Ah, you can't retort any physics or maths I've said so you're proclaiming I couldn't be a professional anything because I don't suffer fools gladly. If you'd ever been to university you'd know the behaviour and attitudes of academics run from the kindly old father figure through to the bitter and resentful jackass. I'm sure I know which end you think I'm closer to but that doesn't negate any criticisms of the physics and mathematics Kaiduorkhon has made claims about.Hmm, ego or hind quarters? ... Nope, still both and growing. Certainly no professional of anything would act like you.
So no one is allowed to make comments on you in a thread not started by you, even when you post in it? By that logic you're not allowed to make any comments about me since I didn't start this thread.Comments and criticisms about me should go to link.
Strings don't negate the existence of space. Strings are things in space. Quantum field theory talks about points but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as space. Yet again you show your ignorance.you argue against any points to be made; just as you directly imply that there is no space (to compensate for your one dimensionsional - non existent - strings).
Firstly, the majority of the physics community has little or no opinion on it, since they don't work in it. I don't work in the area of active galactic nuclei so I have no informed opinion about the theories which try to explain such things. The majority of people who do work in theoretical physics do support string theory as a viable and justified approach to quantum gravity.Your first statement is that I fail to understand string theory, while there is a majority school of science which does not accept it. I should pursue a study of a defunct mathematical matrix?
And there's more to string theory than 'a defunct mathematical matrix'. Again you show you haven't got a clue about it. Surely you know you haven't learnt much (if anything) about string theory so why are you just spouting BS when you know you'll be called on it? If you're going to try and BS about string theory, don't do it to a string theorist.
Name one other theory which has a consistent quantum model of the graviton and which recovers the Einstein Field Equations as an effective theory.String theory has been around for three and more decades and failed to make any thing but a lot of - endlessly quantified one dimensional loops and - grant money for its empty handed, mathemetics shuffling advocates. In your own praphrased words, 'mathematics is not physics', and conversely. String theory calls to mind the turtle upon which the universal contents rest.
If you aren't a failure please explain how you've achieved nothing over decades of pushing your pet theory?Your ranting list of alleged failures, conspicuously fail (to even attempt) to make any case.
The very title of this thread is a lie.And another thing, since your side of this dialogue does not hesitate to practice name calling - since you falsely described me as 'lying', you are a liar..
I make no attempt to be professional on here. I am do not insult people who can show understanding and knowledge. I don't insult Dywyddyr or BenTheMan or Prometheus or Guest or QuarkHead or DH or Trippy or Rpenner or a few others. Why? Because all of them show they have spent time trying to learn and understand things and they put their physics (or maths or chemistry) where their mouths are. You and q_w and other cranks haven't. I teach people who have very little knowledge in maths and physics but I do so very politely. I'll explain the same thing 3 or 4 times to people, each time in a slightly different way trying to find a way they understand. I tell them they are welcome to ask me outside of the problem classes if they are stuck or need help with revision. Why? Because if they turn up they make it clear they are willing to put in effort to understand. Cranks make no such attempt.It is unfortunate that his demeanor seems, at this point, to preclude his scientific potential..
If you want to be treated professionally you should act professionally to. Don't come here making claims you don't and won't back up and ignore any and all corrections and then expect politeness and patience from people.
For every 1 maverick which has succeeded in physics in the last century there's been thousands, if not more, of hacks and nuts who've failed. And every crank thinks he's the maverick which will succeed. Just look at this forum, loads of them and most contradict one another. They can't all be right.He does make it clear that he condescends and underestimates mavericks, who, it so happens, have often led the field in the evolution of physics.
Can you name 1 maverick in theoretical physics in the last 100 years who didn't have considerable formal education in physics or mathematics.