String Theory Is "Unbelievably Stupid". How about Einstein's Relativity?

Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

Oct 25, 2022, 10:51:28 AM10/25/22
"String theory really is just stupid. It's unbelievably stupid."

Einstein's relativity goes well beyond "unbelievably stupid". It is insanely stupid. Just two examples:

Einsteinians clearly see, e.g. here, that the frequency and the speed of the light pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in accordance with the formula

(frequency at observer) = (speed of light pulses relative to observer)/(distance between pulses)

Yet Einsteinians believe that only the frequency varies - the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer gloriously remains unchanged. Ignatius of Loyola explains:

"We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what we see as white is black, if the hierarchy of the Church defines it thus"

The time travel story is immeasurably more idiotic than flat-earth myths, and yet this is standard physics - just one of the numerous metastases of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light malignancy:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

See more here:

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

Oct 26, 2022, 12:36:46 PM10/26/22
Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended."

Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know...By the addition of enough extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out."

Is this science? Hossenfelder and Siegel belong to the establishment so their criticism is mild. The real situation in modern (Einsteinian) physics is immeasurably worse.

More here:

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages