The Dagda wrote:
Arrogant child. Don't tell me what to say, you haven't dealt with the objections of Smolin and you don't have the education to do so. So kindly sit down unless you explain in detail why it is falsifiable and in what experiment thanks.
I have dealt with the objections of Smolin. They are similar to yours:
•He believes that the energies needed to directly test string theory are too high to be test at particle accelerators in the near future. I have NEVER disagreed with this; it's true. To directly test string harmonics, one would need an incredibly large particle accelerator.
•This having been said, Smolin also believes that string theory is currently untestable. THIS is not true. While string theory cannot be directly tested, it can be indirectly tested (like many commonly accepted theories) in experiments. This has been shown in low-energy situations such as AdS/CFT correspondence (which you ignore) to something as large-scale as ekpyrotic brane cosmology. DEspite what Smolin may say to you, string theory IS testable, and I would like you to deal with my points rather than arm-waving them and accusing me of being an "arrogant child".
That is an ad hominem,
No it isn't. THIS is why I asked you if you understood the concept of ad hominem attacks; you keep falsely accusing us of making ad hominems.
I assume your opinion is worthless because of a quality you exhibit that of being a whipper snapper who's still at school.
THIS is an ad hominem, the selection of a personal characteristic and using it to discredit his arguments.
The attack on me claiming I don't know what an ad hominem is is not really as such it deals with my argument not my personal qualities. Now can we move on.
1. It wasn't an attack.
2. It wasn't an attempt to discredit your personal qualities. I was asking a simple question: do you understand the concept of an ad hominem?
So your argument basically is I am right and you are wrong. Laughable. Delusional.
No. My argument is that you have completely misunderstood the experiment hackenslash has presented.
You said he wont answer your questions, as he never does that is an ad hominem, amongst others.
I have answered your questions. Furthermore, not answering questions is NOT an ad hominem.
I suspect you really have little or no knowledge of this subject if you think that their points are in any way invalid.
Aren't you the one that said that because string theory was background-indepedent is was unfalsifiable?
I don't think that their points are invalid. I think that their points are the same points people have been making for decades and that they are decades behind. You quote richard Feynman, yet he died decades ago. He died before most of the tests of which we currently know were discovered. Smolins arguments are the same arguments people have been making for years, and they are simply out of date.
Saying x distinguishes y when clearly the mainstream says it doesn't is ignorant. So why are all the mainstream theorists wrong and the String Theorists right. Let's examine the routes of their self delusion?
I have given you SEVERAL mainstream physicists that agree with string theory and it's predictions, including Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, and John Ellis. Unless you address the mainstream physicists that agree with string theory, your point is now invalid.
String theory is not mainstream it's not a theory it can't be, mainstream indicates a hypothesis at least based on already theoretical concerns ie Higgs.
The Higgs boson, like string theory, has never been tested. The Higgs mechanism has just as much validity as string theory.
it is the prevailing thoughts on science not the hypothetical thoughts of science based on arm waving, excuses, downright fraud, and self delusional arm waving.
This is an ignorant statement. String theory makes no excuses, arm waving, or even something as absurd as fraud. It makes testable predictions based on it's core concepts. Unless you can address these predictions, the only one doing the arm-waving is you.
What blue shift experiments? Here's a clue for you you can say it tests differently for this but if you don't even have a means to test for it what the fuck does that even mean? I can claim to test for fairies at least I can actually set up an experiment to find if they exist at the bottom of my garden, what do you have?
... What the hell? I have already told you: gravitational wave detectors would be able to test this blue-shift of gravity.
Answer the question ffs. Links? Who said what, who's done what in what experiment, which journal, who peer reviewed it, was it discrete from say LQG which makes the same sorts of predictions as strings.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206060
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0008190
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0611/0611259v2.pdf
And yes Ipetrich it can't even distinguish itself indirectly ATM that is my argument simply, as soon as it becomes falsifiable String Theorists who may or may not be scientists start doing real science, not just talking the talk.
False. It IS falsifiable. It is just as falsifiable as the Higgs mechanism, Hawking radiation, and other mechanisms for spontaneous symmetry breaking. It makes testable predictions NOW. Deal with those.
String theory merely plagiarises other theories predictions and makes them their own. It has very little to do with science and more to do with a dying non theorem grasping onto the organism of physics and sucking the blood out of it. What we need is to send this parasite back to the maths departments where it belongs unless it is working in real science that involves real empiricism.
String theory doesn't plagiarize other theories. Many of it's predictions have actually been adopted in other frameworks.
Links. I'd like to see him go head to head with Smolin but String groupies don't do peer review. They just as Feynman eloquently said make excuses.
Feynman died two decades ago, before experiments for string theory came about.
String theory is indeed peer reviewed. They are submitted into some of the most prestigious science journals, such Physical Review, all of which are peer-reviwed journals.
How many Nobel prizes does string propaganda have? Aren't its prizes in fields mathematical mainly?
You use some strong words like "propaganda", yet you have nothing to back up your claims.
Winning 10 fields medals does not make you a physicist. That is an example of a resort to authority fallacy. What is in argument here is not how many awards people have won but what for and was it science or scientifically methodical.
... Aren't you the one who claims that mainstream scientists don't support string theory? I am in no way appealing to authority. I am claiming that you are incorrect that all mainstream scientists don't support string theory. This is NOT appealing to authority. It would only be appealing to authority if I used the opinion of Nobel prize winning physicists to say that I was right; this isn't what I'm doing.
Moving on from whether something is or is not an ad hom would be great. IHMO, the red underline is ad hom,
The statement you responded to wasn't an ad hominem. However, the red-underlined statement is an ad hominem(at least part of it)
but I could be wrong, so how about everyone not doing it even if unsure whether it qualifies, and talking about string instead. It's scientific and educational not woo-ridden religion, despite the differing views. At least you're arguing about things that aren't totally impossible, like deities. That would be stupid indeed.
Oh, so now it's not religion? You claim here that it's scientific, yet a few posts ago you claimed that it was a false science. You have also called it "voodoo" more than once. Please be consistent with your arguments.
It's educational and scientific only if it is a theory,
Bollocks. Hypotheses are a fundamental part of the scientific method. According to this logic, the Higgs mechanism isn't scientific.
Scientists may indulge in speculation but that is not science per se, that is where science is before it becomes a theory. I argue that string theory has yet to get beyond the planning stage and so its Scientists have yet to do any practical science as regards a ToE not anything.
As I've shown you, this is bollocks. Testable predictions await the results at the LHC.
Talk is cheap science has always demanded more than just words. Show us the money or at least show us a statement with the money on it!
We've shown you much money. Yet you refuse it...
My arse is not a space station and I predict Nautilidae has got little in the way of argument to debunk Smolin, Woit, Roveli, Feynman et al.
See my above posts.
BTW John Horgan used to be a Senior Writer for Scientific American, which makes him qualified to comment at least on the problems with physics.
Yes. It's too bad that he's provided nothing to back up his claims. All he claims is that colliders needed to directly test string theory would be too large. This has been known for years. However, he doesn't comment on any indirect tests of string theory, which is what we have been talking about this entire time. I understand his opinion, but your post brings nothing new to the table.
Pop science does little to challenge this doppleganger in science, so it is left to peer review to do so, whether they agree with reviews by their peers is beside the point it wont become mainstream without passing that hurdle.
... Wow. It seems to me that you think that string theory hasn't been peer-reviewed by anyone but string theorists. This is 100% false. See the links I gave above.
Maybe you all actually agree but you don't realise. 
I think that's about as likely as the Church of the Latter Day Saints throwing their lot in with the Sikhs...
