The Inmates ($tring Theorist$) Are Running The Asylum

[caltechpostdoc]

$tring theory has done far more damage to physics than just $tring theory itself.

$tring theory's central postulate is that there is nothing more to be asked, and that all government funding for all of science should thus go to $tring theory.

$tring theory has fostered a class of fundamentally dishonest, hand-waving, conjecturing, posing, preening, vogueing pretenders. Corruption allows them to make more money from lying than seeking the truth, so they have no incentive to do physics. The fashionista class has bled over into other fields--even the experimentalists raising millions upon millions to test $tring theory's hoax--they're in on the con too.

They're all in on the joke, and should you speak out against them, they laugh at you. They call you a crank when you question their ridiculous theories that as someone pointed out here have no laws, nor postulates, nor any predictions that can be tested. When you ask them to draw a cube in dimensions 8-10, they jeer, sneer, and put you on the blacklist so you'll never be a peer. And everyone lives in fear of not being a peer, because peer review is how they further the untrue.

$tring Theory is about one thing--money. Book deals, government grants, TV shows--it's a big-time tax-funded circus. A theory of nothing--an elite insider's club for those smart enough to learn the rules of accepting and living the lie, but too stupid to ever think on their own. The worst have risen to the top. It's not the first time in all of history, and it never lasts long.

I have dated many beautiful, elegant women, but none of them were subsidized by NSF nor the government nor student loans.

[WARPULL]

i do not necessarily believe in string theory but the postulations that would account for the micro-verse is an enevitable frontier ;there is no denying it.
validation for such issues are scarce but critics are many> which is good for refinement,those who question and pursue others faults.
Obcourse you know this ,but to know the workings of spacetime the vaccum itself> the material mechanics of space[fields] could not render unless we figure out how gravity works in contengient.
could we indirectly understand the workings of gravity through observing the cosmos as einstein & newton--yes--partial or fully --partially.
could we through observing the micro> yes.
This is where they cannot incorporate the two-just because there so different
thats lame. i understand it is difficult or impossible to observe gravity at a quantum level since the other forces dominant> if you deduce the logic of it all ;the conclusion would be that the other forces[ electromagnetism & strong force]are the manifesting characteristics of matter .And these are the only ones ,these is all we know so far.So,being that matter and gravity are unquestionably related ;one would have to conclude that electromagnetism and the strong force cause gravity or gravity causes matter> or the third that they simultaneously hold each other together.PICK ONE.

Lets try the first that the presence of matter causes gravity ,well that depends if all matter has an intrinsic value of gravity or that spacetime around it pushes toward the obstruction,.,.hmm
Well i really cant assume that matter and space[vacuum] are separate or even not the same material.RIGHT.

lets try #2-gravity causes matter-there is literally nothing to go off from ,given that all the fuss happening is around matter .is it safe to assume that without matter gravity doesnt exists> obcourse-isnt that the emphasis,
the defining nature of gravity that matter attracts to matter through a vacuum[space]anyother speculation is just pure nonbasis philosophy.

lets try#3 simultaneously work together.,.,hmm .well if we know that space without matter[hypothetically speaking obcourse] gravity doesnt exist and vice versa --matter cannot exist without space ,and also to say that they are not even separate> this is the closest speculation.

Now the most basic view for the beginner gravity observer is that matter and the gravity force are one.
Why are they different?Why are they different?
they just manifest in different geometrys [dimensions]
So what causes the different manifestations? congratulations you made it past gravity 101.you tell me you solved are the answers to the universe, i can only tell you particulars to how each one fits together and how they effect one another.

THE GEARS yes ,not too much about THE SPRING>clock of life

All i know about the spring it flows eternally toward the axis jets ;fluxuating two paths opposite to the center

The gears [the forces] well well there is definitely alot we can explain in time,
strat with positive and negitive .,.,how does they work? we must back track and come up with a solid understand of basics like these first before we try to impatiently solve all the rest.

[rkjoyce]

Dear WARPULL:

I would lug that philosopher's stone right back to the pawnshop where I bought it, were I you.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

$tring theory has done far more damage to physics than just $tring theory itself.

Yes, the gist would seem undeniable; however: Is it possible to do any more damage than post-modern theoretical physics (pomo TP) has done in its entirety to the scientific standing of physics in particular . . . and society in general?

For those that understand, the worship, proselytizing, and censured coercion, by manipulating special interests, on behalf of the metaphysical forces and standard models of pomo TP seems to know no limits. Future generations will look upon the pomo era of TP with ridiculing disbelief.

Unfortunately, the damage is not limited to the deserved ridicule of the practitioners (Who among them sees that the emperor has no clothes?).

The major damage is being played out on the global societal stage as superstition and myth are allowed to drive behavior. It is the theoretical physicist that must stand against this global ignorance that is manipulated by soveriegn leaders; yet, it is pomo TP that is one of the most pursuasive purveyors of faith related behavior.

Pomo TP is not only contrived obfuscation; but there is little effort to communicate with other disciplines, beyond the sciences, where some checks and balances might be available . . . just the opposite seems to be the norm.

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

$tring theory has fostered a class of fundamentally dishonest, hand-waving, conjecturing, posing, preening, vogueing pretenders. Corruption allows them to make more money from lying than seeking the truth, so they have no incentive to do physics. The fashionista class has bled over into other fields--even the experimentalists raising millions upon millions to test $tring theory's hoax--they're in on the con too.

Don’t forget the subatomic research with “super-colliders” and “gravity-wave” research.

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

They're all in on the joke, and should you speak out against them, they laugh at you. They call you a crank when you question their ridiculous theories that as someone pointed out here have no laws, nor postulates, nor any predictions that can be tested. When you ask them to draw a cube in dimensions 8-10, they jeer, sneer, and put you on the blacklist so you'll never be a peer. And everyone lives in fear of not being a peer, because peer review is how they further the untrue.

You have identified the salient problems: peer review and the loss of brilliant "minds." Most of the brilliant theorists are channeled to the “system” where they are brainwashed or fear reprisal if they partake in open forums. Few beyond the anointed are able to navigate/understand the system.

I see little hope in reformation; the system must be dismantled and a "new" physics built in its place that reconciles with macro observation and is not dependent upon the concepts of theorists that were never exposed to post modern observations. The sacrosanct tools/concepts of modern theoretical physics were forged before TV, the digital revolution, and the Hubble Space Telescope.

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

$tring Theory is about one thing--money. Book deals, government grants, TV shows--it's a big-time tax-funded circus. A theory of nothing--an elite insider's club for those smart enough to learn the rules of accepting and living the lie, but too stupid to ever think on their own. The worst have risen to the top. It's not the first time in all of history, and it never lasts long.

True, a “house of cards” will collapse of its own weight. Today, with media control in a shrinking world, the damage can be immense before a "course" correction. Reformation is doubtful, if not impossible, from within physics itself.

For now, open forums, such as this one, must rally for the laypersons unbiased understanding of the problem. Questions must be asked until a rational, reconcilable, explanation of Reality (our environment) can be hammered out that is consistent with philosophical logic, scientific method, and observation that can be understood by the masses with little faith required. Continually tweaking of logic should quickly establish a model that, at the least, is superior to the miasma of obfuscation presented by pomo TP.

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

I have dated many beautiful, elegant women, but none of them were subsidized by NSF nor the government nor student loans.

I would argue that NSF’s affect on the bottom line of society’s net happiness would be greater if its fund were applied almost anywhere else in academia than within the current area of theoretical physics.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by rkjoyce

Dear WARPULL:

I would lug that philosopher's stone right back to the pawnshop where I bought it, were I you.

I see little direct mention of Philosophy by WARPULL other than when an argument is made concerning gravity. No one less than Feynman, to paraphrase, stated that gravity couldn't be known in terms of objective science. However . . .

I do note that WARPULL has some interesting insights concerning theoretical physics. Of course there is much room to disagree with WARPULL; however, a certain amount of effort and courage is required to veer off the mainstream of physics and logic to pique the thoughts of others.

Your sarcasm is thinly veiled ad hominem argument that has no place in a venue where there is a struggle to interchange meaningful ideas.

If you are too lazy to argue a specific point, I must assume that you are also unable to clearly understand or identify what you disagree with.

Please dispel my intuition that there is more than a closed mind behind your comment; and, that it is I that am mistaken.

Originally Posted by WARPULL

i do not necessarily believe in string theory but the postulations that would account for the micro-verse is an enevitable frontier ;there is no denying it.

I find that there is much to deny a “micro-verse.” Such implies that there is more than one Universe.

I can think of no logic that would indicate that the locus of the Universe is other than a singularity. As there can be only one singularity, by definition, there should be only one Universe, which would seem to preclude “there is no denying” a “micro-verse.”

Originally Posted by WARPULL

Obcourse you know this ,but to know the workings of spacetime the vaccum itself> the material mechanics of space[fields] could not render unless we figure out how gravity works in contengient.

I agree.

Originally Posted by WARPULL

i understand it is difficult or impossible to observe gravity at a quantum level since the other forces dominant

The “quantum level” has to do with radiant energy. Gravity has to do with the compression of mass. Thus, because mass is not at the “quantum level” neither is gravity; the domination of other forces is not a factor.

Just how do you define these “other forces.” I have been unable to identify any “quantum level” forces as anything but metaphysical contrivances of theoretical physicists. I understand that there are several definitions for a “force”; however, a common one is as a function of mass and acceleration. Just where at the “quantum level” is there either “mass” or “acceleration” if the “quantum level” is the realm of radiant energy. Or do you mean the “subatomic” level?

Originally Posted by WARPULL

if you deduce the logic of it all ;the conclusion would be that the other forces[ electromagnetism & strong force]are the manifesting characteristics of matter.

I disagree. First, these forces are all fundamentally defined in metaphysical terms; that aside, I would conclude oppositely: Matter is a manifestation of radiant energy (Light).

Originally Posted by WARPULL

…matter and gravity are unquestionably related ;one would have to conclude that electromagnetism and the strong force cause gravity or gravity causes matter> or the third that they simultaneously hold each other together.PICK ONE.

I disagree with all. Gravity is, essentially, a manifestation of the accelerating compression of (dark) matter; matter is a manifestation of the Critical Coalescence of a state of Light. Also see: Confluent Congruence and Relative, Hierarchic Compression.

Originally Posted by WARPULL

spacetime around it pushes toward the obstruction,.,.hmm

There is no “empty” space. If there were, you couldn’t see an object in a vacuum. Space and Time are different concepts. Time is something measured by a “clock”; space is the resultant of motion. Whatever . . . neither can “push” an obstruction; nor, are either continuous.

Originally Posted by WARPULL

…is it safe to assume that without matter gravity doesnt exists

Yes.

Originally Posted by WARPULL

the defining nature of gravity that matter attracts to matter through a vacuum[space]anyother speculation is just pure nonbasis philosophy.

It just so happens that gravitational “attraction” is an illusion. And, I don’t consider the observation of universal, accelerating, galactic system recession as “nonbasis philosophy.”

Originally Posted by WARPULL

strat with positive and negitive .,.,how does they work? we must back track and come up with a solid understand of basics like these first before we try to impatiently solve all the rest.

You end where you should have started. That is: fundamentals must be defined before their evolved complexities can be part of the solution to Nature’s enigmas.

“Positive” and “negative” are terms that indicate a difference in a pulse’s cycle. The only significance is the “difference.” That is the relationship of a crest to a trough.

[rkjoyce]

Your sarcasm is thinly veiled ad hominem argument that has no place in a venue where there is a struggle to interchange meaningful ideas.

....Was part of your response to my brief comment on my unhappiness concerning the philosophical tone of WARPULL's discussions. First of all, I didn't intend it to sound so sarcastic. I know this is a very belated apology, but I have had to think about it for a while. I am not a physicist, but since I study linguistics, I have a certain acquaintance with mathematical logic. An acquaintance that has led me to be extremely wary of the philosophers who have recently presided over logic. I actually get upset when people involved in any kind of science begin to sound too "philosophical." For years, I have held a grudge against the philosophers for their (in my estimation) having turned logic into something resembling an insane asylum.

Actually, after reading a little about the old-fashioned things called philosophy, I was surprised that Bertrand Russell, one of the main founders of mathematical logic, was a philosopher. Then I found out that most everyone in modern logic is in the philosophy business. My problem with that is my perception of what a total mess mathematical logic has become. I just do not see how mixing philosophy with science can be expected to give any better results than mixing religion with science.

So, I guess, my sarcasm was not intended to seem directed at any individual, as at the whole notion of mixing science with philosophy. Before I came upon this forum, I really had no idea of how much dissent existed in physics. But, on the other hand, if you happen to think physics is adrift -- just look into the very odd state of current thinking regarding linguistics. Most people involved in linguistics theory ostensibly believe things are working out well -- although, in reality, there is so much strife in that field that I really don't want to get started discussing it. Things are just tough all over, I guess.