2 trillion g's across 300meters will frequency shift f to 2f.
Demonstrate that assertion with calculations.
Everything else that you write is really not worth reading.
Or rather you cannot provide retorts for my explicit demonstrations you've been wrong on numerous things so you're going to ignore them. It's okay, everyone else can read my posts and see how you are wrong.
Just the rantings of a string theorist. String theory is a form of
illusion. It fools people into thinking that super-strings are real; but they're not. It fools physicists into thinking that they understand how light couples with gravity, but they don't understand. PhD's spend years of their life, their entire career, trying to understand the unification between GR and QM, but it doesn't lead to an experiment. It doesn't lead to any measurable results. So string theorists have this gnawing feeling that they've done all this work, but have not contributed anything. That is why string theorists have to attack others to boost their self esteem.
Firstly, the fact I did string theory doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a certainty. I actually view it more as a motivation for research into a variety of areas of mathematics and mathematical physics which will at some point hopefully provide machinary and methodologies which give us insight into quantum gravity, even if that quantum gravity model isn't string theoretic.
Secondly, my research career has, for the last 2 years, been in real world applications of mathematical physics. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, optimisation, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics (the regular kind), all of those are areas I've done original research in. In each of them methods and principles I learnt and developed during my PhD came in handy. For example, the same methods I used to solve U duality generalised Lie algebra constraints on an isotropic orbifold also solve a particular problem in control system design. The same method I used to compute the mass spectrum of strings stretched between 3 and 7 dimensional black branes is also the method used by quantum chemists to work out molecule behaviour. The company I work for is recruiting and when it comes to having broad mathematical skills it seems those people who did theoretical physics are almost invariably in a better position than those who did pure mathematics, because it typically requires people know a wider spread of things, if only to a shorter depth. Clearly string theoretic research helps give mathematical researchers a good primer for future real world work.
Even if string theory were killed tomorrow it would still be fruitful for research but as a framework for mathematicians. It has motivated massive development in generalised geometry, cohomology theory, special holonomies, extended field theories, gravity/gauge dualities. All of those things have worth in and of themselves and will undoubtedly play a part in future theoretical physics research, with or without string theory. MHV methods originally had their development in string theory, it was a direction no one would have thought of before string theory, but then it transpired the method was valid even in the absence of string theory and now it's being applied to understanding gluons interactions in QCD. Likewise gravity/gauge duality came from string theory but it's much more general than that and is also providing insight into QCD and other strongly coupled phenomena.
I'm proud of the fact I have a string theory PhD. I'm also proud of the work
outside of string theory I've done. Methods which might have seemed abstract turn out to apply to real world problems. This is always the way in mathematical physics. There is no area of mathematics which doesn't have some utility in real world physical problems. So this "Oh you're just worried you've contributed nothing!" says more about you than it does me. It sounds like you're trying to validate yourself, rather than me trying to validate myself. I get my scientific worth from the results of my research. Just this week I've come up with a solution to a quantum mechanics problem which is more than an order of magnitude better than the literature. It's a very rewarding feeling to actually produce something which is demonstrably valid, something which you can apply to a real problem and which produces results better than anyone else. You should try it some time, rather than this delusional nonsense you insist on continuing with.
When someone shows up with the ever so simple solution, that the aether medium is made of the set of waves that satisfy $$c=\lambda f$$, which is a relativistic aether, how is a string theorist supposed to respond to such a simple answer? Years unto decades of mathematics training, and the aether is just a set of waves described with high school algebra? How could anyone ask questions, or think rationally, when they missed the simple answer by a million miles?
Except you cannot formalise anything. You complain string theory is without measurable results yet you provide nothing. String theory has plenty to say about gravity (it gives the Einstein Field Equations with perturbative quantum corrections!) and strongly coupled gauge theory (condensed matter physicists make extensive use of models within it), both qualitative and quantitative. If I knew absolutely no quantum field theory or general relativity but only string theory (which is difficult, seeing as string theory is a quantum field theory involving space-time) then I'd be able to use string theory to build a correctly working GPS network, because I'd be able to predict accurately the time dilation effects on the satellites. I'd be able to model the universe's expansion and the CMB power spectrum properly, as well as having a simple explanation for inflation and dark energy. I'd be able to construct effective models of strongly coupled phenomena in QCD and make statements about their transport properties. I'd be able to explain mass towers in strongly coupled gauge theory, as well as the mass gap. All of those things have quantitative models associated to them in string theory. All of them use mathematical methods which have applications in more 'run of the mill' areas of physics like non-relativistic quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetics etc. These are used to design microchips, telecommunications, lasers, model graphene's properties etc, billion dollar/euro/pound industries.
It's
staggeringly hypocritical of you to complain about the supposed lack of real world results from string theory when your claims are only lacking in any substance but often demonstrably false. And that's ignoring the facts string theory has plenty to say about the real world and the methods in its various areas can have real world application. I'm
certain I've solved more real world problems using stuff I learnt doing a string theory PhD than you'll ever even know about.
But please feel free to prove me wrong. Provide one quantitative accurate model pertaining to a real world phenomenon, of your liking, which you've derived from base principles of aether concepts, including its derivation from said principles, and demonstrate it accurately models said phenomenon. Saying "I get the same as the mainstream" is insufficient, as you're required to demonstrate you can indeed reach the same quantitative conclusion as the mainstream. For example, in string theory there's a step by step derivation of the Einstein field equations from the 1st quantised string action. This shows that string theory reproduces general relativity despite it not having assumed space-time can be warped. Can you provide such a thing in your work? If you cannot then you're just a hypocrite with nothing to say but excuses.