"String theory is textbook post-modernism fueled by irresponsible expenditures of money"
abelard
seems about right...
http://www.slate.com/id/2131014/
"...but every time he comes close to the kill he stops to make nice with
his colleagues. Last year, Krauss told a New York Times reporter that
string theory was "a colossal failure." Now he writes that the Times
quoted him "out of context." In spite of himself, he has internalized the
postmodern jargon. Goodbye, Department of Physics. Hello, String Studies."
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,207 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Pete
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2131014/
> "...but every time he comes close to the kill he stops to make nice with
> his colleagues. Last year, Krauss told a New York Times reporter that
> string theory was "a colossal failure." Now he writes that the Times
> quoted him "out of context." In spite of himself, he has internalized the
> postmodern jargon. Goodbye, Department of Physics. Hello, String Studies."
>
> regards....
What's wrong with string theory?
abelard
<PeteHi...@honkermail.com>
typed:
>What's wrong with string theory?
the article gives you a good basis....
it is untestable..pretty patterns with no practical application....
crosswords for bright grown ups...with associated grants...
as far as i can see..the 'logic' is rather wobbly too....
quantum theory is statistical..it deal with groups...
relativity theory deals with individuals (essentially)
you cannot predict the action of one man in a crowd by pointing
to the fact that the average man has 1.93756 feet....
i'm taking your q. seriously...so far!
first i will have to get a grip on your semantics and current knowledge
base....
George Saden
abelard wrote:
> as far as i can see..the 'logic' is rather wobbly too....
> quantum theory is statistical..it deal with groups...
> relativity theory deals with individuals (essentially)
Dear me, what on earth are you twittering on about?
Quantum theory is 'statistical it deals with groups'.
Does it?
'Relativity deals with individuals' eh?
Care to elaborate?
This should be entertaining.
Jason P
Remember you asked for it..! This ought to be good ...bound to be the
most memorable twitism of the month.
>
> This should be entertaining.
To say the least...
abelard
typed:
first get mummy to help you with counting beads.
Dickhead is my Codename
It's not statistical, it's probabilistic (and works fine with
individual entities). The problem with finding an over-arching theory
that reduces to both QFT and relativity in the low-energy regime is
that relativity is a classically-deterministic theory, and making it
obey the rules of quantum mechanics is a problem that has exercised the
greatest minds for almost 100 years (Kaluza and Klein started the ball
rolling). It should be noted in passing that going the other route -
trying to reformulate QFT as a deterministic, non-probabilistic theory
is ruled out (according to our current knowledge) by a very powerful
result due to John Bell - if Bell's theorem is wrong, so is almost
everything we currently believe in physics.
String theory is currently one of (there aren't many) the most
promising formulations for merging relativity and QFT under one roof.
However, at the sort of energy scales that we can access in a lab,
string theory has already broken down into its two low-energy
approximations; in short, noone knows how to do experiments that
actually test the guts of the theory in a regime where it is stil a
single unified entity. This makes it unpopular with some physicists -
doing elegant theoretical calculations that cannot (at the moment) be
subjected to experimental verification "isn't science" according to
that lobby.
I happen to disagree, but there are some pretty heavyweight names in
the 'if you can't test it, it's not physics' camp - Sheldon Glashow
being perhaps the group's best-known cheerleader.
George Saden
abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:43:09 -0800, George Saden <m...@privacy.net>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>
>>abelard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>as far as i can see..the 'logic' is rather wobbly too....
>>>quantum theory is statistical..it deal with groups...
>>>relativity theory deals with individuals (essentially)
>>
>>
>>Dear me, what on earth are you twittering on about?
>>
>>Quantum theory is 'statistical it deals with groups'.
>>
>>Does it?
>>
>>
>>'Relativity deals with individuals' eh?
>>
>>
>>Care to elaborate?
>>
>>This should be entertaining.
>
>
> first get mummy to help you with counting beads.
Hee hee, Abelard, once again seeks to conceal his considerable
embarrassment at his own ignorance, with a meaninless one line blow off.
Now, tell us some more about string theory will you?
Bwahahahaa!
abelard
<brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
typed:
>You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
>It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
yes dear...
George Saden
abelard wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
>>It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
>
>
> yes dear...
The man just provided a cogent comprehensive precis of contemporary
physics, and yet you still attempt to bluff your way out with a tedious
rejoinder. Why not thank him, and admit that everything you know about
physics you learned in the beano.
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
>> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
>>>It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
>> yes dear...
>The man just provided a cogent comprehensive precis of contemporary
>physics,
then you enjoy yourself with him...
Crowley
abelard wrote:
>blather, blather, blather..........
LOL. Yet again poor old Uncle Albie is revealed as a bluffer and a
fraud.
Jason P
I agree, 'Dickhead is..' went to considerable effort to concisely
describe something very complex and hard to understand. And the
resident village idiot here 'abel'tard' blows it all off with false
bravado and an offhanded half-witticism. How so like abel'tard's
inability to grasp most things, and how like the typical dismissal with
an inappropriate one-line bit of stupidity!
Abel'tard if you're reading today, did you ever consider the thought
that you missed your calling in life? You might have been more service
to humanity as a bit of human eggs and some seminal fluid at the bottom
of a petri dish at some laboratory in Northern Ireland?
Dickhead is my Codename
typical? or do you sometimes choose to comment on subjects about which
you know even less?
abelard
<brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
typed:
>Can we assume that the depth of ignorance you have displayed here is
>typical? or do you sometimes choose to comment on subjects about which
>you know even less?
you chose your name well
George Saden
abelard wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 16:38:07 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>Can we assume that the depth of ignorance you have displayed here is
>>typical? or do you sometimes choose to comment on subjects about which
>>you know even less?
>
>
> you chose your name well
Funny, it suits you far better than it does him.
joeh
> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
> >It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
>
> yes dear...
Care to elaborate?
'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and
probably wrong.'
Richard Feynman
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
>> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
>> >It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
>>
>> yes dear...
>
>Care to elaborate?
perhaps you'd like to try defining a difference between 'probabilistic'
and 'statistical'....
>'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
>science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and
>probably wrong.'
>
>Richard Feynman
what has that to do with the testing of 'theories'?
regards...
joeh
> On 2 Dec 2005 01:02:11 -0800, "joeh" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> >> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
> >> >It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
> >>
> >> yes dear...
> >
> >Care to elaborate?
>
> perhaps you'd like to try defining a difference between 'probabilistic'
> and 'statistical'....
I'm not sure I can, given that much of statistics is about probability.
I think DIMC meant 'It's not mechanistic, it's probabilistic'.
Probably.
> >'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
> >science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and
> >probably wrong.'
> >
> >Richard Feynman
>
> what has that to do with the testing of 'theories'?
Nothing in particular. I read it this morning and it struck me as an
interesting comment, as people often mouth off about how such and such
a thing 'isn't really science'. As Mencken points out, many of the
great leaps in scientific understanding have arisen through inspired
guesswork rather than through methodical plodding (though the latter is
necessary to test the former).
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2005 01:02:11 -0800, "joeh" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >abelard wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1 Dec 2005 09:17:59 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
>> >> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> >>
>> >> typed:
>> >>
>> >> >You're wrong in your characterisation of quantum mechanics (or QFT).
>> >> >It's not statistical, it's probabilistic
>> >>
>> >> yes dear...
>> >
>> >Care to elaborate?
>>
>> perhaps you'd like to try defining a difference between 'probabilistic'
>> and 'statistical'....
>
>I'm not sure I can, given that much of statistics is about probability.
i'm not sure much of it is about anything else....
i s'pose you just might be able to dream up a definition to
restrict it...
i might watch that effort with interest....
> I think DIMC meant 'It's not mechanistic, it's probabilistic'.
>Probably.
i never ever guess (statistically)....
let the idiots row their own boats or be suitably mocked and/or ignored
it is indeed not 'mechanistic'....
hence my original stt that i see 'logical' problems with the alleged
nonsense in the apparent objectives of 'string theory'....
(an incomplete stt, but no point discussing it with anyone who
cannot follow that far)
>> >'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
>> >science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and
>> >probably wrong.'
>> >
>> >Richard Feynman
>>
>> what has that to do with the testing of 'theories'?
>
>Nothing in particular. I read it this morning and it struck me as an
>interesting comment, as people often mouth off about how such and such
>a thing 'isn't really science'. As Mencken points out, many of the
>great leaps in scientific understanding have arisen through inspired
>guesswork rather than through methodical plodding (though the latter is
>necessary to test the former).
you'd have to convince me...
large breakthroughs come from people who have steeped their
minds in 'vast' arrays of relevant/related data
it is not 'luck' when your mind is focussed on an area and you
then notice sommat of high relevance..
'science' is mostly a series of methods....
Dickhead is my Codename
probability theory deals with the behaviour of systems that are (or
have features that are) stochastic (i.e. random).
they are totally different disciplines, but the techniques of one field
are frequently employed by people working in the other.
hope that helps. but in your case Lardy, i don't suppose you have any
idea what i'm talking about.
abelard
<brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
typed:
>statistics is the analysis of large data sets.
goody...
>probability theory deals with the behaviour of systems that are (or
>have features that are) stochastic (i.e. random).
goody...
>they are totally different disciplines, but the techniques of one field
>are frequently employed by people working in the other.
rotf
>hope that helps. but in your case Lardy, i don't suppose you have any
>idea what i'm talking about.
probably.......sad to say...neither do you
what do you dickhead...learn phrases like a parrot and the do multiple
choice 'exams'?
you'd be well advised to trade in your teacher...
Dickhead is my Codename
posts are so incisive and interesting and obviously well-informed that
it was well worth my time googling assorted topics in mathematics and
theoretical physics and then posting a distilled version here; or (2)
i'm actually a professional in the field and know what i'm talking
about (ever had that feeling? oh... sorry i asked).
lardy, this is fun. you carry on digging, and everyone else can carry
on laughing at you.
Dickhead is my Codename
post by something called Diversity isn't a Codeword ("evolution is
wrong, it must be because nobody has ever seen a dandelion evolve into
a cheetah" was the rough gist of it) was cross-posted to a (scientific)
group that i occasionally look at. so i thought i'd come and drop by
upm. and guess what - it's got people like you in it, that make
Diversity look intelligent by comparison.
i shall disappear soon, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
stay.
abelard
<brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
typed:
>i shall disappear soon, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
>stay.
we have a neat little creche of empty heads just like you...
surely you'll stay and join them...
George Saden
abelard wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2005 04:02:39 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>statistics is the analysis of large data sets.
>
>
> goody...
>
>
>>probability theory deals with the behaviour of systems that are (or
>>have features that are) stochastic (i.e. random).
>
>
> goody...
>
>
>>they are totally different disciplines, but the techniques of one field
>>are frequently employed by people working in the other.
>
>
> rotf
>
>
>>hope that helps. but in your case Lardy, i don't suppose you have any
>>idea what i'm talking about.
>
>
> probably.......sad to say...neither do you
>
> what do you dickhead...learn phrases like a parrot and the do multiple
> choice 'exams'?
It's so funny whatching you digging yourself deeper into this pit of
shame, and yet you blunder on. What a charlatan.
hummingbird
Rotfl.
--
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
He has always tended towards being messianic."
-- Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1879986_1,00.html
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>On 1 Dec 2005 16:38:07 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
><brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>Can we assume that the depth of ignorance you have displayed here is
>>typical? or do you sometimes choose to comment on subjects about which
>>you know even less?
>
>you chose your name well
Rotfl. You've been caught with your knickers down again lardy.
That's the 5th time this week and I've lost count how many times this
past six months. Time to change your name to Charlatan so at least we
won't have a façade to wade through each time we pull you up...
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>On 2 Dec 2005 09:12:46 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
><brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>i shall disappear soon, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
>>stay.
>
>we have a neat little creche of empty heads just like you...
>surely you'll stay and join them...
Quite amazing...
Still you attempt to salvage something of your shattered reputation
by diverting attention to other peoples' shortcomings.
hummingbird
[big snip of lardy's flannel]
Lardy, now is an appropriate moment for me to ask you yet again
to explain how you arrive at 10% UK inflation at the moment and
to explain your GDP figures and M4 vs bank lending etc. I asked
you this in another thread a few days ago but you went very quiet.
abelard
<ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:46:17 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>
>[big snip of lardy's flannel]
>
>Lardy, now is an appropriate moment for me to ask you yet again
>to explain how you arrive at 10% UK inflation at the moment and
>to explain your GDP figures and M4 vs bank lending etc. I asked
>you this in another thread a few days ago but you went very quiet.
no buzzy...you got a clear answer....
i do realise you are once more sinking in the quicksand of your
own desperate need to be taken seriously....
and therefore once more resorting to direct lies.....
it'll do you no more good that the last 10 times you attempted that course
among your other problems you are innumerate....
so it is quite useless for you to persist in attempting to shirt-tail
other idiots whom you imagine you may hide behind....
no-one serious will ever take you seriously until you get yourself
some basic education....bluff will only work for you....if at all...
among your fellow dorks....
and none of you dorks will ever make convincing arguments on
any subject....simply because your ignorance runs so deep....
only other dorks, if even then, will be taken in by your blustering...
and they are essentially irrelevant to anything of moment....
the only string theory you have any chance of grasping is
the granny knot....
and even on that i have severe doubts of your abilities....
hummingbird
typed
typed
typed
typed
typed
>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:37:29 +0000, hummingbird
><ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:46:17 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>
>>[big snip of lardy's flannel]
>>
>>Lardy, now is an appropriate moment for me to ask you yet again
>>to explain how you arrive at 10% UK inflation at the moment and
>>to explain your GDP figures and M4 vs bank lending etc. I asked
>>you this in another thread a few days ago but you went very quiet.
>
>no buzzy...you got a clear answer....
Nonsense. There is no such thing as a clear answer from you lardy.
Have you no conscience? Have you no shame? Once again you are woffling
because you don't have the answer lardy. Why?
Because you're a charlatan, as this thread very clearly demonstrates.
After being utterly humiliated and shown up for the bullshitter that
you are, most decent people with scruples would run away and hide for
a while or change their name but not you, ooh no. You bounce back
throwing insults at others to divert attention away. Now perhaps you
can understand why I concluded some while ago that on the balance
of probability, you are very likely a Jewish Zionist.
rest binned unread.
abelard
<ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:04:19 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> typed
> typed
> typed
> typed
> typed
>
>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:37:29 +0000, hummingbird
>><ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:46:17 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>
>>>[big snip of lardy's flannel]
>>>
>>>Lardy, now is an appropriate moment for me to ask you yet again
>>>to explain how you arrive at 10% UK inflation at the moment and
>>>to explain your GDP figures and M4 vs bank lending etc. I asked
>>>you this in another thread a few days ago but you went very quiet.
>>
>>no buzzy...you got a clear answer....
>
>Nonsense. There is no such thing as a clear answer from you lardy.
probably true as far as you are concerned....
as you can't follow clear answers....
but your perception is very little to do with the real world buzzy....
rest binned unread...
hummingbird
It's almost always true.
>as you can't follow clear answers....
yada yada yada
>but your perception is very little to do with the real world buzzy....
I rest my case:
--
have some fun ... read how abelard was totally humiliated and exposed as a charlatan:
Google: http://tinyurl.com/dgmcm
Jason P
abelard wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2005 09:12:46 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
> <brook...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >i shall disappear soon, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
> >stay.
>
> we have a neat little creche of empty heads just like you...
> surely you'll stay and join them...
>
It seems the designated village idiot 'abel'tard' never LEARNED the
difference between mathmatical statistics and calculus simply for mere
starters....
This is a GENERAL Post on Quantum Physics...
For anyone interested: (..of course this absolutely excludes
'abel'tard' and his/her/its sock/meat cohort 'Ariarsehole-Zio-Nazi')
Anyway, there is a fairly recent film out on DVD which deals with the
subject of quantum physics, with some psychology, spirituality, and
sociology thrown into the mix.
It's quite interesting, I thought, and it addresses how quantum physics
rubs-up-against each of us every day -- though we really don't see it
or realize it. It's about how science and spirituality come together to
effect us as we travel down the sometimes very strange and troubling
"rabbit-hole" of life itself.
It's titled:
"What tHē βLεεP Dθ wΣ (k)πow!?"
(or "What the Bleep Do wE (k)Now!?")
Presented by: William Arntz, Bettsy Chase, and Mathew Hoffman -- A 20th
Century Fox film.. see: http//:www.whatthebleep.com
Uhhhmmm... It is rather weird, but I enjoyed it. It really goes into
things like string theory, and how everything around us might be, in
some GREATER, unified, sense imagined by things we don't actually
perceive or fully understand in sub-atomic physics.
Time Magazine: "A sleeper hit! ..Moviegoers are enthralled."
Crowley
hummingbird wrote:
> Have you no conscience? Have you no shame? Once again you are woffling
> because you don't have the answer lardy. Why?
> Because you're a charlatan, as this thread very clearly demonstrates.
>
> After being utterly humiliated and shown up for the bullshitter that
> you are, most decent people with scruples would run away and hide for
> a while or change their name but not you, ooh no. You bounce back
> throwing insults at others to divert attention away. Now perhaps you
> can understand why I concluded some while ago that on the balance
> of probability, you are very likely a Jewish Zionist.
Once again Abelard has been exposed as a bluffer, a charlatan, and a
windbag. Any lingering credibility he may have had has been shot to
pieces yet still the pompous oaf will come back for more.
He is shameless like most zionists.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
Exactly!
Jason P
On the face of it, have you considered what abel'tard just said?
Translation:
Abelard: That is probably true, based on your own perceptions...
Since you can't follow my obfuscated, muddied, unclear, and audacious
answers, your unique perception therefore has very little to do with my
own skewed, unrealistic, insane schemas of what I would like the real
world to be.
But of course, none of this reply really applies to anything
whatsoever, since I am an inept, raving lunatic of little or no
intellect, Hummingbird... In the future treat me as a moron I am, since
this is my true destined purpose and my station in life. I am this NG's
village idiot..! This is what I exist for..!
Hummingbird: (the) rest binned unread...