Originally posted by Laokin]
reply to post by Moduli
3 quick adresses before I start here....
Firstly... this is a board for Conspiracy Theories.... so yes, there are some cooks here, that is to be expected. However, assuming that the entire populace of the board is indentically "looney-toons" would be a very false assumption as one member does not represent another member with any kind of measurable consistency. Surely you would know this considering your stature.
This is a conclusion based on reading many posts on many forums, not an assumption
. But whatever.
Secondly... It would be wrong to assume something is not true just because you have no experience with it. I.E. You may not be involved and as such, you would obtain zero knowledge of the people who are involved, so to say absolutely that certain activities aren't taking place (when we know that they are and have admissions from people who are KNOWN to be in powerful positions) is just a falsity. This should also come really easy to some one like you, who is bound to this process in a scientific matrimony.
That's not how science works. That's like saying "because you've never personally gotten a million things, then a million more things, then put them together in a pile and counted them, you can't *really* say 1million+1million=2million." Yes, I can. I can and I do.
Thirdly... It is in incredibly poor taste to introduce yourself by insulting the members of the society you are attempting to join. This, is common sense.
It's even more in poor taste to accuse a new member of being a liar, no?
Now I may continue with the meat of my address to you....
You may.
I'm not a "debunker" of string theory, in fact... it seems very plausable to me. However, you state it is absolute... this I have a huge problem with.
String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory.
This is just outright false. Is it called String Fact?
"Theory" is the best it gets. Saying it's just a theory is like saying "sure you have a car, but it's *just* a Ferrari." You only say that out of ignorance or jealousy that you don't have such an awesome car!
Right, because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim. Numbers just don't cut it on their own.
Math has very little to do with numbers, and there is plenty of evidence for string theory. It's just that the evidence is very technical. That's no different than the evidence for things in other fields. Do you think the evidence for how RNA transcription works is easy to understand? I'm sorry if we can't make the universe physically explode in front of you with it's awesomeness, but "I don't understand" is not a reason something is wrong!
Remember Newtons Law?
Like back when I was a boy...
He had all the math to support his theory, however -- it was proven to be incorrect.
Nope! That's the opposite of what happened. Nice guess though. Einstein, who spent his whole damn life telling everyone he did not ever claim anything Newton ever said was wrong--evidently to no avail--turned out to do the opposite.
Newtonian mechanics was put on a firmer foundation, and made MORE correct, by EXTENDING it to a theory that explained things that Newtonian mechanics *could not* explain. We call this extension relativity. The fact that Newtonian mechanics is not wrong can be seen in the fact that you can get a degree in applied Newtonian mechanics (called mechanical engineering). And, indeed, you can use it to do lots of cool stuff!
When you have super complex mathmatics, it becomes exponentially harder to pin point minor errors.
Not that this has anything to do with the point... But actually, it's easier in a lot of ways. "Complex" math is "complex" because it is more constrained--there are more relations. It's also done more carefully. It makes it easier to find mistakes, not harder.
There is no scientist in the world that would claim something was absolute fact based on mathmatics alone...
Only someone who doesn't understand what "a fact" is would say this. It's also unrelated to the claims I've made. Experiments pin down the structure, math tells you more. See the addition example yet again!
To cite some proof, watch the documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie." You will see, how numerous times mathmatics weren't enough, so they actually had to demonstrate nuclear explosives to see if their theories match the yield, distance, and the effects of the explosion. All things that could be potentially proved mathmatically, but the tests defied expectations and in most cases were much BIGGER than anticipated. A simple error in numbers eh?
Actually, this is not called "errors" but "oh god I hope the Germans don't get it first"s. More experiments make things easier, fewer experiments make things harder (sometimes much harder) but not impossible.
This very well may be true, however... at the time of Newton's Law, there were no theories that could do what that did either... not until Einstein, and his equations were able to do what others couldn't.... and now we have numerous equations post einstein that do things einsteins equations could not do.
Except they didn't. They were more, not less. This is like saying discovering a new continent makes all maps "wrong". NO, it makes all maps incompete. It overturns nothing. It told you about something that was not on the map. So you build a bigger map and give it a new name so as not to be confused with the old maps when you talk about them.
You can even make statements about the new continent without seeing it! "Hey there's an ocean next to me, so if there's another continent over there, it must have an ocean next to it, too! In fact, that ocean must be between us! And it must be at least as big as the longest distance we've measured the ocean to be!"
Do you see the pattern yet?
I do indeed!
You don't know arithmetic, you apply it.
I do! Apparently you don't.
You CANNOT be a man of science and make statements like this.
Yes, the usual "scientists know the least about how science works" argument. Always a favorite!
This explanation only applies if you consider light to be a wave. Einstein said wave AND particle.... which is indeed impossible. Even Einstein knew so... so we know that isn't the case.
Light--and everything else--are probability waves. Not physical waves (or physical particles). And those kinds of wave can look like physical waves of particles. This is what the Schroedinger equation says. That's what the Psi in it is. A *probability* wave.
This has been understood for literally nearly 100 years. It's not new.
Wrong. Period. Outright. 100% false. String theory is the first semi successfull theory that attempts to unify classical physics and subatomic/quantum physics.
This doesn't make any sense. Classical physics is included in quantum physics, that's the whole point of quantum physics. It is roughly the "hbar goes to zero" limit of quantum mechanics.
Strings combine general relativity with quantum field theory.
He himself admits that quantim phsyics is indeed WRONG.
He did not. He was one of the people responsible for creating quantum mechanics. That's what he won his Nobel prize for!
Explain "Prolate Spheroidal Wave Function" using your "arithmetic" skills. (Show your work, and explain why it works.)
It has nothing to do with arithmetic, so I can't explain it with arithmetic. But here's the answer: spherical harmonics. Well, a spherical harmonic. One of a wave function. You know, those things I mentioned describe probability waves that you refused to read about?
) 
