TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

Dear Kaiduorkhon,

Thank you for taking the time to introduce me and the people of this forum to your work and ideas. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of your life working towards where you are now.

After spending just over one hour reading your work, from an intellectual and educational point of view all I can do is quote Pauli and say: 'It's not even wrong'. That is the first time in my life I have ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind.

Now, to make up on that hour of my life I just lost, I'm off to fit two hours worth of drinking into one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pauli may be succinct, but Adam Sandler and Tim Herlihy are funnier:

No offence intended to the theory guy. I haven't even read it yet. Just thought I'd post a funny.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kaiduorkhon, you just demonstrated how you copy and paste things you don't understand and have no way of evaluating. If you agree with someone, link to their page and discuss, in your own words, what you like about it. You don't need to copy and paste.

Neither you nor q_w know any string theory, quantum mechanics or relativity and thus neither of you have any way of evaluating string theory or the comments made by Miles Mathis. It is absolute crap and illustrated that Miles Mathis doesn't know any string theory, quantum mechanics, relativity or any of the other areas of mathematical physics he mentions (like vector calculus).

Ignorant idiots quoting ignorant idiots and saying "Oh wow, aren't we so clever for agreeing on our ignorance!".

Mind you, your actions certainly explain why you (and q_w) amount to nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kai, thanks for posting Mathis' comments. You can tell he points out the weak spots by the personal attacks that flow so easily at anyone who reads and supports his thinking.

 

I had one particularly good physics teacher who was always careful to present things as they are, as the currently accepted and functioning models, rather than as the concrete facts of the universe. It is a necessary distinction which I feel is overlooked by many.

 

The fact you are ignorant of vector calculus and theoretical physics and thus blind to his mistakes doesn't mean his mistakes aren't there.

He claims all extra dimensions are time dimensions. Anyone who knows about metric and signatures knows he's wrong. It follows immediately from the symmetry of space-time. SO(9,1) is the symmetry of 10 dimensional space where 1 of the directions is special, which we call time. This breaks to SO(3,1) x SO(6) upon compactification. There's still only 1 special direction, the 6 seperate directions have metric signature equal to the 3 others in SO(3,1) and thus are still spacial.

It's understandable to anyone who has done the fundamentals of special relativity. You haven't. Kaiduorkhon hasn't. And obviously Mathis hasn't.

That's a glaring mistake made by someone whining about a theory he obviously doesn't know. He's critiquing a pop science book. Why isn't he critiquing the string theory published papers written by Green instead? Why is he not going direct to the source? Because he, like you and Kaiduorkhon, is a hack.

 

Wow Alpha. Pile on the ad hominems there. I haven't even read Kai's stuff, nor Mathis's, and don't care much. I was just skimming the thread and saw that quote. I'm very curious how you got from my quoting Barbara Lovett Cline to those ad hominems. Nah, no I'm not. You're a fucking idiot. Go play stickball.

 

I was responding to q_w, not you. You posted while I was typing my response.

 

My apologies then. Feel free to point and laugh at me.

 

Thank you, alephnull, for underscoring that Time Cube dims your navigational lights. Apparently you aren't aligned with dimensions defined by perpendicular axes - orthogonal geometry is it? The stuff from which SuperCubes emerged as an icon of Einstein's proffered 4th dimension? You volunteer yourself as being among those who have yet to get used to it.

Please accept my apologies for infringing on your drinking time. Admirable vacuum of contentious retort from you regarding the quote from Pauli - memorable critique technique.

May as well carry the applied digression to the consideration that a drink - or perhaps a double - may one day be named after one or both of us. Any suggestions?
Alephnull resonates approximately like Alphanumeric - is that a coincidence or are you both sharing the same higher mathematical blanket of vibes and dimensions?

 

I almost have a Masters in Mathematics from a top UK university, and frankly I'm not aligned with your sesquipedalian rants.

Dimensions are rarely interesting in mathematics, we can work in 1, 4 or even an infinite amount of dimensions.

It's a common misconception of the layman to regard an extra dimension as something mystical.

Do not listen to anything Mathis has to say. There is no scientific merit in anything he spouts. Seriously, as someone who as spent so much of their life studying pseudophysics, how can you take a man seriously that believes the function \( f(r) = \frac{2 \pi r}{t} \) is not linear in r ? Even if, as you say, you're not one for mathematics surely you can see this is glaringly wrong?

I think if you spent some time researching some basic and interesting areas of mathematics your work could progress a lot better than it has your entire life. You reap what you sow I'm afraid, popular science is not enough to get you by, not by a long way.

From a practical point of view I recommend picking up a copy of Advanced Engineering Mathematics by Erwin Kreyszig. Don't be thrown by the title, the book has all the necessary tools you'll need to get started.

Also, thank you for pointing out that me and AlphaNumeric both share an a, an l, an e, a p, and an h in our names.

 

Sock Puppet alert!

 

I'm sure that mods can IP check and see that you are incorrect. I am a mathematician, I am not studying for a PhD in string theory. As will come apparent in my time spent here, I know hardly anything on string theory as I have never studied it. (Although some people in this thread have a different grasp on what 'studied' actually means)

I will try to stick to threads that focus on mathematics (I admit I was drawn in like a moth to a flame by the claim in this thread's title).

I have a serious question for you quantum_wave: Do you agree with what I said about Miles Mathis?

 

No, but I bet you know more about him than I do. Anyone who spells out reasons why string theory has proven to be a dead end is doing those who are about to dedicate their career to it a favor. If you deny being a sock puppet I accept that.

 

Thank you for accepting that, I can see why you might have thought as much.

As a human being you have the right to say whatever you like, but I'm sorry, if you think that Mathis has any credibility as a physicist then you have absolutely no qualification to say that people who dedicate their lives to string theory do so in vein.

String Theory is an exciting and INCREDIBLY complex field of research, new things are being discovered all the time, things that are correct, things that are making physicists (even those who aren't string theorists) look at things differently. So why stop digging now because a few people think it's a dead end? Isn't a quest for knowledge a reason enough? Doing something you like reason enough?

Even if you were correct and string theory is a 'dead end', science is about proving things and testing hypothesis, there is no proof anywhere in anything Mathis says (or OP for that matter) that discredits String Theory. The only way we'll really find out if String Theory is a 'dead end' is if we understand it.

Can I ask a personal question, not intended to offend in anyway, but what are your academic qualifications? Your username suggests an interest in Quantum Theory?

 

Although this statement (The series of quoted paragraphs, above) was specifically directed at QuantumWave, it's ostensibly intended for and specifically aimed at three people - Q_W, Miles Mathis and myself.

Don't see how you can proclaim that Mathis is 'critiquing a pop science book', when in fact he's categorically addressing Greene's, The Elegant Universe. Part of my motive for posting (copy & pasting) excerpts from Mathis' book now proves out to reveal your equivocation in saying that Mathis is 'critiquing a pop physics book' - whereas, the transfer of verbatim excerpts from Mathis' paper (addressing Greene's book), for all to see and read in this thread, proves otherwise.

Perhaps I misunderstand, maybe you mean that Dr. Greene's best seller is a 'pop physics book' - have I misunderstood something here?

As previously and candidly clarified,Truly Yours (out of ignorance of math) cannot speak for QW or Mathis regarding any kind of mathematical debate, whereas it's clear that I have placed my confidence in Mathis' math over yours.

It appears that what we have generated - among other subjects - in this thread is a baseline for comparative measurement of the value of your representative declarations, vs those of Mathis. Integrity has to do with it.

There's no way for me to know what or how much you know of Miles Mathis, while I would guess that if you haven't been studying your herein appointed nemesis in the past, there are good reasons for considering that your awareness of Mr. Mathis - and that of a lot of others on either side of this ongoing rhubarb - will dilate somewhat, from now on.

A list of his achievements can be accessed at http://milesmathis.com/ - and time will tell whether or not you and your quasi cabalistic, innercircle peers find an enhanced curiosity - if not a necessity - to learn more about this man's work. In the tentative interim you afford to alternately ignore and berate him. You presently content yourself with calling Mathis a 'hack'.

A time may well be upon you to regret that.

Can't speak for QW or Mathis, while my opinion is that QW's scientific intuition alone, guides him to move away from string 'theory', and string 'theorists' in general. There's something about a recent frost having iced over a pond with far too many recreational and professional skaters testing it's capacity to hold them all up. Speaking for myself, since no small number of critics have accused me of vainly attempting to displace Einstein, I decided to clear up that 'misunderstanding' by not altogether flippantly referring to myself as the 'world's #1 Einstein groupie'. I am also uneasy with any motions to eliminate history from the past.

And yes, there are others who have made my list of 'modern' champions, including Marie Curie, Nicola Tesla, Bertrand Russell, Bondi, Gold & Hoyle, Barbara Lovett Cline and though there are others - more recently, Miles Mathis, who dares ask questions and certainly demonstrates that there's plenty to talk about - outside the guarded parameters of what is 'scientifically appropriate' - if you want to keep your job - in today's revisionist occupied academia. Exceptions to the rule, granted where found...

True authority invites questions, because genuine authority dares to ask questions, and, stands up under questioning, often - as is generally understood - learning even more even as it teaches. I am in step with Mathis regarding his disappointment that Greene has directly implied that theorists may take - or already have taken - precedence over experimentalists. In Mathis' introduction on his web page (list of achievements/contents), he relates the parable of the world - or universe - balancing on the back of a turtle; when the question of what the turtle is standing on arises, the answer comes back, 'more turtles' ('It's turtles all the way down, my son'.) I have no argument with the method and motive of thought problems (be they conjured by a Zen master, a student, or a professor), until the pursued answers become 'thought problems all the way down'... That's not elegance, that's specious reiteration of redundancy. And, until it proves itself to be otherwise, that also appears to emerge as the central method of string 'theory'.

I have known of string 'theory' long before I learned of Mathis and his work, but what I have learned since learning of Mathis, is, that neither of us, along with a heck of a lot of others, trust string theory. My mistrust of it began as soon as I learned the thither and skelterism of determining 'dimensions', and, how a one dimensional line can even curve, let alone curve into a 'loop'. You say you can explain this, then you say that you can explain that, and then you say that you can explain the other things about strings - things that stand between ponderable reason and feral speculation, usually in the guise of defiantly brandished 'higher mathematics'.

All of this continues to be done without a single quantified prediction, or even a pragmatic setting for experimental verification. Much of the very vocabulary of string theory is an insult to the science of philology as well as the dignity of humanity. And yes, I have Miles Mathis to thank for expanding my thresholds of understanding not only what string 'theory' is, but, what it is not. And yes, I am grateful to Mathis for that. Neither am I the only one.

My work is more along the lines of theoretical physics for talented truck drivers: an everyday, people's unified field. It is already abundantly commended as a comprehensive remedial primer to a better understanding of what was formerly beyond the parameters of a high school education. As I have said before, because it is based on the foundations of theoretical physics, it's disqualification isn't likely, but, even if a nullificaion of its central theme(s) should occur, the lessons learned redeem themselves, on the way to that disqualification - contributing all that much more to understanding.

If you, or one - or a group - of your cabalist peers consider my work so unworthy of your higher education, what prevents you - or anyone else - from making a recreational example of it, by way of disqualification? Tens of thousands of people are not many in the larger scheme of things, yet, there are at least that many acolytes who advocate my translation, and contribution(s) to Einstein's work, and the work of many others, without whom I would not even have the ability to write, let alone a reinstatement of the presently abandoned cosmological constant and steady state theories. The residuals of which are already returning to classroom slates and papers, via 'quintessence', and 'dark matter'.

- K.B. Robertson, aka, Kai.

 

I predict the time taken to tell will be best estimated by Planck time, with the result that us quasi cabalistic, innercircle peers will remain content and fully justified in calling Mathis a hack.

 

Firstly, I have no need for a sock puppet. You or Kai haven't retorted anything I've said so why use another account to hammer home that fact? Secondly, what evidence do you have? Simply because more than one person knows more maths or physics than you and doesn't agree with you doesn't mean there's a conspiracy of some kind.

Infact, the fact people who know physics are unanimous in their opinions of people like yourself and Kai shows that it isn't some personal vendetta people have against you, it's the cold hard fact you (and Kai) are a hack.

I've been doing string theory for about 4 years. About the same time you've been doing qwc. And decades less than Kai's been pushing his crap. I've got something out of it, I've learnt a huge amount and I've got published work and qualifications. You and Kai have wasted that time. And you try to delude yourselves that people saying "String theory is dead" are doing me a favour while you ignore how everyone telling you your work is nonsense are trying to do you a favour.

Even if every single string theory result I've come up with is proven wrong I have a much larger set of mathematical skills now than I did 3 years ago. Skills which can be readily applied to finance, aerospace or any other highly technical area. I have demonstrable skills which employers want. You have spent more time on your work and you have developed none of those. You and Kai didn't even notice, as Aleph says, that \(f(t) = \frac{2\pi r}{t}\) is linear in r. Thats stuff you should have covered in university q_w

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Because its a bloody pop science book. How is that hard for you to grasp?

Have you read his 'papers'? They are ignorant rants on topics he knows nothing about and demonstrates no knowledge of. If you think that is anyone worth listening to then you demonstrate you are completely and utterly out of touch with science.

Intuition which has no basis in knowledge, experience, education or understanding. Yeah, the best thing to base intuition on is ignorance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And do you think scientists don't have intuition? They use education, experience, experiment, knowledge and intuition.

Yet more evidence you have no clue about science. Scientist challenge one another all the time. And simply 'asking questions' doesn't mean the questions are relevant or coherent.

Knowing of something doesn't mean you know about something. If you knew about string theory you'd know Mathis is just talking BS.

And yet here you are, now not only having to defend your own BS but having to defend your support of someone else's ignorant BS, who you quoted because you're ignorant of mainstream work but can't admit it. Yes, you really have been a massive success!

 

I didn't say nor did I think it was your sock. And,

Alephnull agreed that there were signs of sock.

Note to Kai: I have mentioned to AN and others about having and reading Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" and Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape". I bet he hasn't read either, but my point in mentioning Smolin is that in the front of the book, the first words are, "To Kai". I just wondered if you knew who the "Kai" reference is to?

 

You don't have to read those books to know string theory is a joke. Obviously people whose studies or careers rely on it will defend it, but the fact is string theory exists only on paper and has never had anything to do with the real world. There's a very good reason why string theorists have never been able to provide any form of evidence of strings. String theory is a perfect example of how a pure fiction can become a commonly accepted academic model.