TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

[AlphaNumeric]

*sigh*

Can't you even point to a post, rather than a thread? I claim you do not answer the question in that thread. Prove me wrong, link to the post.

I really wonder if you are that stupid you think this tactic of 'mindless linking' does anything other than illustrate what I said about you? Clearly you aren't able to swallow your ego enough to admit you've been a hypocrite. It would seem I know a little of your predictable behaviour

Linking to the thread and not a specific post will be taken as admitting you've behaved 'unethically' and 'unprofessionally' and that you have not and will not answer the question directly. Thank you in advance for yet another link to the thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

*sigh*

Can't you even point to a post, rather than a thread? I claim you do not answer the question in that thread. Prove me wrong, link to the post.

I really wonder if you are that stupid you think this tactic of 'mindless linking' does anything other than illustrate what I said about you? Clearly you aren't able to swallow your ego enough to admit you've been a hypocrite. It would seem I know a little of your predictable behaviour

Linking to the thread and not a specific post will be taken as admitting you've behaved 'unethically' and 'unprofessionally' and that you have not and will not answer the question directly. Thank you in advance for yet another link to the thread.

link

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Wow, you're both showing the same inability to hold discussions. Really taking the high road on that one.

Perhaps you both recognise in one another the same wasted effort and utter lack of achievement and progress in your works. Kindred spirits.....

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Wow, you're both showing the same inability to hold discussions. Really taking the high road on that one.

Perhaps you both recognise in one another the same wasted effort and utter lack of achievement and progress in your works. Kindred spirits.....

Filibuster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the parliamentary procedure. For other uses, see Filibuster (disambiguation).
A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal.

The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. This term had evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.[1]


The record irrevocably proves an extended, inappropriate departure from topic, featuring two main adversaries, one of whom (with the least amount of words) appears to be attempting to move the irrelevant skunk fight to another location; the other of whom (with a large quantity of words) insists on displacing and dominating this thread with extensively redundant, circuitously inappropriate disagreements and criticism - much of which applies to himself.

If and how long this pattern will continue - in how many variations - remains to be seen.

 

[quantum_wave]

Wow, you're both showing the same inability to hold discussions. Really taking the high road on that one.

Perhaps you both recognise in one another the same wasted effort and utter lack of achievement and progress in your works. Kindred spirits.....

Since I link you and everyone who is interested to a thread where we have been discussing any and all of your comments and criticisms, this is insincere rhetoric.
link

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

"...utter lack of achievement and progress in your works." - AlphaNumeric, responding to the material submitted by QuantumWave and Kaiduorkhon, in this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from 'bloggingheads.TV' features author-Physicist, Peter Woit, in conversation with a peer, about string theory... Commentary and excerpts follow:

"How young physicists get stuck in the string theory rut".

(Post graduate) 'people follow the money'.

"...in the marketplace of ideas... people are concerned about their funding"

"It's very dangerous to invest such resources in something that hasn't worked out the way anticipated..." - Woit, paraphrased

'String theory is evasive...' - Woit, paraphrased.

'Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit: The failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics.'

'Woit's central claim is that not only is string theory wrong, but that is has also tainted the intellectual atmosphere and grabbed far more than its fair share...'

'... there is criticism for not providing quantitative experimental predictions'.
------------------------------
'String Theory for Dummies':
String theory subjected buzzwords include 'psuedo studies' and 'more new age propaganda than science'. 'String theory=1st candidate for a Theory of Everything (TOE).'

'String Theory is an extension of General Relativity and the interpretation of strings and membranes (branes)...' '...is that they are quantum mechanical vibrations, extended charged black holes'.

"Membranes (branes - 2-dimensional 'sheets') are end points for strings = Guage gravity duality'

'...leads to new insights on strong nuclear force'.

After trial and error methods of thought problems, 'strings (now) also equal points and surfaces'.
------------------------------------------

YouTube-SDS String theory for dummies (video):
In a school playground setting an older, bigger girl approaches a smaller younger girl and says:
"Remember when you were told in science class that there's nothing smaller than the sub-atomic atoms?" (paraphrased)
The little girl looks up at the larger authority figure and replies affirmatively, "Yes".

The larger, older girl exclaims triumphantly: "They lied!".

Does not this string theory propaganda directly imply that the students are being lied to by their teachers?

Does this mean that Rutherford 'lied' when he discovered the proton, or, that J. J. Thompson lied when he discovered the electron?

Following through on this line of accusatory thinking, does every plateau of advancement in science determine that whatever preceded it was a 'lie'?

-------------------------------------------------
There is also an String theory instructive video that features a photograph of Einstein looking a the camera, with his mouth artificially activated, advocating and explaining string theory.

This is reminiscent of a 1979 network TV presentation of the Big Bang, featuring Peter Ustionov as the narrating host, proclaiming that 'Einstein predicted the Big Bang', which is simply untrue, what Einstein did predict (in 1919) was an expanding universe, eight years before Silpher-Hubble co-jointly determined it.
--------------------------------------------------

String theory is ‘not even wrong’ (continued)

Excerpts from contributing editor, Jeffrey Bairstow's blog, follow:

“String theory, however, despite not having made a single testable prediction after more than 30 years of investigation, now seems to risk becoming a self-perpetuating intellectual monoculture in theoretical particle physics.”

Has string theory already passed its “sell-by” date? Are the legendary string theorists tying themselves up in knots to no avail? Are the emperors of particle physics not wearing any clothes?

Perhaps the much-ballyhooed string theory is “not even wrong” in the famously scathing words of quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli who frequently applied those disparaging words in discussions with his colleagues?

To judge by the current tempest in a teapot surrounding string theory, all of the foregoing statements may have some value and some may even be correct. The roiling controversy surrounds a thought-provoking book on the *state of quantum physics by Columbia University’s superstar mathematical physicist, Peter Woit (*on second thought, make that “states.”) Entitled, not surprisingly, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics, the book was published in June in London by Jonathan Cape and will be available in the U.S. in September (Basic Books, New York, NY).

Naturally, the controversy has spread into the Internet medium referred to as the “blogosphere,” where anyone can publish anything with or without the respectability of credentials. On one side, of course, sits Woit with his frequently entertaining and highly respected blog, entitled, naturally, “Not Even Wrong.” And “reviewers” have been swinging at the book and each other on Amazon, the online bookstore. Go to Amazon.co.uk to see all the reviews. Amazon, of course, prints all the reviews it gets-without fear or favor. Not all of these amateur reviewers choose to give their real names-and for good reason.

Some of the big names do not hide behind a nom de plume (nom de key?). Here’s what Harvard superstar physicist and firebrand Lubos Motl had to say about Woit’s blog (and book): “It is designed to misinterpret and obscure virtually every event in physics and transform it into poison-and to invent his own fantasies to hurt science. This makes Woit’s blog highly popular among the crackpots.” For even more scathing comments, you can turn to Motl’s own blog at motls.blogspot.com.

On the other side of the coin, the book quotes Richard Feynman as saying in 1987, a year before his death: “I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and it is in the wrong direction.”

In his blog, “Fourmilog,” Autodesk founder John Walker says, “String theory, however, despite not having made a single testable prediction after more than 30 years of investigation, now seems to risk becoming a self-perpetuating intellectual monoculture in theoretical particle physics.” Walker has a four-page review of Woit’s book on his blog that is well worth reading even if you don’t buy the book.

-Jeffrey Bairstow
Contributing Editor
jnbairstow@verizon.net
1 August 2006
--------------------------------------------------
With regard to this (presently derailed) thread, although there were some off-topic events precluding the middle of page 11, the ongoing rhubarb commenced in continuously obstructive earnest, beginning at Post 104 and proceeding consistently to Post 125 (at the time of this writing); with the exceptions of Kaiduorkhon's on-topic Posts, 110, 114 and 123, all of which (so far) have (notably) been completely ignored.

Apparently the tentatively stationed, in absentia AlphaNumeric has excercised his right to drop out of this argument, or has taken a temporary hiatus, perhaps having dismissed reality for lack of evidence ('...utter lack of achievement and progress in your works'.)

In any case, Alphanumeric is at least temporarily retired from making any further points in the field.

Hopefully, AlphaNumeric is reading the offered topic material in order to qualify himself to disqualify it - which, given what he has said about it, shouldn't be too chore-some or challenging. Although this kind of argument isn't a boxing match, and Kaiduorkhon isn't Sugar Ray Leonard, the dissipation of AlphaNumeric immersing himself in a brawl with QuantumWave, amounting to a functional discontinuance of even responding to Kaiduorkhon, is a metaphorical replay of the boxer, Roberto Duran, inexplicably quitting in the middle of a contest with Leonard; after Duran having long taunted - and name-called - Leonard as an inferior fighter. Notwithstanding, AlphaNumeric ('Trust me') has categorically denied that no one competent in physics is or would be intimidated by the work of Kaiduorkhon.

In any event, an abbreviated, informal list of achievements and progress of the topic - Total Field Theory - will follow this post.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

This dissertation is not posted here with any intention to sell books.
Since 1959, the work has been small press printed, internationally distributed (in three languages) and sold out of print in ten hard copy editions of essays and books. It has yet to be disqualified. This is a publicly accessible condensation of the 627 page 6th edition of 1979, posted for the sole purpose of public enjoyment and education, with an invitation to whomever may care to correct, corroborate or otherwise comment upon.



1. Discovering that Newton's gravity is Einstein's 4th dimension.

2. Reinstating Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant
(Lambda /\).

3. Reinstating the formerly abandoned Steady State Theory.

3. Identifying electricity as the 5th dimension.

4. Identifying magnetism as the 6th dimension.

5. Predicting that 'Hubble's expanding universe' is accelerating.

6. Demystifying and conceptually explaining 'time dilation'.

7. Non mathematically explaining the unification of space and time to 'space-time'.

8. Non mathematically explaining the 'curvature of space-time'.

9. Presenting & translating Einstein's Special and General Relativity comprehensible, w'out mathematics.

10. Conceptually explaining the causal identity of black holes.

11. Conceptually explaining the Lorentz contraction of physical matter.

12. Presenting the sound and sight of 4-dimensional gravity.

13. Making Einstein's Unified Field comprehensible to Martin Gardner's Millions.

14. Presenting and popularising the 20th Century
counterpart for the revolutionary Copernican Heliocentric Theory.

15. Explaining that the velocity of light - C - is covariant with
the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated

16. Explaining that 'nuclear resinal forces' are earlier moments in the 4-D space-time continuum.

17. Making the 4-D space-time continuum non mathematically comprehensible to the average high school student.

18. Introducing the potential sum of the interaction of matter with Dirac's anti-matter - the cause of the accelerating expansion of matter.


19. Extracting a non mathematically geometric explanation for Planck's discontinuous constant, out of the *Golden Rectangle and the continuous logarithmic spiral within that rectangle.

----------------

*The continuous Wave Structure of Discontinuous Matter

This (partial) list of achievements is presented here in response to the incentive provided by AlphaNumeric's (savoir faire name-calling and) allegation(s) that the author of this thread's topic is 'evasive', when, it seems, the opposite - as shown in this thread - proves to be the case.

 

[quantum_wave]

Let’s have a few moments of silence in commemoration for those last two posts …

I love the blog-like description of this thread in post 127 … But read them both . Good work KBR.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

YouTube-SDS String theory for dummies (video):

I see you get your technical information from the biggest source of nonsense and self opinion on the web. But then that's quite appropriate for you.

In a school playground setting an older, bigger girl approaches a smaller younger girl and says:
"Remember when you were told in science class that there's nothing smaller than the sub-atomic atoms?" (paraphrased)
The little girl looks up at the larger authority figure and replies affirmatively, "Yes".

The larger, older girl exclaims triumphantly: "They lied!".

That's got nothing to do with string theory. It's been known there's things smaller than atoms (by the way, 'sub-atomic atoms'? And you claiming about my non sequitors!) for more than 100 years.

Does not this string theory propaganda directly imply that the students are being lied to by their teachers?

Does this mean that Rutherford 'lied' when he discovered the proton, or, that J. J. Thompson lied when he discovered the electron?

Following through on this line of accusatory thinking, does every plateau of advancement in science determine that whatever preceded it was a 'lie'?

Firstly, you are making a lot of claims about a Youtube video which I am certain isn't done by anyone who knows string theory. Secondly, its hardly 'propaganda'. Its how science is taught. When you're 5 you're taught simplified concepts. When you're 10 you get a little bit of the details explained to you etc. In explaining atoms to a child a teacher generally doesn't go into the specifics of electron shells and nuclei. When you're 15 you learn the nucleus is made of proton and neutrons. When you are 16~18 you learn about electron orbitals and that the protons and neutrons are divisible. When you're 20 you learn how to calculate the electron orbitals from first principles. When you're 22 you learn how to compute QCD processes.

As for your mentioning of Rutherford and Thompson you really are desperate if you go to such hyperbola.

There is also an String theory instructive video that features a photograph of Einstein looking a the camera, with his mouth artificially activated, advocating and explaining string theory.

This is reminiscent of a 1979 network TV presentation of the Big Bang, featuring Peter Ustionov as the narrating host, proclaiming that 'Einstein predicted the Big Bang', which is simply untrue, what Einstein did predict (in 1919) was an expanding universe, eight years before Silpher-Hubble co-jointly determined it.

So rather than opening a book on string theory or reading lecture notes you go to Youtube, watch a couple of videos made by people who are as clueless as you and that is what you use to form your views of the people who actually do string theory!

No wonder you're such a hack if that's how you 'learn' things.

Apparently the tentatively stationed, in absentia AlphaNumeric has excercised his right to drop out of this argument, or has taken a temporary hiatus, perhaps having dismissed reality for lack of evidence ('...utter lack of achievement and progress in your works'.)

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate I am wrong about your lack of achievement. You have a self published book which made no impact on the community. Books aren't scientific achievement as they don't pass peer review and they don't have to be aimed at informed people. You have not stimulated any work by actual physicists into any of your ideas. You have no got any work published yourself. You're method of learning science is going on Youtube and copy and pasting blog posts.

And you claim you've accomplished something?!

Hopefully, AlphaNumeric is reading the offered topic material in order to qualify himself to disqualify it

The last two days I've been at a Flavour Physics conference held at my university. That and I'm writing my thesis. Unlike you I have to produce results and then have them stand up to scrutiny. With a viva pencilled in for Febuary I've got about 3 weeks to finish it.

Notwithstanding, AlphaNumeric ('Trust me') has categorically denied that no one competent in physics is or would be intimidated by the work of Kaiduorkhon.

You have nothing to show for your claims. No working models, no quantitative predictions. Nothing. Why would you intimidate them with, unjustified claims of grandeur?

 

[quantum_wave]

Why would you intimidate them with, unjustified claims of grandeur?

Not only did you completely miss or ignore his points, and failed to respond with anything from any source to back up your rants, but most telling is the fact that you failed to acknowledge his appropriate and complete excoriation of your presence on his thread. You are the only one who missed that. Hopefully you will not waver in you lucidity; you make it perfectly clear that your ego is suffering from strong salient points and you fight back with limp hollow accusations. You are too good to be true. And since you are able to anticipate my next post, here it is in advance … link.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
YouTube-SDS String theory for dummies (video): ”

AlphaNumeric:
I see you get your technical information from the biggest source of nonsense and self opinion on the web. But then that's quite appropriate for you.

Kaiduorkhon:
'Nonsense' and 'self opinion' indeed. '... from the biggest source on the web'. You may attribute those qualities to me if you wish, whereas, it's a public example of how string theory is taught, by large, self opinionated sources.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
In a school playground setting an older, bigger girl approaches a smaller younger girl and says:
"Remember when you were told in science class that there's nothing smaller than the sub-atomic atoms?" (paraphrased)
The little girl looks up at the larger authority figure and replies affirmatively, "Yes".

The larger, older girl exclaims triumphantly: "They lied!". ”

AlphaNumeric:
That's got nothing to do with string theory. It's been known there's things smaller than atoms (by the way, 'sub-atomic atoms'? And you claiming about my non sequitors!) for more than 100 years.

Kaiduorkhon:
By the way, you failed to note that the cited statement ('sub-atomic atoms') is marked with a parenthesized note that it is paraphrased - because the exact wording of the statement is not audibly clear. Yes, it's been known that there are things smaller than atoms for more than 100 years. And yes, you're probably right about how 'that's got nothing to do with string theory'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Does not this string theory propaganda directly imply that the students are being lied to by their teachers?

Does this mean that Rutherford 'lied' when he discovered the proton, or, that J. J. Thompson lied when he discovered the electron?

Following through on this line of accusatory thinking, does every plateau of advancement in science determine that whatever preceded it was a 'lie'? ”

AlphaNumeric:
Firstly, you are making a lot of claims about a Youtube video which I am certain isn't done by anyone who knows string theory. Secondly, its hardly 'propaganda'. Its how science is taught.

Kaiduorkhon:
'Propaganda' is how most things are taught.

AlphaNumeric:
When you're 5 you're taught simplified concepts. When you're 10 you get a little bit of the details explained to you etc. In explaining atoms to a child a teacher generally doesn't go into the specifics of electron shells and nuclei. When you're 15 you learn the nucleus is made of proton and neutrons. When you are 16~18 you learn about electron orbitals and that the protons and neutrons are divisible. When you're 20 you learn how to calculate the electron orbitals from first principles. When you're 22 you learn how to compute QCD processes.

Kaiduorkhon:
You describe YouTube as the 'biggest source of nonsense and self opinion on the web' - again, for that reason, it is an example of how string theory is being popularly taught.

AlphaNumeric:
As for your mentioning of Rutherford and Thompson you really are desperate if you go to such hyperbola.

Kaiduorkhon:
In context of what precedes it, the mention of Rutherford and Thompson follows. Your critical highlighting of that usage only demonstrates how desperate you are to neurolinguistically apply the word 'desperate'.



“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
There is also an String theory instructive video that features a photograph of Einstein looking a the camera, with his mouth artificially activated, advocating and explaining string theory.

This is reminiscent of a 1979 network TV presentation of the Big Bang, featuring Peter Ustionov as the narrating host, proclaiming that 'Einstein predicted the Big Bang', which is simply untrue, what Einstein did predict (in 1919) was an expanding universe, eight years before Silpher-Hubble co-jointly determined it. ”

AlphaNumeric:
So rather than opening a book on string theory or reading lecture notes you go to Youtube, watch a couple of videos made by people who are as clueless as you and that is what you use to form your views of the people who actually do string theory!

No wonder you're such a hack if that's how you 'learn' things.

Kaiduorkhon:
My most recent and direct views of people who actually do string theory are represented by yourself and your 'peers' (- authors of several books you claim that I haven't even opened). Your (Lewis Carrollesque) 'methods' include the introduction of 'M' for 'membranes' - with the M also designated to mean 'Magical', or, 'Mystical'; abbreviated to (mind brachiating) 'branes'; alluding to what you call (2-dimensional) 'sheets'. Then there's the one dimensional string that imparts vibrations on space in different patterns of rarification and percussion, which determines whether a given area of space is occupied by a neutron, proton or electron; where the 'ends of the strings' are called 'Guage gravity duality'. This is without going in to the 'entanglement' of nomenclature for labeling the names of sub atomic 'particles' (like gravitons, science has yet to find a singular 'particle') - a list of which is much longer than a so called ('Oh my God!') term paper. No wonder you resort to vague generalities and name-calling to express your unqualified argument(s).

Although you have rather extensively outlined and heirarchically stratified the various age groups that are capable of absorbing string theory teachings, there still remains a goodly and impressive portion of mature and seasoned scientists - including quantum physicists - who are snoring in your classes, when not issuing scathing counterstatements and reviews. Prof. Woit is conspicuous by omission in your 'counter-points'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Apparently the tentatively stationed, in absentia AlphaNumeric has excercised his right to drop out of this argument, or has taken a temporary hiatus, perhaps having dismissed reality for lack of evidence ('...utter lack of achievement and progress in your works'.) ”

AlphaNumeric:
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate I am wrong about your lack of achievement. You have a self published book which made no impact on the community. Books aren't scientific achievement as they don't pass peer review and they don't have to be aimed at informed people. You have not stimulated any work by actual physicists into any of your ideas. You have no got any work published yourself. You're method of learning science is going on Youtube and copy and pasting blog posts.

Kaiduorkhon:
Except for the last sentence in the preceding paragraph, you are merely reiterating your previous redundancies. As for my 'method of learning science', I've been on the net since 9/2002, and only very recently learned of and visited YouTube - the mention of which you cling to, like burrs on a Collie.

AlphaNumeric:
And you claim you've accomplished something?!

Kaiduorkhon:
There's a (partial) list of my accomplishments at the bottom of page 13 of this thread. Like everything else in this discourse that you choose not to deal with, you've ignored it: Speaking of 'not opening books', until you clarify otherwise, you're contesting the contents of a book you haven't read.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Hopefully, AlphaNumeric is reading the offered topic material in order to qualify himself to disqualify it ”

AlphaNumeric:
The last two days I've been at a Flavour Physics conference held at my university. That and I'm writing my thesis. Unlike you I have to produce results and then have them stand up to scrutiny. With a viva pencilled in for Febuary I've got about 3 weeks to finish it.

Kaiduorkhon:
Thank you for reminding me of the terms and designations of 'flavours' included in the surrealism of string 'theory'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Notwithstanding, AlphaNumeric ('Trust me') has categorically denied that no one competent in physics is or would be intimidated by the work of Kaiduorkhon. ”

Is that why you digressed to dissolve from topic, from Post 104 to Post 125, while ignoring a series of my retorts in Posts 110, 114, and 123?

AlphaNumeric:
You have nothing to show for your claims. No working models, no quantitative predictions. Nothing. Why would you intimidate them with, unjustified claims of grandeur?

Kaiduorkhon:
The 'working model' is the universe as is. The non mathematical translation and demystification of previously uncomprehended conditions, is my bond. I not only prove and predict that the expanding universe is accelerating, this also includes the prediction that the very speed of light itself (Celeritas constant) is accelerating. Whereas 'Nothing', is what the universe according to you and (most of) your peers, 'emerges' from (refer, the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy - why any 'creation of the universe', or, 'finite time or space' is intractable).

Regarding 'claims of grandeur', your departure and aversion from reality includes the non recognition that 'LCDM' factors, as presently introduced and interpreted are - fait accompli - the reinstatement of Einstein's 'presently abandoned' Cosmological Constant (/\ - Lambda), which is the sub-title of my Total Field Theory book; which also retrieves and returns the (presently abandoned) Steady State Theory.

You would challenge me to prove what your institution has already demonstrated having purloined.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My most recent and direct views of people who actually do string theory are represented by yourself and your 'peers' (- authors of several books you claim that I haven't even opened). Your (Lewis Carrollesque) 'methods' include the introduction of 'M' for 'membranes' - with the M also designated to mean 'Magical', or, 'Mystical'; abbreviated to (mind brachiating) 'branes'; alluding to what you call (2-dimensional) 'sheets'. Then there's the one dimensional string that imparts vibrations on space in different patterns of rarification and percussion, which determines whether a given area of space is occupied by a neutron, proton or electron; where the 'ends of the strings' are called 'Guage gravity duality'. This is without going in to the 'entanglement' of nomenclature for labeling the names of sub atomic 'particles' (like gravitons, science has yet to find a singular 'particle') - a list of which is much longer than a so called ('Oh my God!') term paper. No wonder you resort to vague generalities and name-calling to express your unqualified argument(s).

The end of strings aren't called 'gauge gravity duality'. Well done on completely failing the grasp the specifics. Yes, you need string ends to formulate gauge-gravity duality but that isn't what they are called. It's an extremely non-trivial relationship between the dynamics of open strings (the gauge sector) and the dynamics of close strings (the gravity sector).

Yet again you illustrate my point that you whine about something you have no understanding of.

As for my 'method of learning science', I've been on the net since 9/2002, and only very recently learned of and visited YouTube - the mention of which you cling to, like burrs on a Collie.

Oh so the fact you've not known about YouTube for long means that you didn't just use it as evidence against string theory? That you didn't just attempt to use the videos of people who don't know any string theory to denounce the work of people who do.

You and logic haven't actually met, have you?

Thank you for reminding me of the terms and designations of 'flavours' included in the surrealism of string 'theory'.

Oh, swing and a miss! The entire flavour physics conference had nothing to do with string theory! Flavours are the 'electron - muon - tau' flavours of the lepton sector and the 'up - down - strange - charm - bottom - top' flavours of the quark sector. Nothing to do with string theory, it was a conference done by people who do Lattice QCD and the head of the LHC was there, talking about the first set of experimental results the collider has produced.

You are so desperate to take pot shots at string theory you just demonstrated you don't know even the Standard Model. Excellent, you seem to be putting your foot in your mouth for me, I don't even have to prompt you!

Is that why you digressed to dissolve from topic, from Post 104 to Post 125, while ignoring a series of my retorts in Posts 110, 114, and 123?

I tend to scroll past your posts which are mass copy and pastes. Your love of quotes and blogs just makes the few moments of coherence you have all the harder to find.

The 'working model' is the universe as is.

*sigh* Are you really that stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse? I ask you for a model, like F=ma models force and acceleration or $$G_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$ models gravity, and you reply 'The universe'. So your work to model the universe is the universe.

Do you even know what a physical model is?

and failed to respond with anything from any source to back up your rants

The fact he's influenced no peer reviewed work, has no peer reviewed work of his own, can't model a single phenomenon in the entire universe, failed to grasp the mainstream models he denounces and goes to YouTube to learn about string theory are all either self evidence or supported by his own statements.

Do you think that the best way to learn about the details of string theory is to go to YouTube and watch videos made by people who don't know it?

Hopefully you will not waver in you lucidity; you make it perfectly clear that your ego is suffering from strong salient points and you fight back with limp hollow accusations.

Like accusations of you wishing me dead. Oh no, wait, that was you accusing me of wishing you dead when that was nothing but a 'limp hollow accusation' you made up. Twice. Seriously, given you did that you can't ever throw the "You're making false accusations" stone at me without being a hypocrite. Just like you can't level 'unethical' and 'unprofessional' at me for the same reason.

Well if only he'd published his work in a journal where discussion of the validity of his ideas is done privately with the anonymous reviewer before being released, rather than pushing them on a forum. Just like you. You complain when people correct you because you can't accept correction.

You are too good to be true.

No, you'll find there's plenty of people who expect grand claims to be backed up with grand evidence. It's just you tend to avoid them because you don't like it when they point out your flaws and mistakes.

 

[quantum_wave]

...No, you'll find there's plenty of people who expect grand claims to be backed up with grand evidence. It's just you tend to avoid them because you don't like it when they point out your flaws and mistakes.

link

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
My most recent and direct views of people who actually do string theory are represented by yourself and your 'peers' (- authors of several books you claim that I haven't even opened). Your (Lewis Carrollesque) 'methods' include the introduction of 'M' for 'membranes' - with the M also designated to mean 'Magical', or, 'Mystical'; abbreviated to (mind brachiating) 'branes'; alluding to what you call (2-dimensional) 'sheets'. Then there's the one dimensional string that imparts vibrations on space in different patterns of rarification and percussion, which determines whether a given area of space is occupied by a neutron, proton or electron; where the 'ends of the strings' are called 'Guage gravity duality'. This is without going in to the 'entanglement' of nomenclature for labeling the names of sub atomic 'particles' (like gravitons, science has yet to find a singular 'particle') - a list of which is much longer than a so called ('Oh my God!') term paper. No wonder you resort to vague generalities and name-calling to express your unqualified argument(s). ”


AlphaNumeric:
The end of strings aren't called 'gauge gravity duality'. Well done on completely failing the grasp the specifics. Yes, you need string ends to formulate gauge-gravity duality but that isn't what they are called. It's an extremely non-trivial relationship between the dynamics of open strings (the gauge sector) and the dynamics of close strings (the gravity sector).

Kaiduorkhon:
Don't know that 'trivial' is intended in the allusion to 'guage gravity duality'. Admittedly don't know much 'specifics' about strings, but you appear to be splitting hairs on the - guage-gravity-duality - issue. Out of an entire paragraph of cogent information you glean a short portion of one sentence and target it as a ruffling of your (physically non-manifest, one and two dimensional, Disneyland residential) strings.

AlphaNumeric:
Yet again you illustrate my point that you whine about something you have no understanding of.

Kaiduorkhon:
'Whine', and 'no understanding' - yet again you reflect my point that you condescend and describe my retorts with practiced acrid exagerration.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As for my 'method of learning science', I've been on the net since 9/2002, and only very recently learned of and visited YouTube - the mention of which you cling to, like burrs on a Collie. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Oh so the fact you've not known about YouTube for long means that you didn't just use it as evidence against string theory? That you didn't just attempt to use the videos of people who don't know any string theory to denounce the work of people who do.

Kaiduorkhon:
You speak as though the point made in my previous Post doesn't qualify what was - and was not - intended in the examples found in the YouTube presentations of string theory and their projection on the masses. You speak as though I deny the use of the subjected videos, to denounce the work of the people who do. Still extracting YouTube burrs from the split ended (guage gravity duality) hairs on the same dog that you bit last time.

AlphaNumberic:
You and logic haven't actually met, have you?

Kaiduorkhon:
Even if you shook hands with a couple of talented comedians, that wouldn't make you one. Though I did have lunch with Leonard Nimoy on several occasions?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Thank you for reminding me of the terms and designations of 'flavours' included in the surrealism of string 'theory'. ”


AlphaNumeric:
Oh, swing and a miss! The entire flavour physics conference had nothing to do with string theory! Flavours are the 'electron - muon - tau' flavours of the lepton sector and the 'up - down - strange - charm - bottom - top' flavours of the quark sector. Nothing to do with string theory, it was a conference done by people who do Lattice QCD and the head of the LHC was there, talking about the first set of experimental results the collider has produced.

You are so desperate to take pot shots at string theory you just demonstrated you don't know even the Standard Model. Excellent, you seem to be putting your foot in your mouth for me, I don't even have to prompt you!

Kaiduorkhon:
You'll have to take your elaborately inflated (desperately crazymaking) proclamation that 'flavours physics conferences' have nothing to do with strings to Google's three different listings of 'Quark String Physics Flavors', 'Strange String Physics Flavors' and 'Charm String Physics Flavors'.
Your idiosyncratic, punitively parting shots backfire on you - often treading on your plate (and your palate) - with a revealing consistency.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Is that why you digressed to dissolve from topic, from Post 104 to Post 125, while ignoring a series of my retorts in Posts 110, 114, and 123? ”


AlphaNumeric:
I tend to scroll past your posts which are mass copy and pastes. Your love of quotes and blogs just makes the few moments of coherence you have all the harder to find.

Kaiduorkhon:
You are boasting about being an inattentive listener while maintaining a pretense that you are communicating? Your art of missing the point uncovers when you can't afford to catch on.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The 'working model' is the universe as is. ”

AlphaNumeric:
*sigh* Are you really that stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse? I ask you for a model, like F=ma models force and acceleration or models gravity, and you reply 'The universe'. So your work to model the universe is the universe.

Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.

AlphaNumeric:
Do you even know what a physical model is?

Kaiduorkhon:
Yes.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
and failed to respond with anything from any source to back up your rants ”

AlphaNumeric:
The fact he's influenced no peer reviewed work, has no peer reviewed work of his own, can't model a single phenomenon in the entire universe, failed to grasp the mainstream models he denounces and goes to YouTube to learn about string theory are all either self evidence or supported by his own statements.

Do you think that the best way to learn about the details of string theory is to go to YouTube and watch videos made by people who don't know it?


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Hopefully you will not waver in you lucidity; you make it perfectly clear that your ego is suffering from strong salient points and you fight back with limp hollow accusations. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Like accusations of you wishing me dead. Oh no, wait, that was you accusing me of wishing you dead when that was nothing but a 'limp hollow accusation' you made up. Twice. Seriously, given you did that you can't ever throw the "You're making false accusations" stone at me without being a hypocrite. Just like you can't level 'unethical' and 'unprofessional' at me for the same reason.

Well if only he'd published his work in a journal where discussion of the validity of his ideas is done privately with the anonymous reviewer before being released, rather than pushing them on a forum. Just like you. You complain when people correct you because you can't accept correction.
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon:
The familiar abrasions between QW and AN I leave to their discretion, and that of the reader.
-------------------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You are too good to be true. ”

AlphaNumeric:
No, you'll find there's plenty of people who expect grand claims to be backed up with grand evidence. It's just you tend to avoid them because you don't like it when they point out your flaws and mistakes.

(Kaiduorkhon: Well, you do try, anyway. And you have your own revealing style : )
-------------------------------------------------

PostScript:
Dear AlphaNumeric:
Have you ever opened and read 'Not Even Wrong', and, do you know who wrote it? Btw, I begin to appreciate your unspoken fondness for R. Feynman as well as Peter Woit.

 

[quantum_wave]

Kaiduorkhon, you are being professional in how you handle your thread and have made good points right along. Though I haven’t completed your linked book quite yet, I am getting there slowly but with understanding. I can definitely visualize what you are presenting and appreciate your perspective. It is a good feeling to be able to come across this kind of thinking and presentation. It would benefit others to familiarize themselves with it no matter what their views.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm still not seeing any actual model of any phenomena in nature. Your answer "It's the universe" is a pathetic attempt at evasion. I explained I want a quantitative model and you utterly ignored me.

You'll have to take your elaborately inflated (desperately crazymaking) proclamation that 'flavours physics conferences' have nothing to do with strings to Google's three different listings of 'Quark String Physics Flavors', 'Strange String Physics Flavors' and 'Charm String Physics Flavors'.
Your idiosyncratic, punitively parting shots backfire on you - often treading on your plate (and your palate) - with a revealing consistency.

The entire conference was not about strings. You made the insinuation that I'd been at a string conference because I'd said "Flavour" and you Googled for flavour and strings, as your reply illustrates. The fact the vast majority of flavour physics is done independently of string theory completely passed you by, because you don't know any of it.

I didn't say there's no flavour physics in string theory. I actually have a paper which uses the gauge-gravity duality to model flavour physics in string theory. I said that just because it was a flavour conference doesn't mean it had anything to do with string theory. A small number of conferences will, this one (and the majority) do not.

Have you ever opened and read 'Not Even Wrong', and, do you know who wrote it? Btw, I begin to appreciate your unspoken fondness for R. Feynman as well as Peter Woit.

I prefer to learn about string theory directly, not through a sensationalised pop science book aimed at people who can't understand the details. That way I make up my own mind rather than listen to someone else's opinion.

You clearly prefer pop science books to papers. It shows how disingenuous you are about 'learning science'. Only hacks think it is done by reading pop science books. I stopped reading them when I was in my 1st year because I realised just how far from the truth they can be.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

AlphaNumeric:
I'm still not seeing any actual model of any phenomena in nature. Your answer "It's the universe" is a pathetic attempt at evasion. I explained I want a quantitative model and you utterly ignored me.

Kaiduorkhon:
It is noteworthy to witness you complaining about Truly Yours being evasive and/or ignoring you, when that behavior pattern is much more attributable to yourself, regarding your consistent routine of ignoring my germane statements and/or counterpoints; often with what is becoming an old saw about 'massive texts', 'copy & paste', and 'blogs' - all of which are of course relevant to the ongoing discourse.

At any rate, your dissatisfaction with what was in fact a response-to and acknowledgement-of your question, is extended, forthwith...

Kaiduorkhon: continued
The Eotvos experiments produced mathematical confirmation of the observed equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Those experiments and their results (down to the billionth part of a second) constitute a quantitative model, derived from nature.

The 'curvature' of light observed (during a total eclipse) in the expedition of 1919 constitutes a connection between observation and mathematical expression - the definition of a quantitative model. The mathematical element of this quantitative model was 'adjusted', whereas it was and remains agreed that Einstein's prediction was - and is - correct. Derived from nature.

G.P. Thompson's bombardment of a thin gold filament - and its results (as documented in my book) constitutes a quantitative model (observation connected with mathematical expression). Derived from nature.

All three of these examples are presented as quantitative models corroborating the central theme of my book. They are merely isolated examples of vast universal phenomena - which continues as my presentation of an existential quantitative model.

Kaiduorkhon:
“ You'll have to take your elaborately inflated (desperately crazymaking) proclamation that 'flavours physics conferences' have nothing to do with strings to Google's three different listings of 'Quark String Physics Flavors', 'Strange String Physics Flavors' and 'Charm String Physics Flavors'.
Your idiosyncratic, punitively parting shots backfire on you - often treading on your plate (and your palate) - with a revealing consistency. ”

AlphaNumeric:
The entire conference was not about strings. You made the insinuation that I'd been at a string conference because I'd said "Flavour" and you Googled for flavour and strings, as your reply illustrates. The fact the vast majority of flavour physics is done independently of string theory completely passed you by, because you don't know any of it.

Kaiduorkhon:
You stated: "The entire conference was not about strings. You made the insinuation that I'd been at a string conference because I'd said "Flavour" and you Googled for flavour and strings, as your reply illustrates."

This was in response to my statement: "Thank you for reminding me of the terms and designations of 'flavors' included in the surrealism of string theory".

You are directly implying that I made an 'insinuation' where no such intimation was made. The fact transmitted is that 'flavors' are indeed included in the surrealism of string 'theory' - regardless of what the conference did or did not subject or focus on.


AlphaNumeric:
I didn't say there's no flavour physics in string theory. I actually have a paper which uses the gauge-gravity duality to model flavour physics in string theory. I said that just because it was a flavour conference doesn't mean it had anything to do with string theory. A small number of conferences will, this one (and the majority) do not.

Kaiduorkhon:
“ Have you ever opened and read 'Not Even Wrong', and, do you know who wrote it? Btw, I begin to appreciate your unspoken fondness for R. Feynman as well as Peter Woit.”

AlphaNumeric:
I prefer to learn about string theory directly, not through a sensationalised pop science book aimed at people who can't understand the details. That way I make up my own mind rather than listen to someone else's opinion.

You clearly prefer pop science books to papers. It shows how disingenuous you are about 'learning science'.

Kaiduorkhon:
The original author of the statement "Not Even Wrong" (as it applies to what has become the dubious institution of string 'theory'), is, of course, *Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum physicist as well as an authority on Einstein's Relativity: *Nobel Prize. 1945 - for his discovery of the exclusion principle. Voluminous information has been published and distributed (about Pauli's expansive work) in the medium of 'papers', and what you call 'pop science books'; in either case, the work and achievements of Pauli remain equally venerable.

AlphaNumeric:
Only hacks think it is done by reading pop science books. I stopped reading them when I was in my 1st year because I realised just how far from the truth they can be.
(Kaiduorkhon: The operative words in the preceding statement are 'can be'.)

Kaiduorkhon:
We are returned to the June 1976 Scientific American article featuring Gunn and Tinsley's subjection of an accelerating expansion of the universe.
Are you not proclaiming that the reader's of Scientific American (which you have called a 'pop science book') who think that a given article is scientifically viable, is a hack? Gunn and Tinsley are 'hacks'?

In citing that article, it was not my intention to evaluate the reliability of Scientific American as a source of information - the fact remains that Gunn and Tinsely were right, over twenty years before their point was proved furthermore and acknowledged, by two different quantitative models: which also confirm my work; which predicted an accelerating expansion, 17 years prior to that of Gunn and Tinsley.
This very subject (with you describing Scientific American as a 'pop science book') emerged in earlier discourse on this thread. Apparently you've completely ignored it.
--------------------------------------------------
Post Script:
I have not counted the number of invectives that you've directed at me from the beginning of this thread, while it is undeniable that you have projected abusive terms as a matter of stylish policy. Should you consider this note 'irrelevant', I can only reply that it is in response to your irrelavancies, and your efforts to denigrate or otherwise diminish not only both of our contributions to this thread, but, myself personally. This post script marks categorical attention to and consideration of this abusive habit and inappropriate action.

 

[quantum_wave]

Here here Kaiduorkhon!

I'm finishing up a session at the Maple Pavilion but wanted to post my appreciation for that last post.

I have managed to absorb 206 pages plus the final several chapters that you have posted here. I'm certain I will have some good things to say about my experience and appreciation for your work when I finally get through it completely.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

The following informations are gathered from multiple sources via Google, some are quotes, some are paraphrases and some are monologue from Truly Yours.
-----------------------------------------------------
String theory objective is to join Einstein's General Relativity with Planck's Quantum Mechanics (and the rest of 'particle physics').

Finding 'the origin of all mass' is also a string 'theory' objective.

'A good quantum theory of gravitation is not available'.

The LHC is searching for whatever news it can scoop, including 'gravitons' and 'the god particle', the latter hypothetical entity is said to have ('probably') been present at the 'Big Bang'.

The graviton and god particle have yet to be found.

For reasons clarified in Total Field Theory, Truly Yours predicts that the so called 'graviton' will not ever be found.

-----------------------------------------------------

'The New Math of String Theory'
"The mathematics we need now haven't been fully developed".
- Mina Aganagic

"If you could look at (strings) from far away they'd look like points. But if you get close enough you realize they're really one dimensional loops."
- Ibid
http://www.physorg.com/news70021180.html
-----------------------------------------------
At about 100 Giga electron volts... the interactive energy of all particles - strong & weak forces - start to be a manifestation of a single force. Things start to unify. Particle physicists are mystified by this (unification). This is where the so called 'multi-dimensional universe' (of 11 & more dimensions) is actually the intersection of back-tracked geometric lines of electromagnetism in concordance with the central theme of Total Field Theory - specifically, this means that the microcosms are just as extensive as the macrocosms. It also means that the so called Big Bang ('creation') theory is wrong.
------------------------------------------------
"The key to understanding 'particles' lies in correctly interpreting the field source." - R. Oldani, June 2008
------------------------------------------------
http://erweb2.eresources.com/issues/pub/is-string-theory-even-wrong/1

"There is no space empty of field." - Einstein

"There is no such thing as a one - or two - dimensional entity that influences three and more dimensional space." - Truly Yours

"String theory not only makes no predictions about physical phenomena at experimentally accessible energies, it makes no precise predictions whatsoever."
- Peter Woit (String theory does predict 'gravitons', although no such entity has yet been found. - Truly Yours)

Post Script:
Dear AlphaNumeric:
You noticeably have no comment regarding p. 5, Post 50 - which was authored by me and could serve well as an introduction to any discourse on microcosmic physics, certainly including string theory. Did you ignore it because it resembles a 'cut & paste' or a 'blog' which you have expressed an aversion to (in this case, from my own book)?

Is your self described and admitted disrespect in this discourse your way of demonstrating that you don't take seriously, alternative avenues of approach to the existing problems in physics unless they're authored by someone of notariety, or with some considerable background in formal education regarding mathematics or physics?

Is your explanation of having a different attitude and posturing in this discussion - which does not reflect on your character outside this discussion - a credible rationalization on your part?

When you proclaim "Trust me", to me, can you reassure me why I should?

Do you consider your avatar - representing a looped string? - as the signal you emit in identifying with the established inner circle of string theorists?

Do you anticipate that the LHC is going to confirm string 'theory'? (Refer 'M Theory' - which isn't a theory either; rather an advanced string hypothesis, having, as you say of my - unread - work, 'accomplished nothing'.)

Have you read Prof. P.Woit's "Not Even Wrong"?

Have you an opinion of how much excitement and incentive and myopic commital has been invested in the culmination of a 15 - 20 year project at the cost of over eight billion dollars has culminated within the 'string theory community'?

Do you consider the LHC to be the forthcoming liberator of the scientifically restrained string theory and its advocates? Are you following the funding, grants and the herd of string theorists - also following the money?

Do you imagine yourself and your string theorist colleagues to be on the brink of a discovery or series of discoveries that will substantially confirm string theory?

Please offer your choice of a quantitative model of string theory.