naturephysic2345 Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Calling all proponents of all models.. to the debate! Reference: “Can String Theory be tested?” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/09/can-string-theory-be-tested/ <-----Andrew Zimmerman Jones is a known member of organizations such as American Mensa and the National Association of Science Writers. Having earned a degree in physics from Wabash College and a master's degree in Mathematics Education from Purdue University, he has gone on to such disreputable activities as becoming the Physics Expert at About.com Physics and co-authoring String Theory For Dummies, and occasionally publishing works of philosophy, reviews of board games, and other leisurely activities. Quote: “It sounds great, but there’s a problem: No one can really figure out a way to test string theory.” Me: Is this a true statement? “The ideal experiment would provide direct evidence of these strings behaving in ways uniquely predicted by the theory, but that’s not as easy as it sounds, for two reasons.... On the tiny scale of string theory, these limits may make it impossible to point at data and declare, “Right there, that’s a string!”..” Me: Have there been any ideal experiments? Are their any direct evidence? If no evidence then, is the model behaving in a predictive way? Is there any data to point at? Is it impossible to show a model that can point to data and declare, “Right there, that's a string!”. If you say no..then you have not paid close attention to the Recursion Scenario that I have been trying to show. “.. string theory has so many variants that there are very few unique predictions from the theory, so scientists don’t even know what to look for." Me: “varients” not reflecting virtually any observational or measureable proofs. I propose that there is a “unique prediction” as well as descriptive-model, that is both simple and elegant as well verifiable through observation, measuring and experiment. Are the moderators going to give me the time I need to introduce it? “Still, there are three fundamental pieces of the theory that could be put to the test in the near future. These results would not “prove” string theory, but could certainly be claimed as successes by many string theorists—...” Me: Translation: Coulda-shoulda-woulda been put to the test. Presently untestable! Why should we consider as relevant so called 'results' that 'do not “prove” a theory. Why should we accept claims from theorists who 'claim success' but have 'no proof.' “Actually, we may already have our first evidence that can lead us toward confirming supersymmetry, with the potential discovery of the Higgs boson.” Me: .. “may have” and have(proved!) are two different things. A 'potential' discovery represents a future(tense) as opposed to a present tense -HAVE discovered. “String theory also claims that the universe contains extra dimensions, curled up on the same very tiny distances at which the strings exist—and subject to those pesky uncertainty principle limitations.” Me: Sigh! Another 'claim.” The “strings” are not observed nor measured to “exist” until they are proven as so extant. Presently- there is no proof they exist. Why are 'pesky” established laws trumped by inferior no laws as observed or measured-(string theory). Can string theory explain the “observer effect” appropriately. Or gravity? I propose that a 'new model' can do just that, and as either showing that the string theorists were on the right track or; that they were going about it the wrong way. Will you give me the opportunity (fair shake) to present this model-Recursion Scenario? “ In 1998, a group of string theorists put forth the bold idea that these extra dimensions may not be so minuscule after all. They suggested at the time that they could potentially be as large as a millimeter! At this size scale, the LHC might have had a chance of exposing them despite the uncertainty principle. Me: A bold idea is not a proven idea (it is a bold idea lacking proof). Are suggestions -proofs? Does ' having a chance of exposing' something the same as exposing that thing? “If discovered, the properties of these extra dimensions could help narrow in on the correct version of string theory.” Me: Is there presently a 'correct versio'n' of string theory? If so, what would it be called? I propose it would be called the.......................................... Recursion Scenario!” I would call it The Recursion Law!.. and as derived from a myriad of recursive principles. “The holographic principle basically tells us that the description on the two-dimensional surface can contain all of the same information as in the whole three-dimensional universe itself. There is a perfect correspondence between these two models.” Me: I have tried to present this relationship relative to a few of my own (“personal”) threads and as well posts to other threads. It seems that bias has prevented me from doing so. I have described that reflection and recursion (of necessity recursion-- contingent upon reflection) express these holographic principles explicitly and completely. Namely, that a horizon reflects information, and if one or more reflective horizons are relative to each other, the process of recursion occurs; whereby information on the 'two-dimensional surface can contain all of the same information as in the whole three dimensional” space-matrix. This is proven as observed and measured relative to placing real objects between mirror surfaces. It is recursion that explains any or all holographic or string definitions! I am trying to articulate and prove that this Recursion model is a/the “perfect” model that string theorists and holographic scenario proponents (Erik Verlinde- very insightful ) are failing to realize. “And that just goes to show how little “anyone” knows when predicting the future course of science.” Me: What goes to show that “little” is occurring with the progression of the standard model and the string/holographic models-- is staunch predisposition(s) that are either invalidated, cannot be observed or measured, as well that the proponents of these models, due to such bias will not consider anything else. This is elitism! As it goes, elitist, in the end, usually are proven inferior, and thus exposed through observation, measuring and experimentation to be so exposed as incorrect or inferior. I do not refer to persons I refer to a mode of thinking that is both complacent and arrogant. “But, although the experiments produced a lot of information, we hadn’t the faintest idea of how to describe this phenomenon.” Me: I encourage all those who didn't derive the correct information from the experiments (thus still not 'having the faintest idea of how to describe the phenomenon') to debate me in this thread. I ask for all those in control of this forum to give new models the “time of day” to respectfully challenge those who make unverified claims. I plead with the moderators, egged on by the string theorists, (duped into following their dictate) to stop sending my descriptions to the trash bin and stop locking my threads. This represents extreme intellectual dishonesty and bias. “Even if, ultimately, the results of these experiments do not support string theory, they will have proven something important: That the pursuit of an interesting idea—even a wrong idea—can yield amazing insight into how the universe works.” Me: The wording of this sentence,.......( not dissimilar to those who, with no solid proof- perpetuate string ideas,and the guild of moderators that see to it in subtle ways that the string theorists have their say ,while others are relegated to 'shutting up' or 'putting up.' Translation: Shut up and agree with them and us)........is intellectually, as well as scientifically and mathematically, dishonest. Should we accept that a “wrong idea” that does NOT support string theory, nor provide any reconciliation or transparency, should be described as “something important.” The modem of operand of this room, and those who hold the reigns, are not dissimilar to religious leaders, standing upon the pulpit and dogmatically condemning other views and statements as wrong or deficient while not acknowledging there own deficiencies. As it is, in the end, theses scientific clerics will be exposed through proofs and axioms! What can expose these deficient models (as so, obviously, deficient)? The Recursion Scenario that I wish to present(jeez) will categorically do so! ( Though, despite the passion of my statements resulting from being unyeildingly bulied, I do not wish to dogmatically contradict any proposals, rather to extract from those proposals what is correct and relegate those aspects that are not so observed/measured.). Yes- we equate correct science to those aspects that are observable and measurable and can be experimented with. Or have we forgoten these fundamental "rules" of science so as to perpetuate our own "rules" and moderate others algorytmically derrived other principles and rules and.....(LAWS-cosmological constant(s)!) And yet, much like the parishioners sitting in the pughs, I will predict (based upon a knowledge of a recursive algorithm as evidenced as well within psychology/spiritualism and pseudo-science) that I will be told to sit like a “good little Indian” -or- “shut-up”..and that, any contesting of the leaders is treason and represents 'hijacking.' What am I turning against or hijacking (though you presume falsely though conveniently) if not unproven and not observed or measured "doctrines." Either I will be booted or I will accept that the 'recursion of thought' (I am not joking around when I say the recursion phenomenon controls every aspect of the human experience and systems-including those mechanisms of thought) evidenced in the room, is deliberately and methodologically non-conformal to others models ( staunchly oposed to). The recursive aspect of the propagation of information (negative /positive-entropic) is mathematically sound and, though it 'can' be changed for the better, In this case: I will try to change the bias of this room one more time, and seek to respectfully and sincerily disagree and debate the issues. If I am met with the same recursive scorn and bullying I will eventually “leave this church-forum.” Moderator: “If you don't like following our rules, you have the option of just not coming to this site. Banning takes place for failure to follow the rules.” Me: I have tried to post in speculations, and have tried to follow ( verses circumvent or cause dissension as you impute to me) “your rules” as best I can. Is this really possible when bias is introduced into the recursive-reflective discussion(s)? Can a mere unknown theoretical physicist and higher mathematical “nerd” stand up to a group of bullies? I have not in any deliberate way neglected to follow the rules. I am a respectful person and do not usually allow inferior models and unproven 'hype' to ruffle my feathers. I have maintained this overall disposition my entire life, as it relates to science have did so for upwards of two decades. 'You'... have not allowed me the proper time nor space to present my views to ANY sufficient degree. You started out doing so---> until a few particular people <----imposed there way/will into MY thread and manipulated you to stop doing so. In that sense, while they may have proven they are superior to you(worked a special and witty type of psychology on you) through there models and empty statements; they have not in any way invalidated my proposals. As I said, and though I realize that the recursive principles that I have discovered can undergo change from bad to good (if there is a unified effort) , for the most part, the recursion Scenario states that-- the recursion of predisposition as reflected in this room will continue on its course. Either Boot me, or hear me out. Your call! (I do not wish to be booted..only heard). “We do occasionally ban on request, but since you've put conditions on it, I'm afraid I can't comply with it at this time. IOW, I don't care how you feel about your model. What I care about is whether it can be discussed with some amount of rigor, and that you don't hijack other threads to talk about it. That's described by some of the rules we have in place. It's not elitism or bullying.” Me: I do not know if you are being truthful when you imply that you have ever had a poster that feels so bullied that he creates a thread asking the moderators to boot him. My knowledge of recursion suggests that perhaps the converse is true<---0---> that you have never had this happen. (correct me if I am wrong- by linking me to that thread). I would not be so persistent , nor annoyed, if I didn't feel confident that I have something important to explain in this forum. As well , while you 'don't care” to hear my model, and have presumed prematurely that it has no merit, you do NOT “not care” for other models that in the strictest sense (and really in most ways) are neither scientifically nor mathematically proven. Do you “care for” these inferior models proportional to 'not caring' for others that are either equally devoid of proof (you infer)or considerately unproven either more or less than the ones you hold dear. This type of misplaced sentimentality is dangerous to science. I did not intentionally hijack any thread. No matter what I said or did, or where I went, or whatever statements I made----> certain moderators, as well as particular other 'senior members' (qualitatively “senior”) followed me. With a view toward not being able to contradict my proposals ( however I invite such dialogue and am not afraid of it) but to bully me! Edited November 2, 2014 by naturephysic2345 -2
ajb Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Do you want to discuss potential ways of testing string theories or moan about the forum rules? Anyway, have you copied some online conversion that has taken place elsewhere? If so, it is not great form as we do not have all the participants here. I.e. is this a conversion you had with Andrew Zimmerman Jones? One possible signature of string theory you have not mentioned is via its effect on cosmology. It may be possible to find a stringy-signature in the CMBR.
swansont Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Moderator: “If you don't like following our rules, you have the option of just not coming to this site. Banning takes place for failure to follow the rules.” Me: I have tried to post in speculations, and have tried to follow ( verses circumvent or cause dissension as you impute to me) “your rules” as best I can. Is this really possible when bias is introduced into the recursive-reflective discussion(s)? Can a mere unknown theoretical physicist and higher mathematical “nerd” stand up to a group of bullies? I have not in any deliberate way neglected to follow the rules. ! Moderator Note And yet you have hijacked several threads in order to discuss your material. You have opened up new threads on the topic after being told not to. I'm afraid the empirical evidence does not support your assertion. I am a respectful person and do not usually allow inferior models and unproven 'hype' to ruffle my feathers. I have maintained this overall disposition my entire life, as it relates to science have did so for upwards of two decades. 'You'... have not allowed me the proper time nor space to present my views to ANY sufficient degree. You started out doing so---> until a few particular people <----imposed there way/will into MY thread and manipulated you to stop doing so. In that sense, while they may have proven they are superior to you(worked a special and witty type of psychology on you) through there models and empty statements; they have not in any way invalidated my proposals. As I said, and though I realize that the recursive principles that I have discovered can undergo change from bad to good (if there is a unified effort) , for the most part, the recursion Scenario states that-- the recursion of predisposition as reflected in this room will continue on its course. Either Boot me, or hear me out. Your call! (I do not wish to be booted..only heard). ! Moderator Note You had your chance to be heard, and you fumbled it. The presentation of your idea does not rise to the necessary level of scientific discussion. “We do occasionally ban on request, but since you've put conditions on it, I'm afraid I can't comply with it at this time. IOW, I don't care how you feel about your model. What I care about is whether it can be discussed with some amount of rigor, and that you don't hijack other threads to talk about it. That's described by some of the rules we have in place. It's not elitism or bullying.” Me: I do not know if you are being truthful when you imply that you have ever had a poster that feels so bullied that he creates a thread asking the moderators to boot him. My knowledge of recursion suggests that perhaps the converse is true<---0---> that you have never had this happen. (correct me if I am wrong- by linking me to that thread). ! Moderator Note Anyone can feel bullied, and I'm sure it's happened before. You are not the first person to react as if s/he is being personally attacked when asked to include some rigor in their arguments, but the bottom line here is that the attack is on your idea, not you, and science as an institution does not consider such rigor to be bullying. We have had several people ask to be banned. A request I don't understand — your participation here is voluntary. You can choose not to come here, as I said. The scenario that fits better is that these people have some sort of persecution complex, so being banned fills some need that they have, and can tell themselves that they are just like Galileo and are being hounded because the establishment is afraid of their ideas, or some such nonsense. Here's the thing, though: Galileo was actually right, and that could be established by comparing predictions with observations. Which is what we are asking for — some predictions stemming from the idea that could be used to check to see if it's correct. I would not be so persistent , nor annoyed, if I didn't feel confident that I have something important to explain in this forum. As well , while you 'don't care” to hear my model, and have presumed prematurely that it has no merit, you do NOT “not care” for other models that in the strictest sense (and really in most ways) are neither scientifically nor mathematically proven. Do you “care for” these inferior models proportional to 'not caring' for others that are either equally devoid of proof (you infer)or considerately unproven either more or less than the ones you hold dear. This type of misplaced sentimentality is dangerous to science. I did not intentionally hijack any thread. No matter what I said or did, or where I went, or whatever statements I made----> certain moderators, as well as particular other 'senior members' (qualitatively “senior”) followed me. With a view toward not being able to contradict my proposals ( however I invite such dialogue and am not afraid of it) but to bully me! ! Moderator Note This forum alone is rife with people who were confident in their ideas. That doesn't distinguish you from anyone else who has shown up to peddle an idea. It also means nothing in terms of whether you are right. You confidence has no bearing on anything. I never said I (or we) didn't care to hear your model. This is another common behavior — either reading comprehension or seeing what you want to see, or something like that. I said "I don't care how you feel about your model" (trivially verifiable by clicking the link; emphasis added). I refer you to the previous paragraph for an explanation. Nothing here was premature. You were asked multiple times for a model, and yet all you could do was say what the model would show when you presented it. That thread went on for 70 posts. My so-called sentimentality is for actual models that have actual evidence that they work. You provided none of that. Your idea is not ready for prime time. You've gotten feedback from real scientists on this. You can either incorporate the information, or complain about how you aren't being taken seriously. That's up to you (I know where my wager goes) Regardless of your intent, the fact is that you hijacked threads. And reintroduced your discussion (now multiple times) after your thread was closed. Make no mistake (though I am surely shouting in a storm here) those violations (and any further ones) will be the reason for your ban. Locked. Don't bring "recursion" up again. 3
Recommended Posts