the woo is strong in this one, and why i dont believe in theoretical physics

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by gamelord, Jun 30, 2018.

  1. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Ok so a bit of a background right now. Background is, my house is like 120 degrees hot n humid feels like hell. Fan on me so I can't hear my music, sweating, feeling a little bit fainty. It should be an american crime to not give air conditioning to the poor. Computer laggin', makin me go loco. I imagine, if this was a movie, and we were on Mars base and all hell is breaking loose, and I am the scientist writing in my journal entry, my hand desperately clawing on to the computer and I push the button to save the journal log.


    So I watched this video, 15 minutes was all I could take, the woo is strong in this one. I actually agree with her and believe we live in a simulation, but her reasoning just seems like a bunch of woo to me. And something about the woo just makes me feel numb and drained of energy, like I am watching some silly cartoon like ed edd and eddy. The longer it goes on the more woo I feel.

    And this brings me to theoretical physics, I feel the same woo feelings when I hear theoretical physics. For instance, in the video she said "science proved" that the universe is made up of tiny-tetrahedrons. I dont believe this, it sounds absurd and woo. Second she says that planks constant is the universal "frame-rate". I had heard that before, I didn't believe it then and I dont believe it now. Then she says string-theory was finally made woo, because the equations never proved anything and dont add up. But string theory was woo to begin with, when was string theory not woo, when were strings actually observed in a lab with evidence? And she goes on to say that "Einstein proved" that the universe is like a movie, all time is connected, the future effects past, woo.

    Now you may believe you are some how removed from the woo but cmon. Even the date they give for the origin of the universe is woo, if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old that means space stretched faster than 3x the speed of light. Furthermore I watched the documentary of the LHC, it is very advanced science. When something is that complicated the margin of error becomes easy.

    For example, when you are programming a game, and the program is not working, you have to debug the game. Usually you are going about it from a state of ignorance, that is, you don't know what the actual problem is, so you dont even know how to begin to solve it. So you are in the dark, you make theories, based on observations, as to what the problem is. I have done this before, and some of my theories were so great and fit together so perfectly, I thought for sure I had figured out what the problem was, only to find out later, the problem had absolutely nothing to do with my theory at all. So theoretical science, could be making theories that "seem" to fit, based on equations that mostly fit, but then down the road they might realize that the explanation was something different entirely. The LHC documentary showed, they cannot physically "see" subatomic particles, they are in the dark, so they just analyze data all based on theories of what the data should mean, when in actuality it might very be a large wild goose chase of woo. And to protect the woo, most of these scientists tell you "I spent 10 years going to universities to understand these equations, you didn't put in the work, you don't have the right to call it woo till you go to university for 10 years" as a sort of protective bubble shield against anyone who might feel skeptical about the woo.

    So, the video in question, it would be nice if anyone could tell me that she actually knows what she's talking about, and is not woo.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    I could only watch for 11 minutes or so. This is just basically a hypothesis and without confirmation you could just call it science fiction with a lot of science thrown in.

    There is a lot of accepted science mentioned in this video but the 8D crystals and living in a simulation are just a hypothesis so you could call that woo until there is some confirmation for these things.

    The rest of the things that you mentioned that are accepted science are accepted due to evidence and their predictions. They don't have to be right as to the "why" and that can change but being "right" as to the "what" is pretty meaningful.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Can you be more specific which were woo and which were accepted science? I was a bit taken aback by most of her claims. Do we really live in a tetrahedron universe where the inside of all matter is comprised of a bunch of tetrahedron prisms?

    I was also skeptical of her claims that everything is information. As it seems a pile of goo and random molecules does not contain information in the classical sense. Her calling everything information seems to be anthromorphizing in terms of language.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    All that was woo, especially the crystals part. I guess you could call everything information, or mathematics or whatever but then you have to make some predictions that are possible to falsify, etc.

    She alluded to entangled particles at one part (I think). She made a big deal out of measurements not being perfect due to our technology and existing theories not being able to answer "why". There was a lot of woo there.

    String theory can be considered woo in one sense, nothing has or can be tested and she was pointing out the issues there and yet her woo is even more out there.
     
    sculptor and gamelord like this.
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    https://www.wired.com/2010/09/stringy-quantum/
    String theory has finally made a prediction that can be tested with experiments...
     
  9. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Yes but that is all it is, I must again clarify that the experiment has not yet verified the veracity of string theory.
     
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    Doesn't matter. Falsifiability makes it not woo.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,598
    As I understand it, matter is formed in the various universal quantum fields and as these fields appear to exhibit wavelike functions of various kinds, the notion of string theory seems a natural result of these conditions and causal in the creation of particles exhibiting different wave length values.

    This excellent lecture may clarify further.


    p.s. The collider at Cern has been upgraded and is much more powerful today than when it revealed the Higgs boson, which brings us closer to the initial plasma conditions during the "inflationary epoch".
    p.p.s. That pretty green and red speckled picture of the universe just after the BB (in Wikipedia) is a perfect illustration of the plasma and has been duplicated by computer simulations, using available data. It's not all theoretical anymore.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,598
    The most condensed explanation of reality; "The universe consists of wavy fields in which 3 types of fundamental particles grow, with some variety.

    ( )

     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  13. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    I could say that 5 years from now the spaghetti monster shall make his final appearance at precisely 12 EST on planet Earth.

    This is totally falsifiable.

    Still woo.
     
  14. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    So someone draws a picture, based on a theory, then makes a computer simulation based on the same theory, and this proves the theory is real...right...

    So if I read the bible, and draw God, and I make a program a computer simulation to based on the Bible, and the computer simulation depicts the same God that I drew earlier...then the bible is real...right...
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,598
    Actually that is not an artist rendering, it is a real picture of the early cosmic background as compiled by the various recorded observations of wavelengths, etc.
    Do take the time to watch the lecture by prof Tong. It's really good and at the end has only one equation of Everything that is known about the universe. The rest is an entertaining but wide ranging informative narrative.
    No, there are no actual pictures of God. In fact it would falsify God because the real picture is the one as shown. Thus God would look like the plasma in the early universe.

    p.s. But a theist would indeed draw a picture of a bearded guy floating on a cloud, surrounded by little angels, who is stretching out the "hand of God" and then "breathed life" into a ball of clay and named him Adam. That's the theist version, and that is clearly woo.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    gamelord likes this.

Share This Page