String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretica

Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretica

Page 1 of 1

String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretica

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:50 pm

String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretical
physicists, aren't just presenting theories that are not even
wrong-they're not even asking the right questions.
Physicists need to ask physical questions that include, "What is the
deeper nature of physical reality that renders energy and mass are
equivalent? What underlying physical reality results in quantum
mechanical phenomena such the EPR effect, entanglement, and doubles
slit interference? What underlying physical reality results in time as
we know it, as opposed to the frozen block time presented in GR? What
underlying physical reality accounts for entropy and time's arrow?
What is the deeper physical nature of reality that dictates length
contraction and time dilation? In short, what is the common physical
reality that relativistic, quantum mechanical, classical and
thermodynamic phenomena arise from?" Moving Dimensions theory asks
these very questions and then answers them with a simple postulate,
"The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions."
Modern theorists have outlawed such questions so as to reconfigure
science so as to support the pillaging of NSF funds, tax, and tuition
dollars.
But such questions must be asked by bold physicists willing to ride
alone in the spirit of Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Socrates, and Benjamin
Franklin. For groupthink tenures tyrants and leads to String Theory.

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a
five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one
of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. -Feynman,
Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.
-Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

"It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of
them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They
just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one
person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20
years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that
curious." Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

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 a n experiment, they cook up an explanation-a
fix-up to say, "Well, it 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 all 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 out 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, Nobel Laureate in Physics

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works.
They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome
of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism
includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And
they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction.
Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical
consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. Why, you
may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional?
Simply because string theory doesn't make sense in any other kind of
space. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental
tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity.
MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted
by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The
genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model
which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics
derive from the same fundamental physical reality-the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Moving Dimensions Theory advances science by showing that curious
phenomena in both quantum mechanics and relativity arise from a common
space-time structure wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative
to the three spatial dimensions. MDT offers a physical path to the
unification of previously disparate phenomena within a common context
founded upon a simple physical model of spacetime. MDT addresses the
deeper questions that many leading researchers, seeking to further
fictional fads instead of science, have chosen to ignore.
Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum
entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive
from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG
account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction.
MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality.
Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor
the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source,
nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same
underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop
Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which
troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.
Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical
theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly
disparate phenomena within a simple context.

The tenured priests, after rampaging the castles of academia, destroyed
the ladders of truth, logic, and reason by which academics would once
ascend to prominence.

The Bogdanov story suggest that, at least for papers in quantum gravity
in some journals, this etin is no longer worth much. Another reason
for the survival of journals is that they fulfill an important role in
academia, where too often the mian standard used to evaluate
researchers' work is the number of their publications in
peer-reviewed journals, something that was in the work prior to Igor
Borgdanov's thesis. The breakdown in refereeing is thus a serious
threat to the whole academic research enterprise. -Peter Woit, The
Bogdanov Affair, p. 219, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of Stiong Theory
and the Search For Unity in Physical Law

One of the more excitable such superstring enthusiasts, a Harvard
Faculty member, even at one point used this comment section to express
the opinion that those who criticized the funding of superstring theory
were terrorists who deserved to be eliminated by the U.S. military.
I'm afraid he seemed to be serious about this. -Peter Woit, Not
Even Wrong: The Failure of Stiong Theory and the Search For Unity in
Physical Law , p. 224

Scientists have yet to develop more than fragments of what they presume
will ultimately be a complete theory. . . Nevertheless, string
theorists are already collecting the spoils that ordinarily go to the
victors, including federal grants prestigious wards and tenured faculty
postions. Less than a decade ago, there were hardly any jobs for
string theorists, said Dr. David Gross... "Nowadays," Dr. Gross
said, "if you're a hotshot young string theorist you've got it
made." --The New York Times, Even Without Evidence, String Theory
Gains Influence, 2001

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of
dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax
and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie
physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a
physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which
both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement,
gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light,
relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions
Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six
dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this
excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45
Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your
head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel
lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more
likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

http://physicsmathforums.com

Bill Hobba

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:42 pm

Guest

<Autumn.Wests@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157741423.438844.23480@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
[quote:0ea0ba5b4a]String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretical
physicists, aren't just presenting theories that are not even
wrong-they're not even asking the right questions.
Physicists need to ask physical questions that include, "What is the
deeper nature of physical reality that renders energy and mass are
equivalent?
[/quote:0ea0ba5b4a]
Well first energy and mass are not equivalent - mass is a form of energy but
not all energy is a form of mass. However we already know the deep reason
mass is a form of energy - Noethers theorem, the principle of least action,
and SR demands it.

[quote:0ea0ba5b4a]What underlying physical reality results in quantum
mechanical phenomena such the EPR effect, entanglement, and doubles
slit interference?
[/quote:0ea0ba5b4a]
QM. Every theory every single one is based on assumptions. If you have a
deeper explanation of QM then its assumptions are not explained so you have
gained nothing. What you want is a theory that conforms to how you want a
theory to be - nature on the other hand does not have to be so obliging.

[quote:0ea0ba5b4a]What underlying physical reality results in time as
we know it, as opposed to the frozen block time presented in GR?
[/quote:0ea0ba5b4a]
That is not how GR has it.

[quote:0ea0ba5b4a]What
underlying physical reality accounts for entropy and time's arrow?
[/quote:0ea0ba5b4a]
The law of large numbers.

Rest of misconceptions in same vein snipped.

Bill

Koobee Wublee

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:28 am

Guest

Bill Hobba wrote:

[quote:97d96b0146]Well first energy and mass are not equivalent - mass is a form of energy but
not all energy is a form of mass. However we already know the deep reason
mass is a form of energy - Noethers theorem, the principle of least action,
and SR demands it.
[/quote:97d96b0146]
Actually, the variation of calculus with the associated Lagrangian does
indicate each component of the observed speed and each component of the
metric form a constant. This constant is none other than (E / m / c^2)
raised to the power of another constant. Thus, the observed energy, E,
is the observed mass, and vice versa.

[quote:97d96b0146]QM. Every theory every single one is based on assumptions. If you have a
deeper explanation of QM then its assumptions are not explained so you have
gained nothing. What you want is a theory that conforms to how you want a
theory to be - nature on the other hand does not have to be so obliging.
[/quote:97d96b0146]
Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads of assumptions.
Most of them are groundless, absurd, and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

Eric Gisse

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:55 am

Guest

Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

[quote:5491a1fb00]
Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads of assumptions.
Most of them are groundless, absurd, and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.
[/quote:5491a1fb00]
I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually understand either
theory enough times to make the discussion fruitless.

Koobee Wublee

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:17 am

Guest

Eric Gisse wrote:
[quote:49a3a63eb5]Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads of assumptions.
Most of them are groundless, absurd, and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually understand either
theory enough times to make the discussion fruitless.
[/quote:49a3a63eb5]
Have you learned calculus of Variations yet? This discipline of
mathematics was developed more than 200 years ago. Today, it is still
very simple. You wrote

"I finally get on speaking terms with tensors, then I have to learn
calculus of
variations to vary the metric. Arggh."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/672b53adf1991110

Tensors in the context of GR are merely 4-by-4 matrix. Tensor calculus
in the context of GR is actually very simple if the kryptic symbols are
well defined. Calculus of Variations is just way simpler than any
matrix manipulations. If you cannot even grasp that, how can you even
trust yourself to accuse me of not understanding whatever? You don't
understand the simplest and the foundation of GR mathematics. You have
no right to make these accusations.

Eric Gisse

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:10 am

Guest

Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote:e7112a6ccf]Eric Gisse wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads of assumptions.
Most of them are groundless, absurd, and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually understand either
theory enough times to make the discussion fruitless.

Have you learned calculus of Variations yet? This discipline of
mathematics was developed more than 200 years ago. Today, it is still
very simple. You wrote

"I finally get on speaking terms with tensors, then I have to learn
calculus of
variations to vary the metric. Arggh."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/672b53adf1991110

Tensors in the context of GR are merely 4-by-4 matrix. Tensor calculus
in the context of GR is actually very simple if the kryptic symbols are
well defined. Calculus of Variations is just way simpler than any
matrix manipulations. If you cannot even grasp that, how can you even
trust yourself to accuse me of not understanding whatever? You don't
understand the simplest and the foundation of GR mathematics. You have
no right to make these accusations.
[/quote:e7112a6ccf]
Says the guy who has trouble with multivariable calculus.

hanson

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:43 pm

Guest

jowr, the Junior or Relativity Whiners <jowr.pi@gmail.com> "Eric Gisse"
aka jowr, the Juvenile of Weak Reasoning wrote in message
news:1157785854.519941.115380@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[quote:2d0fae91dc]
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads
of assumptions. Most of them are groundless, absurd,
and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

Eric Gisse wrote:
I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually
understand either theory enough times to make the
discussion fruitless.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Have you learned calculus of Variations yet? This
discipline of mathematics was developed more than 200
years ago. Today, it is still very simple. You wrote

Eric Gisse wrote[/quote:2d0fae91dc]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/672b53adf1991110
[quote:2d0fae91dc]"I finally get on speaking terms with tensors, then I have to learn
calculus of variations to vary the metric. Arggh."

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tensors in the context of GR are merely 4-by-4 matrix. Tensor calculus
in the context of GR is actually very simple if the kryptic symbols are
well defined. Calculus of Variations is just way simpler than any
matrix manipulations. If you cannot even grasp that, how can you even
trust yourself to accuse me of not understanding whatever? You don't
understand the simplest and the foundation of GR mathematics. You have
no right to make these accusations.

Eric Gisse wrote
Says the guy who has trouble with multivariable calculus.

[hanson][/quote:2d0fae91dc]
so, maintains Eric, who said - I hear it from "The voices in my head" --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/92314880427bfd83
.... ahahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson

Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:06 pm

Autumn.Wests@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:4fd142a9a0]String theorists, and the vast majority of modern theoretical
physicists, aren't just presenting theories that are not even
wrong-they're not even asking the right questions.

Physicists need to ask physical questions that include,

"What is the deeper nature of physical reality that renders
energy and mass are equivalent?

What underlying physical reality results in quantum
mechanical phenomena such the EPR effect, entanglement, and doubles
slit interference?

What underlying physical reality results in time as
we know it, as opposed to the frozen block time presented in GR?

What underlying physical reality accounts for entropy and time's arrow?

What is the deeper physical nature of reality that dictates length
contraction and time dilation?

In short, what is the common physical
reality that relativistic, quantum mechanical, classical and
thermodynamic phenomena arise from?"
[/quote:4fd142a9a0]
Vergon

ALL these questions and more are answered by a theory entitled On the
Quantum as a Physical Entity at http://www.wbabin.net Go to
LIST OF AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon

The presentation is clear and easy to absorb. It displays a fundamental
sub particle of which all the universe is composed.

Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:19 am

http://physicsmathforums.com

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a
five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one
of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental

tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT

is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by
quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius

and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which
shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive
from the same fundamental physical reality-the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Moving Dimensions Theory advances science by showing that curious
phenomena in both quantum mechanics and relativity arise from a common
space-time structure wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative

to the three spatial dimensions. MDT offers a physical path to the
unification of previously disparate phenomena within a common context
founded upon a simple physical model of spacetime. MDT addresses the
deeper questions that many leading researchers, seeking to further
fictional fads instead of science, have chosen to ignore.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum

entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive
from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG
account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction.
MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality.
Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor
the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source,
nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same
underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop
Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which
troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical

theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly
disparate phenomena within a simple context.

http://physicsmathforums.com

hanson wrote:
[quote:f85268ffac]jowr, the Junior or Relativity Whiners <jowr.pi@gmail.com> "Eric Gisse"
aka jowr, the Juvenile of Weak Reasoning wrote in message
news:1157785854.519941.115380@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads
of assumptions. Most of them are groundless, absurd,
and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

Eric Gisse wrote:
I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually
understand either theory enough times to make the
discussion fruitless.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Have you learned calculus of Variations yet? This
discipline of mathematics was developed more than 200
years ago. Today, it is still very simple. You wrote

Eric Gisse wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/672b53adf1991110
"I finally get on speaking terms with tensors, then I have to learn
calculus of variations to vary the metric. Arggh."

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tensors in the context of GR are merely 4-by-4 matrix. Tensor calculus
in the context of GR is actually very simple if the kryptic symbols are
well defined. Calculus of Variations is just way simpler than any
matrix manipulations. If you cannot even grasp that, how can you even
trust yourself to accuse me of not understanding whatever? You don't
understand the simplest and the foundation of GR mathematics. You have
no right to make these accusations.

Eric Gisse wrote
Says the guy who has trouble with multivariable calculus.

[hanson]
so, maintains Eric, who said - I hear it from "The voices in my head" --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/92314880427bfd83
... ahahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson[/quote:f85268ffac]

Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:19 am

http://physicsmathforums.com

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a
five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one
of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental

tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT

is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by
quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius

and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which
shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive
from the same fundamental physical reality-the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Moving Dimensions Theory advances science by showing that curious
phenomena in both quantum mechanics and relativity arise from a common
space-time structure wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative

to the three spatial dimensions. MDT offers a physical path to the
unification of previously disparate phenomena within a common context
founded upon a simple physical model of spacetime. MDT addresses the
deeper questions that many leading researchers, seeking to further
fictional fads instead of science, have chosen to ignore.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum

entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive
from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG
account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction.
MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality.
Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor
the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source,
nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same
underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop
Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which
troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical

theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly
disparate phenomena within a simple context.

http://physicsmathforums.com

hanson wrote:
[quote:d42af4fd9d]jowr, the Junior or Relativity Whiners <jowr.pi@gmail.com> "Eric Gisse"
aka jowr, the Juvenile of Weak Reasoning wrote in message
news:1157785854.519941.115380@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Some theories like SR and GR are stacked on boatloads
of assumptions. Most of them are groundless, absurd,
and easily challenged to be wrong.
If you like, we can go through them one by one.

Eric Gisse wrote:
I think you have demonstrated that you don't actually
understand either theory enough times to make the
discussion fruitless.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Have you learned calculus of Variations yet? This
discipline of mathematics was developed more than 200
years ago. Today, it is still very simple. You wrote

Eric Gisse wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/672b53adf1991110
"I finally get on speaking terms with tensors, then I have to learn
calculus of variations to vary the metric. Arggh."

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tensors in the context of GR are merely 4-by-4 matrix. Tensor calculus
in the context of GR is actually very simple if the kryptic symbols are
well defined. Calculus of Variations is just way simpler than any
matrix manipulations. If you cannot even grasp that, how can you even
trust yourself to accuse me of not understanding whatever? You don't
understand the simplest and the foundation of GR mathematics. You have
no right to make these accusations.

Eric Gisse wrote
Says the guy who has trouble with multivariable calculus.

[hanson]
so, maintains Eric, who said - I hear it from "The voices in my head" --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/92314880427bfd83
... ahahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson[/quote:d42af4fd9d]

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:12 pm

Guest

Dear Autumn.Wests:

<Autumn.Wests@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159722330.729302.311250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:a83b1bb3e7]While Randall Quotes Eminem, She Forgets to
Quote Einstein
[/quote:a83b1bb3e7]
Please don't spam like this. 20 repeats of the same message on
different threads is still spamming.

David A. Smith

T Wake

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:04 pm

Guest

<Autumn.Wests@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159722330.729302.311250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:c7fffabbc3]While Randall Quotes Eminem, She Forgets to Quote Einstein
[/quote:c7fffabbc3]
<garbage snipped>

Seriously, do mental health institutions not work on Sunday?

No. Don't bother replying (not that a spamming buffoon like you was ever
planning to), just get some serious treatment.

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:37 pm Science Forum Index