Part 04: String Theory

unification is where it's at

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• string
• theory
• physics
• unification
• of
• everything
• universe
• cosmos

[InternetOneOS]

@RudeCo11 Very good points.

I've recently come across other discussions surrounding the 11 dimensions of reality.

From what I can deduce, people seem to talk about this theory as if it deserves to be authoritative or a foundation of understanding.

If people could appreciate the fact that the documentary must only be considered a history of S&M-Theory, then I could sleep soundly.

People have been led to believe that Einstein supports this idea.

Does this video not go in that direction?

[RudeCo11]

@InternetOneOS I don't think the doco is being dishonest, there are plenty of times when scientists and narrator mentions, further speculation would not be science but philosophy. They also explain there is no evidence but there is a complex maths understanding of what M-theory is. The purpose of this doco was not to explain how the scientific method works or what is and isn't science. It was simply to explain the history of the M-theory.

[InternetOneOS]

@RudeCo11 Having an idea by itself is never bad or wrong, but...

Having us believe that the idea is scientific when it's not is wrong.

Miss-quoting (small bits, & out of context) from Einstein is wrong.

"I like your idea," I'm sure there is a but... after that.

He died in 1955, this idea was born in 1968.

Claiming billion dollar experiments are built to help prove this unprovable theory is wrong.

Piggybacking off of true science & scientists is wrong.

Count the Einstein & Quantum Mechanics refs.

[RudeCo11]

@InternetOneOS Well I think the professors remarks were a bit over dramatic, who is he to know what type of technologies we will have in the future? Could Mendel even imagine the Human Genome project? or ancient chinese astronomers ever imagine the Hubble Space TElescope? Just because we have the theory, but no current tech to give any supporting evidence; it doesn't mean that the theory is bad or wrong, simply it is unjustified.

[InternetOneOS]

@3:07 A perfect description of pseudo-science, it is explained here.

But then they defend it by putting the burden of proof on the skeptic. Just wrong on so many levels.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Another pseudo-science theory they like to use as authoritative is the Big Bang Theory.

I challenge everyone to read Edwin Hubble's book, The Observational Approach To Cosmology.

[InternetOneOS]

@0:30 I find it very strange how they show us the atom as discreet points of matter. Even the electrons are shown as dots orbiting.

The way I understand it, you couldn't visualize the place and motions of an atom, you can only guess of where it's likely to be and likely going.

The uncertainty of atoms should be shown more as a fog than actual particles. I know this video series is for the layman, but could you have enough respect for the layman to not mislead them into a false sense of reality.

[GamingXpaul2K10]

im 14 and i understand this, strangely.

[partonace]

@sinachiniforoosh ...because science had some results in the last decades that this will continue forever. that's like pretending that just because a tree right now is still developing it will do so forever. we might end up like the arabs who first had their golden age and then it all went down the drain and after some bit of light we're fed up with it and go retro: right into the dark ages - and today's science is not far away from rather being dark than "enlightening".

[partonace]

@sinachiniforoosh ...have a ressort of their own and can tell to the ones who pay them: you don't understand that but it's useful - and then they begin to point at what science has achieved in the past (blending out all the negative aspects). but there's no guarantee that just ...

[partonace]

@sinachiniforoosh ...undetermined large amount of "dimensions") that we're used to (the so called "macroscopic scales"). today science is rather mysticism than real science. what has been found before is quite clear...but then today's scientists rather begin to confuse than to explain. not quite sure if they aren't able to do it clear or they do it so that they ...