-06-16 12:44:37 UTC
Permalink
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Here, Andrew beautifully illustrates the difference between the scientist
and the religionist. A scientist looks at the Universe as a giant
puzzle, that can be unraveled, in tiny, incremental bites, to reveal a
grandeur far beyond that which our puny minds can imagine. A religionist
seeks to console himself by making up shallow, easy answers, then
vigorously defends them against scrutiny. Religion ruled the world for
thousands of years, before the scientific technique was developed.
During that time, people were tortured and executed for not worshiping
the right god. Children as young as 9 years old were burned at the stake
for "witchcraft". People with epilepsy and autism were thought to be
possessed by demons. Many areas of intellectual inquiry were banned.

Science has shown us that the Universe is indifferent to our existence.
We are but a speck against the tapestry of a time and space that is vast
beyond imagining. Some people find that terrifying. The scientist finds
it exhilarating.

Science rocks.
--
MarkA

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near
impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -- Bill Murray
Andrew
2016-06-16 14:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed
from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Here, Andrew beautifully illustrates the difference between the scientist
and the religionist. A scientist looks at the Universe as a giant
puzzle, that can be unraveled, in tiny, incremental bites, to reveal a
grandeur far beyond that which our puny minds can imagine.
That is what they must testify to.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one." ~ Charles Darwin

Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as
the masterful creator whose existence could not be
denied, in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
http://bit.ly/n3BGiO

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests
that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as
well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are
no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. . . . .

"The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to
me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." ~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
http://alturl.com/ubrdt


"In the beginning God created the
heavens and the Earth." ~ Genesis

"All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything
made that was made."
~ Word of the Living God
MarkA
2016-06-16 20:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by MarkA
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Here, Andrew beautifully illustrates the difference between the
scientist and the religionist. A scientist looks at the Universe as a
giant puzzle, that can be unraveled, in tiny, incremental bites, to
reveal a grandeur far beyond that which our puny minds can imagine.
That is what they must testify to.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one." ~ Charles Darwin
Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as the masterful
creator whose existence could not be denied, in the face of the
grandeur of all creation.
http://bit.ly/n3BGiO
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests
that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. . . . .
"The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to
me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
http://alturl.com/ubrdt
"In the beginning God created the
heavens and the Earth." ~ Genesis
"All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made that was made."
~ Word of the Living God
You forgot one:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
--
MarkA

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. - Arthur Conan Doyle
Les Hellawell
2016-06-17 07:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Andrew
Post by MarkA
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Here, Andrew beautifully illustrates the difference between the
scientist and the religionist. A scientist looks at the Universe as a
giant puzzle, that can be unraveled, in tiny, incremental bites, to
reveal a grandeur far beyond that which our puny minds can imagine.
That is what they must testify to.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one." ~ Charles Darwin
Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as the masterful
creator whose existence could not be denied, in the face of the
grandeur of all creation.
http://bit.ly/n3BGiO
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests
that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. . . . .
"The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to
me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
http://alturl.com/ubrdt
"In the beginning God created the
heavens and the Earth." ~ Genesis
Does the chap who wrote this explain how he knows?
Post by MarkA
Post by Andrew
"All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made that was made."
~ Word of the Living God
Who was this 'living god' referring to when he wrote these
words?
Post by MarkA
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
Les Hellawell
Greeting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote:
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense
Andrew
2016-06-17 13:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Andrew
Post by MarkA
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Here, Andrew beautifully illustrates the difference between the
scientist and the religionist. A scientist looks at the Universe as a
giant puzzle, that can be unraveled, in tiny, incremental bites, to
reveal a grandeur far beyond that which our puny minds can imagine.
That is what they must testify to.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one." ~ Charles Darwin
Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as the masterful
creator whose existence could not be denied, in the face of the
grandeur of all creation.
http://bit.ly/n3BGiO
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests
that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. . . . .
"The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to
me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." ~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
http://alturl.com/ubrdt
"In the beginning God created the
heavens and the Earth." ~ Genesis
"All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made that was made."
~ Word of the Living God
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be
dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens
Yes, but there is a whole bunch of evidence.

"The numbers one calculates from the facts seem
to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion
almost beyond question." ~ astrophysicist
duke
2016-06-16 21:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
Yep, roughly 4.5 billion years.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ted&Alice
2016-06-18 02:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
Andrew
2016-06-18 10:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the
definition of "age"?
There was a beginning. The difference between
the beginning and now is the age of our planet.

Also the beginning was a creation by a most
awesome and wonderful Creator --->GOD.
Malte Runz
2016-06-18 19:53:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 03:53:08 -0700, "Andrew" <***@usa.net>
wrote:

(snip)
Post by Andrew
--->GOD.
Sticking it to God!
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2016-06-18 21:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Andrew
--->GOD.
Sticking it to God!
Our most wonderful Creator.
Learn of Him, and prepare
now to meet Him in peace.
Malte Runz
2016-06-18 23:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Andrew
--->GOD.
Sticking it to God!
Our most wonderful Creator.
Learn of Him, and prepare
now to meet Him in peace.
Or else He'll be sticking it to me. Got it!
--
Malte Runz
Gordon
2016-06-18 13:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-18 14:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale.
Idiot.
Post by Gordon
Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-18 22:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-20 23:49:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-21 00:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong. Gordon
Sometimes, the best response is "what a fucking moron".
Smiler
2016-06-21 00:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong in everything you believe.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-21 01:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong in everything you believe.
His mindless nonsense has been debunked over and over again, but it
goes in one ear and out the other,
Smiler
2016-06-21 10:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from
its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of
God information pertaining to the creation was given in the
vernacular of God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The
scientific understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of
years, on our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it.
Why is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong in everything you believe.
His mindless nonsense has been debunked over and over again, but it goes
in one ear and out the other,
There's nothing in between to stop it.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Masked Avenger
2016-06-21 12:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has elapsed from its
creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong in everything you believe.
His mindless nonsense has been debunked over and over again, but it
goes in one ear and out the other,
geez .... I leave Usenet for 10 years ...come back and Andrew ( & Duke et al )is STILL babbling the SAME bullshit ... sigh ....
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-21 04:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's time
scale, eternity, and our time scale are not the same. The Word of God
information pertaining to the creation was given in the vernacular of
God's time scale...6,000 years or some such. The scientific
understanding of the creation is expressed in billions of years, on
our time scale. Gordon
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. Show me where I'm wrong. Gordon
Everything you write. You have NEVER provided evidence for anything you
have ever written.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Malte Runz
2016-06-21 19:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...

(snip)
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. ...
'Error'. Singular.
Post by Gordon
... Show me where I'm wrong.
You mean you didn't know?
--
Malte Runz
Gordon
2016-06-21 20:38:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
You keep posting this idiocy and never provide any evidence for it. Why
is that?
Point out the specific errors. ...
'Error'. Singular.
Post by Gordon
... Show me where I'm wrong.
You mean you didn't know?
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-21 20:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?


It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-21 21:05:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-21 22:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-21 23:21:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;

http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/

There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-21 23:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.

Don't you know the difference?
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-21 23:57:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of "age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's ...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-22 05:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?

If not, posting it is stupid.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-22 14:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String -
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-22 16:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about.
Of course it does, imbecile. It means you have no idea what you are
talking about.

Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.

It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.

There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.

Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
Gordon
2016-06-22 19:58:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about.
Of course it does, imbecile. It means you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
the·o·ry. ['THire] NOUN

• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:
"a theory of education"

• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of
action: "My theory would be that the place has been seriously
mismanaged"

• mathematics
a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a
subject.

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a mental scheme of something to be
done): via late Latin from Greek theoria ‘contemplation, speculation,’
from theoros ‘spectator.’

RELATED FORMS theory (noun) theories (plural noun)
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-22 20:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about.
Of course it does, imbecile. It means you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
the·o·ry. ['THire] NOUN
• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
And you know perfectly well that Darwin's theory of evolution is the
explanation for the fact of evolution, which had already been known
since the 1700s.
Post by Gordon
synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition
Wrong.
Post by Gordon
"a theory of education"
Provide as much evidence for strings as there is for either evolution
or education, and stop being so deliberately and button-pushingly
dishonest.
Post by Gordon
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of
action: "My theory would be that the place has been seriously
mismanaged"
Idiot.
Post by Gordon
• mathematics
a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a
subject.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a mental scheme of something to be
done): via late Latin from Greek theoria ‘contemplation, speculation,’
from theoros ‘spectator.’
So fucking what?
Post by Gordon
RELATED FORMS theory (noun) theories (plural noun)
Why do you keep pretending that strings are anything more than
speculation?
Gordon
2016-06-25 15:01:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:08:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
the·o·ry. ['THire] NOUN
• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
And you know perfectly well that Darwin's theory of evolution is the
explanation for the fact of evolution, which had already been known
since the 1700s.
Of course Darwin's theory of evolution has now been proven, but there
was a time when it was NOT yet proven. Where would we be today had all
scientists rejected any idea that has not yet been proven? Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition
Wrong.
Post by Gordon
"a theory of education"
Provide as much evidence for strings as there is for either evolution
or education, and stop being so deliberately and button-pushingly
dishonest.
As in the development and acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution,
early on, the evidence for strings, super strings, membranes, etc.,
has not yet been worked out, but it may be worked out sometime in the
future. Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of
action: "My theory would be that the place has been seriously
mismanaged"
Idiot.
Post by Gordon
• mathematics
a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a
subject.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a mental scheme of something to be
done): via late Latin from Greek theoria ‘contemplation, speculation,’
from theoros ‘spectator.’
So fucking what?
Post by Gordon
RELATED FORMS theory (noun) theories (plural noun)
Why do you keep pretending that strings are anything more than
speculation?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-25 20:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:08:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
the·o·ry. ['THire] NOUN
• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
And you know perfectly well that Darwin's theory of evolution is the
explanation for the fact of evolution, which had already been known
since the 1700s.
Of course Darwin's theory of evolution has now been proven, but there
was a time when it was NOT yet proven. Where would we be today had all
scientists rejected any idea that has not yet been proven? Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition
Wrong.
Post by Gordon
"a theory of education"
Provide as much evidence for strings as there is for either evolution
or education, and stop being so deliberately and button-pushingly
dishonest.
As in the development and acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution,
early on, the evidence for strings, super strings, membranes, etc.,
has not yet been worked out, but it may be worked out sometime in the
future. Gordo
Idiot.

Was that meant to be the evidence you were suppose de to be providing?

Evolution had already been acknowledged by those in the relevant
fields since the late 1700s, originally from the observation of change
and divergence in the fossil record.

Darwin's theory that explained it, was based on objective evidence,
and has had more than a century and a half of validation since it was
published.

String theory was plucked out of somebody's arse and is _still_ no
more than speculation.

Why do you keep pretending you don't understand the difference?
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of
action: "My theory would be that the place has been seriously
mismanaged"
Idiot.
Post by Gordon
• mathematics
a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a
subject.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a mental scheme of something to be
done): via late Latin from Greek theoria ‘contemplation, speculation,’
from theoros ‘spectator.’
So fucking what?
Post by Gordon
RELATED FORMS theory (noun) theories (plural noun)
Why do you keep pretending that strings are anything more than
speculation?
Well, moron?
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-26 00:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:08:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
the·o·ry. ['THire] NOUN
• a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
And you know perfectly well that Darwin's theory of evolution is the
explanation for the fact of evolution, which had already been known
since the 1700s.
Of course Darwin's theory of evolution has now been proven, but there
was a time when it was NOT yet proven. Where would we be today had all
scientists rejected any idea that has not yet been proven? Gordon
Do you really think that piece of idiotic dishonesty is going to fly
here?
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Malte Runz
2016-06-22 20:12:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about.
Of course it does, imbecile. It means you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
***
9. Discussion and Conclusions
To embed WittenÂ’s eleven dimensional M-theory we
require 242 dimensions. The eleven dimensional spacetime
of M-theory, if regarded as solid spacetime is thus
puffed up to a 242 fractal-like spacetime. It is intuitively
obvious that as a measure of the sparseness of this space,
the ratio of 11 to 242 equals 1 22 is an excellent characterization
of the amount of voids containing no space
and no time and which is merely there to simulate
Euclidean continuity and smoothness. [...]
***
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
But maybe God resides in the space- and timeless voids, and is only
there to simulate design!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
There is the possibility that he hasn't understood the explanation.
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-22 20:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:12:30 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true, but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about.
Of course it does, imbecile. It means you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Which we have known for years,
Post by Gordon
It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
***
9. Discussion and Conclusions
To embed WittenÂ’s eleven dimensional M-theory we
require 242 dimensions. The eleven dimensional spacetime
of M-theory, if regarded as solid spacetime is thus
puffed up to a 242 fractal-like spacetime. It is intuitively
obvious that as a measure of the sparseness of this space,
the ratio of 11 to 242 equals 1 22 is an excellent characterization
of the amount of voids containing no space
and no time and which is merely there to simulate
Euclidean continuity and smoothness. [...]
***
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
But maybe God resides in the space- and timeless voids, and is only
there to simulate design!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
There is the possibility that he hasn't understood the explanation.
He could have asked, and the discussion would have proceeded - but
none of these morons ever do, they ignore it, repeat their nonsense as
if it were undisputed and attack us for not accepting it.
Gordon
2016-06-25 14:56:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:20:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:12:30 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip> It matters that
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
***
9. Discussion and Conclusions
To embed WittenÂ’s eleven dimensional M-theory we
require 242 dimensions. The eleven dimensional spacetime
of M-theory, if regarded as solid spacetime is thus
puffed up to a 242 fractal-like spacetime. It is intuitively
obvious that as a measure of the sparseness of this space,
the ratio of 11 to 242 equals 1 22 is an excellent characterization
of the amount of voids containing no space
and no time and which is merely there to simulate
Euclidean continuity and smoothness. [...]
***
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
But maybe God resides in the space- and timeless voids, and is only
there to simulate design!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
There is the possibility that he hasn't understood the explanation.
He could have asked, and the discussion would have proceeded - but
none of these morons ever do, they ignore it, repeat their nonsense as
if it were undisputed and attack us for not accepting it.
And, since you reject this set of ideas, they surely must be
completely wrong, huh??? Where would we be if ALL people in the
scientific realm rejected any and all ideas that haven't been proven?
Would any new ideas ever be proven? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-25 20:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:20:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:12:30 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip> It matters that
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
***
9. Discussion and Conclusions
To embed WittenÂ’s eleven dimensional M-theory we
require 242 dimensions. The eleven dimensional spacetime
of M-theory, if regarded as solid spacetime is thus
puffed up to a 242 fractal-like spacetime. It is intuitively
obvious that as a measure of the sparseness of this space,
the ratio of 11 to 242 equals 1 22 is an excellent characterization
of the amount of voids containing no space
and no time and which is merely there to simulate
Euclidean continuity and smoothness. [...]
***
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
But maybe God resides in the space- and timeless voids, and is only
there to simulate design!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
There is the possibility that he hasn't understood the explanation.
He could have asked, and the discussion would have proceeded - but
none of these morons ever do, they ignore it, repeat their nonsense as
if it were undisputed and attack us for not accepting it.
And, since you reject this set of ideas,
"ideas" for which there is no rationale, in-your-face liar who needs
to pretend that all ideas are of equal validity.
Post by Gordon
they surely must be
completely wrong, huh???
Where did I say that, pathological liar?
Post by Gordon
Where would we be if ALL people in the
scientific realm rejected any and all ideas that haven't been proven?
They reject the ones which have no justification, deliberate liar.
Post by Gordon
Would any new ideas ever be proven? Gordon
Why do you reduce everything to "ideas", pathological liar?

Is it so you can equivocate?

You know perfectly well that science investigates "ideas" that are
derived from objective evidence.

String theory isn't one of these, and as such it is nothing more than
speculation.

Relativity was derived from observation, and it _still_ wasn't
accepted until it was verified.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-26 00:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:20:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:12:30 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:00:27 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<snip> It matters that
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
It's only a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one -
which has been explained over and over again.
It has not gone beyond the level of speculation.
***
9. Discussion and Conclusions
To embed WittenÂ’s eleven dimensional M-theory we
require 242 dimensions. The eleven dimensional spacetime
of M-theory, if regarded as solid spacetime is thus
puffed up to a 242 fractal-like spacetime. It is intuitively
obvious that as a measure of the sparseness of this space,
the ratio of 11 to 242 equals 1 22 is an excellent characterization
of the amount of voids containing no space
and no time and which is merely there to simulate
Euclidean continuity and smoothness. [...]
***
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no evidence for its claims - and until there is, it won't
get beyond that level.
But maybe God resides in the space- and timeless voids, and is only
there to simulate design!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you pretend this hasn't been explained to you many, many, many
times?
There is the possibility that he hasn't understood the explanation.
He could have asked, and the discussion would have proceeded - but
none of these morons ever do, they ignore it, repeat their nonsense as
if it were undisputed and attack us for not accepting it.
And, since you reject this set of ideas, they surely must be
completely wrong, huh??? Where would we be if ALL people in the
scientific realm rejected any and all ideas that haven't been proven?
Would any new ideas ever be proven? Gordon
Oh, lookie, Gordie's got a new dishonest tactic. I wonder whom he stole
it from, what creationist website.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-22 23:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that
God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true,
but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these
theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super
String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-06-23 18:01:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that
God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true,
but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these
theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super
String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing
some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory. I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-23 18:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:59:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:48:28 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:48:09 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:04:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:54:47 GMT, Ted&Alice
Post by Ted&Alice
Post by Andrew
The age of the earth is exactly the time that has
elapsed from its creation..until this present day.
Now you know.
What did you tell us, Andrew, apart from the definition of
"age"?
This all fits together very well if we keep in mind that
God's
...
When you allow divine omnipotence, magic, to enter the equation,
everything becomes possible. Whatever comes next might be true,
but
there is no way to test whether it is or not. So ...
Do you know of any scientific theory that has not yet been
objectively
tested and proven? Do you have any "faith" in any of these
theories,
even though objective proof is not currently available. Super
String
-
Membrane (SS-M) Theory is an example of this. Many
scientists/mathematicians are actively involved in developing
some
means for proving SS-M Theory but so far this has not been
accomplished. Should everyone toss SS-M Theory and other such
unproven
theories in the garbage bin and reject them? Gordon
Super-string is NOT a theory, you fucking lying idiot, and you've
had
this explained to you hundreds of times so why do you continue to
lie
about it?
It's a speculation, maybe a hypothesis. based upon evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Give me a scientific paper that calls it a theory and you might have
something.
Here is a good place to start;
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
There are many other sources of information on this if you want to
search for them. Gordon
Not a scientific paper.
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.

If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.

What part of "only in the colloquial sense of the word theory" are you
pretending to be too stupid to understand?

Why don't you at least try to understand what you are pontificating
about?

That way, you won't sound like the complete idiot every one of your
posts here for the last several years has told the world you are.
Gordon
2016-06-25 14:50:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What part of "only in the colloquial sense of the word theory" are you
pretending to be too stupid to understand?
Why don't you at least try to understand what you are pontificating
about?
That way, you won't sound like the complete idiot every one of your
posts here for the last several years has told the world you are.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-25 20:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, moron, it remains speculation.

It is not a scientific theory like evolution, gravity, relativity, etc
which were derived to explain observations.

Strings are plucked out of thin air, with no justification whatsoever.

Why do you pretend otherwise?
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What part of "only in the colloquial sense of the word theory" are you
pretending to be too stupid to understand?
Why don't you at least try to understand what you are pontificating
about?
That way, you won't sound like the complete idiot every one of your
posts here for the last several years has told the world you are.
Well, moron?
Jeanne Douglas
2016-06-26 00:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Malte Runz
2016-06-27 19:27:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on this
that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38872
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you summarize it in
a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters that
this article and many other articles refer to String Theory as a
theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me to call it
a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of the
term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and you
are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
--
Malte Runz
Smiler
2016-06-27 23:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Gordon
2016-06-28 00:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Please explain why so many highly qualified scientist call it a
theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA_2016040821221307.pdf

And MANY other such sites...
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-28 01:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Please explain why so many highly qualified scientist call it a
theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA_2016040821221307.pdf
And MANY other such sites...
Please explain why you imagine it is anything more than just
speculation.

Provide the evidence which led to it.

Provide its verification.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU IMAGINE IT IS ANYTHING
Gordon
2016-06-28 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:19:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Please explain why so many highly qualified scientist call it a
theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA_2016040821221307.pdf
And MANY other such sites...
Please explain why you imagine it is anything more than just
speculation.
Provide the evidence which led to it.
Provide its verification.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU IMAGINE IT IS ANYTHING
It is simply a matter of following and agreeing with the information
provided in the above links and in many others on this subject. I
didn't make the decision to call it a theory but MANY very
intelligent, highly educated people have called it a theory. Why
should I reject their assessments and go along with yours? Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-28 16:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:19:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Please explain why so many highly qualified scientist call it a
theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA_2016040821221307.pdf
And MANY other such sites...
Please explain why you imagine it is anything more than just
speculation.
Provide the evidence which led to it.
Provide its verification.
It is simply a matter of following and agreeing with the information
provided in the above links and in many others on this subject. I
didn't make the decision to call it a theory but MANY very
intelligent, highly educated people have called it a theory. Why
should I reject their assessments and go along with yours?
Was that admission of deliberate ignorance meant to answer the
requests, imbecile?

Get a frikking education and stop making a public idiot of yourself.
Post by Gordon
Gordon
Guess how we know you're a moron?
Jeanne Douglas
2016-07-03 01:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Gordon
2016-07-03 17:57:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:07:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Theory or theorem?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-07-03 18:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:07:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Theory or theorem?
Idiot.

It is only a theory in the loosest sense, not the researched
explanation for anything.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-07-03 22:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:07:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Theory or theorem?
You snipped what I responded to. Why?
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Smiler
2016-07-04 10:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:07:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:01:20 -0500, Gordon
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many
papers on this that I can't begin to refer you to all
of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It
matters that this article and many other articles refer to
String Theory as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why
are you forbidding me to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the
rejection of the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding
of the term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of
them wrong and you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will
find plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it
ain't scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that
direction and it is untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does
fit in mathematically and there may come a time when some level
of objective testing will become possible. Until then it
remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level
of theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Theory or theorem?
You snipped what I responded to. Why?
Because he's a coward.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Rob Schwartz
2022-03-24 20:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Is this NG dead?
Rob Schwartz
2022-03-24 20:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Schwartz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory?   Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
                    I pointed out some web sites where qualified
                    scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right???    Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory.
Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
Because they're lazy speakers.
Is this NG dead?
Malte Runz
2016-06-28 16:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers on
this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String Theory
as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you forbidding me
to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of objective
testing will become possible. Until then it remains a theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
I looked for the definition of a 'mathematical theory', after I
heard/read somebody call M-theory so. In the relevant wiki article
there was a link to a list of such theories, and M-theory was on it.
But I'm not really in a position to determine whether or not wiki is
right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory
"The term mathematical theory is used to refer to a mathematical
subfield. A theory can be a body of knowledge, and so in this sense a
"mathematical theory" refers to an area of mathematical research. ..."

And the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories
--
Malte Runz
Smiler
2016-06-28 18:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Gordon
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:35:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:12:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:45:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Don't you know the difference?
Is this what you are looking for? I've read so many papers
on this that I can't begin to refer you to all of them.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?
PaperID=38872
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gordon
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Do you have any idea what the article is about? Can you
summarize it in a few sentences?
If not, posting it is stupid.
It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It matters
that this article and many other articles refer to String
Theory as a theory, not as a hypothesis. So, why are you
forbidding me to call it a theory? Gordon
Because you're an idiot.
I called SS-M Theory a theory. You responded with the rejection of
the term, theory.
Because it's speculation.
Post by Gordon
I pointed out some web sites where qualified
scientists
also called SS-M a theory. You rejected their understanding of the
term theory. So, it seems you are declaring all of them wrong and
you are right??? Gordon
Stop lying.
If you actually bothered to read anything about it, you will find
plenty of scientists who call it a philosophy because it ain't
scientific as nothing whatsoever points in that direction and it is
untestable.
True, SS-M Theory is not yet objectively testable but it does fit in
mathematically and there may come a time when some level of
objective testing will become possible. Until then it remains a
theory. Gordon
No, it remains a speculation.
It's a mathematical theory. Throw him a bone...
Not quite.
It's a mathematical abstraction, which doesn't come up to the level of
theory.
I looked for the definition of a 'mathematical theory', after I
heard/read somebody call M-theory so. In the relevant wiki article there
was a link to a list of such theories, and M-theory was on it. But I'm
not really in a position to determine whether or not wiki is right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory "The term mathematical
theory is used to refer to a mathematical subfield. A theory can be a
body of knowledge, and so in this sense a "mathematical theory" refers
to an area of mathematical research. ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories
From wiki.
"Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying
essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world
objects with which it might originally have been connected, and
generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other
abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.[1][2][3]"
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Loading...