Homo naledi update.

RoccoR said:
RE: Homo naledi update.
SUBTOPIC: Ancient Civilizations and Funerary Rites and Burial Rituals
⁜→ Pinball1970, Gawdzilla Sama, et al,

I am not known for my contributions, just lurking in the back row. But I see some brilliant ideas here.

Anthropologists and Archeologists are not known for accepting new ideas and theories without a controversy breaking out. Then again, scientists across the many disciplines, have this affliction. But I think that some of these findings that appear to date back hundreds of millennia deserve some serious consideration and investigation.

When the giants like Richard Feynman or Roger Penrose [my doctorate just shrivels into nothingness (luckily there doesn't appear to be nothingness - so I am safe) by comparison], say the universe is made of tiny vibrating strings - it is assumed to be even valid, yet it can not (thus far) be validated through the scientific method. And when men and women of such stature speak of eleven dimensions and write these ridiculously complex formulas in Quantum Mechanics on the board (a language 98% of the people simply find beyond science fiction) we all just look in amazement and shake our heads. I think some of these findings being uncovered in White Sands deserve much more attention than is given a Particle Accelerator product.

At least these Anthropologists and Archeologists are collecting hard evidence we can see with our eyes and feel with our hands!

Just My Two-Cents Worth,
View attachment 6216
......View attachment 6217
Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
This kind of research is certainly more accessible. I do believe it is the hottest topic in our human evolution story at the moment.

Ps Feynman was not a fan of string theory;)
 
RE: Homo naledi update.
SUBTOPIC: Probably more than you might want to known
⁜→ Pinball1970,

There may be some truth to what you say. But Dr Feynman did make his contributions.
Pinball1970 said:
This kind of research is certainly more accessible. I do believe it is the hottest topic in our human evolution story at the moment.

Ps Feynman was not a fan of string theory;)
Click to expand...
(OBSERVATION)

EXAMPLE
1:22:55

Feynman Diagrams in String Theory - Edward Witten​

youtube.png
YouTube8.8K views

1729581396307.png
v/r
R
 
RoccoR said:
RE: Homo naledi update.
SUBTOPIC: Probably more than you might want to known
⁜→ Pinball1970,

There may be some truth to what you say. But Dr Feynman did make his contributions.

(OBSERVATION)

EXAMPLE
1:22:55

Feynman Diagrams in String Theory - Edward Witten​

youtube.png
YouTube8.8K views

View attachment 6224
v/r
R
Click to expand...
No, they took his ideas published decades earlier and used them for string theory just as string theorists used previous published works on quantum mechanics, general relativity, QFT. and the SM.
He actually really did not like the theory.


"I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation – a fix-up to say “Well, it still might be true”. For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right."

Richard Feynman
 
RE: Homo naledi update.
SUBTOPIC: Feynman's Critique on ...
⁜→ Pinball1970, Gawdzilla Sama, et al,

(BLUF)

Of course, Dr Leonard Susskind is often considered the Father of String Theory and how it relates to the Standard Model (SM), General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and Quantum Field Theory (QFT). And I cannot argue against your position (wherein Dr Richard Feynman did not like String Theory). I think Feynman and Sussking were such good friends that they were not afraid to tweak and tune up the theory without challenging their long-standing friendship.

Pinball1970 said:
No, they took his ideas published decades earlier and used them for string theory just as string theorists used previous published works on quantum mechanics, general relativity, QFT. and the SM.
Click to expand...
Pinball1970 said:
He actually really did not like the theory.

"I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation – a fix-up to say “Well, it still might be true”. For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right."

Richard Feynman
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)


My opinion (as pedestrian as it may be) is that they (Feynman and Susskind) both see String Theory as a legitimate framework of scientific study. That is where I differ. And to some degree, the Feynman Quotation you cite eludes to that position.

The reasoning behind my position (supra, Posting #19) is the absence of validation through the scientific method; which includes (but is not limited to) establishing a hypothesis - setting a prediction, and verification through testing and experimentation.
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! that scientists are disagreeing.


;)
Click to expand...
(CHUCKLING WITH YOU)

Even I can make up my scientific principles and rules of the universe and become the Father of a Scientific Theory. I don't have to worry about the scientific method because the technology does not exist in this reality for adequate test and evaluation.

1729600947342.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
Pinball1970 said:
So you do not know anything about palaeontology got it.
Click to expand...

Because I'm a peasant that are not really allowed to read and speak up in proper company. I am to be indoctrinated with their fraternity's truth. I am to kiss their cardinal ring. I am not to form my own opinion. I am to take their word for it. Nullius in Verba does not apply.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine. How many fossil specimens are currently labeled chimp and gorilla ancestry versus how many labeled human? It's a simple numerical listing for taxonomic equivalance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top