(smiles again) You cannot resist can you? Too easy to pull your strings. But of course that is brain theory (psychology). On the subject of Membrane-theory as it relates to String theories, I've come to the conclusion you have nothing substantial to offer. Be well.
first, " You cannot resist can you? Too easy to pull your strings " is this admitting you are only interested in arguing? it appears so to me. " I've come to the conclusion you have nothing substantial to offer. " comical, as if your " want to be intellect " opinion matters to anything. what a joke that is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
what a complete joke this is. it's massively naive to even conceive this. this is a science/physics site. you never know who the hell will be or is here. unbelievably hilarious. and also, you use words like " when I know physicists working " comical, you didn't know him or his work, you only went on cruise and had a conversation with the guy. hilarious. " working in other areas that admit they don't understand string theory, " so you are able to assume that the majority of people on this site would not, just because some guy who may not be a scientist says so. again, what a pathetic joke that is.
Do you know how to read? No I don't know who is READING posts, but I have a fair idea of who is POSTING, which is all I referred to. As far as the one chance encounter I mentioned as an anecdote, I did get his name and have seen some of his published papers. At least at the time he was working at Stanford.... And no I am not going to toss out a name on a public forum. You seem to be awfully angry and you make a lot of assumptions from a very limited amount of information. Did you have something pertaining to science or string theory to offer? Or did you just drop in to kick the dog, so to speak? (that was not intended to be interpreted literally, you don't know where my dog lives.) Lighten up.
do you even listen to your self? also, " Did you have something pertaining to science or string theory to offer? " well i did, and was still trying to until you and that other " want to be intellect" decided to focus on arguing. as for the rest of that nonsense you spewed, " And no I am not going to toss out a name on a public forum. ", and yet he has published papers that anyone in the world can look up by his name. comical.
If what he published was relevant to this discussion maybe, but you have to admit that this exchange has been less than cordial. Why would I expose anyone to the kind of ridicule that you have been tossing out, all because I commented that most of the people who post here, would not know the difference between string theory and M theory, at other than a superficial level. And added an anecdotal comment that got misunderstood.... Blah blah blah. BTW I did not say there was no one who understands and I included myself in the lesser grouping. If you had or have anything of value about string theory or science generally, all you had to or have to do, is post it.
No, because gamma ray bursters are not some alternative theory, because it's not my theory, and because you called me insane. You have no sincerity, and no honesty. And like I said, you dismiss Einstein etc and the hard scientific evidence whilst pimping pseudoscience like string theory. Which doesn't make any predictions. Which is why you didn't give any.
No it isn't. What I'm referring to is the black hole firewall. Freidwardt Winterberg was the originator of that. See this: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR13/Event/192920 You just don't know about it that's all.
Farsight, you're taking a big giant shart all over String Theory by saying it doesn't predict anything (it predicts tons of new things we simply don't have the ability to measure at present, and the theory's implications are nowhere near fully understood), and I asked you to give me an alternative theory prediction which hasn't already been made by mainstream science. Not only did I not ask for something already predicted by mainstream science, that prediction must be one we can test with high precision, not some qualitative hand-wavey bull.
Bah. I gave you a prediction. But now you're ducking it. Just as you ducked out of what are the strings made out of? Just as you ducked out of giving a string theory prediction. You can't give a string theory prediction because it doesn't predict anything. Which is why people come out with trash like string theory predicts general relativity. Come on, give a string theory prediction that's "one we can test with high precision". Only you can't can you? No. You'll duck that too. That's an awful lot of ducking, but it's apt. Because we all know what ducks do, don't we? Quack.
Still waiting for you to man up and give me a testable prediction that hasn't already been made by mainstream science. That was the exact same basis for your stupidly hypocritical arguments against String Theory.
No, I know about it and your link confirms my understanding of gamma ray bursts - that they occur during the genesis of a black hole. This is not the same thing as you were suggesting.
It is. You haven't even read Winterberg's paper. And I quote: "In the Lorentz Poincare theory particles become unstable in approaching that limit and can then break up only into zero-mass particles".
No you haven't, and I've spoken to Winterberg about it. Seeing as this is a string theory thread, I should mention Peter Woit. He is, as you know, a critic of string theory. Now see this blog entry. There's Winterberg in the comments section, saying this: "The conclusion that a black hole is at the event horizon surrounded with a wall of fire by the disintegration of infalling matter was first proposed in an article I had published in 2001 in Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung 56a, 889 (2001). My paper had the title “Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity”. It is Lorentzian relativity which resolves the black hole information paradox, with no information loss or violation of unitarity. In Lorentzian relativity SRT and GRT remain extremely good approximations for energies small compared to the Planck energy. My paper is cited in “An Apologia for Firewalls” by Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, Stanford and Sully: arXiv:1304.6483v2 [hep-th] 21 jun 2013".
Don't insult the man, his knowledge goes far beyond any puny concept you could possibly attach a name to.