Monads are the real atoms of nature.

[BidenPresident]

Damocles said stalking is not permitted on the forum.

Clearly Cupressus is a stalker. This should not be permitted.

Oh, well. Not going to waste time with someone who should be with a psychiatrist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No you don't. You've read about it in Omni or some other pop-sci magazine. You know nothing technical about it. The kind of person who LARDS EVERY FUCKIN' POST with giant graphics all the fuckin' time does NOT know string theory in detail.

I remember Omni. That was a fun magazine.

Hasn't existed in 30 years - you've aged yourself.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I remember Omni. That was a fun magazine.

Hasn't existed in 30 years - you've aged yourself.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Damocles said stalking is not permitted on the forum.

Clearly Cupressus is a stalker. This should not be permitted.

Oh, well. Not going to waste time with someone who should be with a psychiatrist.

I have been trying to discuss this topic now for several posts. All you ever do is attack (and troll).

Please leave this thread if you are only going to troll.

 

[Cypress]

No one will talk to you like an adult until you stop accusing everyone of doing EXACTLY what you do.

Even if you don't go to "google" you go to your library and you look up this stuff and pontificate on it.

NO ONE THINKS YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH STRING THEORY PERSONALLY. You are like the rest of EVERYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD.

So stop this stupid war on googling. You do it too.

And, for the record, I agree with your point 100%. It is very sobering to think that there may be no "items" at the bottom of the stack. It may just all be field perturbations.

Posting all day nonstop on a holiday? No friends, no family, no spouse?


Nobody on this board any expertise or qualifications in String theory. Other
than what they can paraphrase from Wikipedia. Anyone here who claims expertise is lying. The mathmatics of String theory is way beyond what any poster here is capable of.

My only experience is from a streaming survey couses and guidebook written by S. James Gates.


That's why I kept the connection to the basic principles of string theory on a philosophical level.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Posting all day nonstop on a holiday? No friends, no family, no spouse?


Nobody on this board any expertise or qualifications in String theory. Other than what they can paraphrase from Wikipedia.


That's why I kept the connection to the basic principles of string theory on a philosophical level.

Thanks for all your love. XXXOOOOXXXX

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That's why I kept the connection to the basic principles of string theory on a philosophical level.

But it's like QM. Too easy for people to just drag through their imaginations and handwave bullshit hypotheses. And, besides, it is still so absurdly abstract and hypothetical that it would be nice if we could avoid it being leveraged the way every single scientific concept is misappropriated for woo-woo for once.

Well, now that I say that, maybe it's PERFECT for bullshit woo-woo New Agey misappropriation. It's why I avoid leveraging it for "philosophical discussions", much as I refuse to leverage QM for "philosophical discussions".

That being said: as I noted earlier I agree with you that there's a possibility that there is no "there there" in terms of indivisible items.

It's all fun stuff to think about, but not worth that much effort given how little any of us understand it truly.

 

[Cypress]

But it's like QM. Too easy for people to just drag through their imaginations and handwave bullshit hypotheses. And, besides, it is still so absurdly abstract and hypothetical that it would be nice if we could avoid it being leveraged the way every single scientific concept is misappropriated for woo-woo for once.

Well, now that I say that, maybe it's PERFECT for bullshit woo-woo New Agey misappropriation. It's why I avoid leveraging it for "philosophical discussions", much as I refuse to leverage QM for "philosophical discussions".

That being said: as I noted earlier I agree with you that there's a possibility that there is no "there there" in terms of indivisible items.

It's all fun stuff to think about, but not worth that much effort given how little any of us understand it truly.

The basic ideas of String theory and quantum field theory are comprehensible to anybody with a good high school education and an incentive to read high quality science journalism and popular science books.

There's only about a thousand people in the United States who want, or need, to know the higher mathmatics, differential equations, and technical detail. And none of them are on JPP.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nobody on this board any expertise or qualifications in String theory

... that you can bring yourself to acknowledge lest you suffer a painful delusional bubble-bursting. You should have written "There probably isn't anyone on this board who understands String Theory less than I do."

Anyone here who claims expertise is lying.

Too funny! This equates to an absurd claim of omniscience. How do you plan to show that I don't have any expertise in String Theory?

The mathmatics [sic] of String theory is way beyond what any poster here is capable of.

You only get to speak for you. I think everyone on JPP is willing to stipulate that String Theory far exceeds your dropout education level. I, on the other hand, don't find the math too terribly difficult ... and String Theory doesn't work anyway. It's a nothing-burger that fell by the wayside. It can't be used for anything. You had to keep all discussions on a philosophical level because there are no practical applications for String Theory.

 

[Cypress]

I'm a String Theory expert!

Bulverism

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The basic ideas of String theory and quantum field theory are comprehensible to anybody with a good high school education and an incentive to read high quality science journalism and popular science books.

Not technically. Surficially, yes. 100%. I've got many of those books on my shelf right now: "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" and "Schroedinger's Kitten" by Gribbin, multiple biographies of Feynman and Alvarez as well as "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes. They all do an admirable job of explaining QM quite nicely for the interested amateur audience, but I disagree that it really gives an insight into the ACTUAL stuff. It's at best a shadow on the wall of the cave and not the real deal.

And that's the problem in my view: people take what feels like a pretty complete understanding when, in fact, it is anything but. This is where the amateur starts to over-extrapolate meanings and infer something that isn't there simply because they've been looking for a place to stash all the weird stuff they can't really figure out otherwise.

There's only about a thousand people in the United States who want, or need, to know the higher mathmatics, differential equations, and technical detail. And none of them are on JPP.

There's probably many, many times that number (and diff eq = mathematics)

 

[Cypress]

Not technically. Surficially, yes. 100%. I've got many of those books on my shelf right now: "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" and "Schroedinger's Kitten" by Gribbin, multiple biographies of Feynman and Alvarez as well as "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes. They all do an admirable job of explaining QM quite nicely for the interested amateur audience, but I disagree that it really gives an insight into the ACTUAL stuff. It's at best a shadow on the wall of the cave and not the real deal.

And that's the problem in my view: people take what feels like a pretty complete understanding when, in fact, it is anything but. This is where the amateur starts to over-extrapolate meanings and infer something that isn't there simply because they've been looking for a place to stash all the weird stuff they can't really figure out otherwise.



There's probably many, many times that number (and diff eq = mathematics)

You sound like a name dropper.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You sound like a name dropper.

I KNEW you'd be a dick about this.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I can't discuss anything scientific since I don't know anything in that area. I am a tool.

This is probably what you SHOULD have responded with.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Cyprissy, go ahead an ban me from this thread, too. Since it is clear you don't even know half of what you are talking about I thought it would be fun to see how little you actually know...but you are scared and can't discuss. All you ever do is attack.

I gave it my best shot. You are a prick.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You sound like a name dropper.

Hey, Cyprick, what's your h-index number?

(Better get to googlin'!)

 

[Trumpet]

Hey, Cyprick, what's your h-index number?

(Better get to googlin'!)

Another brilliant post by the JPP Forum nutjob.

 

[Cypress]

Hey, Cyprick, what's your h-index number?

(Better get to googlin'!)

My footprint on Research Gate is practically laughable.

I got an email from Research Gate informing me that my
calculated RI (a measure of research interest in my publications) is 9.1.

The RI index range for the entire research community is 0.6 to 67.4.

That means I am on the extreme low end of the RI range and virtually ignored!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Another brilliant post by the JPP Forum nutjob.

Funny how you IGNORE THE ACTUAL CONTENT_HEAVY POSTS I make, like the post that Cypress was responding to ("responding" in only the loosest definition) so you can obsess on the stuff you understand which is the bullshit.

You seem to be attracted to the shit. Are you a housefly who can type?

Why don't YOU tell us what you know about QM and confirm Cypress's hypothesis that it only takes a modest education to effectively understand it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

My footprint on Research Gate is practically laughable.

Not bad, actually. Frankly I'm surprised.

Mine isn't much better at 13 but that's primarily because I stopped publishing when I left academia and moved over to industry. Now my output is recorded by patents. I've only got 20 of those.

As for 9, it's not bad...approximately associate professor level. Professor level would be expected to be >12.

Kudos.