I notice Vegan, that you do not address my points, but instead you deflect the criticism without addressing my arguments.
My points still stand, please try to prove me wrong.
1. There is no (nope not ONE bit) empirical support for string theory.
2. And Einstein was nothing more than a celebrity plagiarist made famous by the media.
i addressed them in the post before this quote
and i said that those were not arguments
just as saying "prove me that the earth is not round" is not an argument
not even string theorists who spend 18h of their days working on it pretend that there is empirical evidence for string theory
so you're not making much of a point by saying that there are is empirical evidence
but empirical "support", yes there is
that means, hints that make them think that string theory is indeed a very good candidate for a right theory of the universe
google is a good start if you wish to know more
i'm not going to waste time
i've read it already, it's your turn now
as for einstein, you also didn't try to understand what i wrote
as a comparison, do you think you're being clever by criticizing einstein?
or are you just repeating the research that others did and that you read on the internet?
yet you could be making good points
einstein, as any other scientists, made good points and discoveries of his own while using what others had discovered before
maybe you're realizing this today, but be reassured that no one in the scientific community believes that einstein came out of the void with genius ideas that no one else had contributed to
it took him years to write his theories
years during which he corresponded with other scientists about the progression of his theory
Since Vegan again refused to back up his unsupported worship of AlphaNumeric
i like to think of P&S as a place where intelligent, open-minded people can talk about ideas without clumsy attempts at denigrating others
you don't seem to share this view
before criticizing me for not answering a question, you should first ask the question
i don't worship anyone, i only gave my view of someone's posts
if you want me to say more, ask for it
if you don't, i have no reason to write a book on AN
also, some people have a life that doesn't allow them to press the refresh button all day long in hold for a post they can answer to
i haven't opened this forum since my last post
big "refuse to back up" if you ask me!
INFORMATION travels at the speed of OMNI...at omniVelocity.
this makes me say one more time that your frustration at AN seems to take root in your bad understanding of the concepts he talks about
by the way, i wrote last week that i had nothing against you because i had never been further than the 4th line of your posts
inventing words doesn't make you cool. it makes you incomprehensible
vegan, you've provided no empirical support for string theory
it's very nice of you to repeat this one more time, while i'm obviously not on the board
so i'll repeat one more time myself that there is no empirical evidence, but there is empirical support
read "the elegant universe" and "fabric of the cosmos" and stop bothering us with your bad faith
I know who you are (someone fearful of being wrong, pretending to be tired and uninterested when it is shown they cannot logically support their string theory assertions.)
oh! i am discovered!
how can you read through me like through clear water
that's amazing!
now go back to your psychology classes, there were a bit too short
Let me know when you find proof (or any bit of empirical evidence) of the OmniStrings, until then I win by default.
now that's an interesting logic
"prove me wrong or i am right"
okay, i'll use the same logic
"prove string theory wrong, or it is right"
you really need to understand what a "scientific theory" is.
either i didn't make myself clear or you didn't see what i meant
i was pointing out the lack of empirical (rather than theoretical) support that manifesto was asking for
such as the extra dimensions hoped to be observed in the LHC
but thank you. i'll pay more attention to my use of the word "theory"
All I asked was for references to where
So in the real world, string theory is untestable
soon to be testable
see the 2 books mentioned before
Until then it remains an Untestable religious HYPOthesis
i missed the religious part of string theory
they waste their time worshipping imaginary mathematical fictions with no correspondence to actual physical reality.
the equations they study, not worship, are very real
don't just randomly use words that yo think will denigrate an idea, they have to fit the description too
there is nothing imaginary about equations
and actually, so many people spend time studying string theory because it indeed has a quite important correspondence to actual physical reality
it happens to
describe physical reality quite well, where others theories fail
Just because string theory's tautological maths "add up" do not mean they cannot be falsified
no it doesn't
so we all count on you
take your pen and show us errors in the equations of string theory
i don't even try to defend string theory
i don't know enough about it to have a deep opinion
but i know about enough to see that so far, it fits
so rather than spitting on it, i hope that it will prove to be true
on the other hand, you seem to be on a crusade to discredit something that you know little about
what is your reason for hating string theory like this?
do you hate any mathematical theory that tries to describe how the universe works?
do you consider them an attack on your vague invented words?