They do not appear because your claims have nothing to do with string/M theory. To claim otherwise and be unable to produce actual string/M theory equations makes you aThey do not appear in my string/M theory because I apply the productive methods only.

**liar**.

I like how you've just taken a single result which hasn't been confirmed or replicated and actually has been shown to be inconsistent with the interpretation of moving faster than light and just repeat it. You really should keep up to date with things.The superluminal speeds of neutrinos discovered in the OPERA experiment show that the mainstream theory of neutrinos IS INCORRECT!

So you have students now? It says on your CV you taught primary school, which might go some way to explain why you are so weak in mathematics.You still write and write and write the nonsense. My students understand physics much better than you, PhD.

I'll skip your repetitive self advertising. Quite why you think any one gives a shit about it I don't know. Your inability to go a post without spewing out talking points shows how poor your discussion skills are. It even makes me call into question your basic comprehension skills and IQ (I mean over and above what your posts suggest already).

You claimed T duality was the cause of something, implying you think T duality is a physical process when in fact it's a mathematical transform which shows two things are actually the same thing written in different ways. Likewise for S duality, there's no change in the physics.AlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense about the T-duality in my theory!

I see you still don't understand the difference between asymptotic freedom and confinement. The experiments involving quark-gluon plasmas didn't change any predictions about asymptotic freedom because they areThe SM can predict a value for the strong force at high energies because there is at least 3 TIMES MORE THE PARAMETERS THAN IN MY THEORY. You know, in 2004 this value was zero. When the new experimental data appeared then in the SM instead the gas-like plasma appeared the liquid-like plasma.

*consistent*with asymptotic freedom. The SM still predicts that as the energy scale goes to infinity the strong coupling goes to zero. This is consistent with QGP experiments, in fact they help confirm that the coupling indeed runs and it runs in a manner expected from beta function calculations. The unexpected data QGPs provided us was related to a

*different*part of QCD, showing that certain channels have larger contributions than were expected.

You and I have been over this many times, mainly on PhysForums. The fact you're daft enough to not only misrepresent the SM but to misrepresent it to me, someone with working experience with it and who has discussed it with you before shows how dishonest you are. You might be used to throwing out half a dozen lies every time you open your mouth and getting away with it when talking to friends or family but it won't fly here.

You don't understand mainstream quantum field theory and your work is not a quantum field theory. You are doing it again, claiming you understand something in the mainstream when in fact you are referring to your own take on things. You don't know any string theory, you just have your own interpretation of what little bits of information you've read but you claim to understandThe last but one your sentence is as usual the paranoia. I understand the quantum field theory much better than you can because my theory is the effective theory of leptons, hadrons, photons and the carriers of the gravitational forces.

*your*version. Now you're doing it with quantum field theory. It's profoundly dishonest.

You really need to look up what 'effective theory' means. It means it's anMy theory unifies all interactions via the phase transitions and such theory is the EFFECTIVE theory.

*inexact*

**approximation**. For example, Newtonian mechanics is an effective theory for relativity. Electromagnetism is an effective theory for quantum electrodynamics. Yukawa theory is an effective theory for quantum chromodynamics. Supergravity is an effective theory for string/M theory.

This just shows you're happy to use words you don't understand.

You again demonstrate you can't separate what everyone else refers to when they say 'quantum field theory' and what nonsense you've made up. By 'quantum field theory' I am referring to the things lectured in universities, published in journals and written about in books. For example, the material covered by 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroeder.You claim that you understand the quantum field theory so my questions are as follows: Why there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos? Why we cannot detect the gravitons? Why within the mainstream theories we cannot EFFECTIVELLY unify gravity with other forces, and so on?

*That*is quantum field theory and I'm certain you don't understand it. You don't even know what I'm referring to, for Pete's sake!

Even ignoring all the dishonesty of yours I've just highlighted, let's consider what you say next :Can you see that you are dishonest, not me?

So you're basically saying that if I don't read your book then I'm not understanding things like string theory or QFT properly. Clearly that isCan you see that you still write the nonsense because you did not read my book?

*wrong*.

In my string/M theory

**Your**version, which is so utterly different from the mainstream version that to call it string/M theory is fundamentally dishonest. When you have to use different definitions to everyone else you're being dishonest and you do it

*constantly*.

And what about the papers which followed it showing it had a huge clock sync error, removing more than half the discrepancy? Or the paper which showed the effect cannot be superluminal else the energy profile of the detected beams would have been different?If scientists such as you will ignore the experimental data, for example, the OPERA data then my war will last very long.

The OPERA experiment highlights something you've failed to understand which I've been telling you about the strong coupling. The experiments don't yield the results, like the value of the strong coupling or the speed of the neutrinos, directly. Instead they are inferred through the use of a model. If you change the model you change the inferred results. Throwing out the SM completely changes the value of the strong coupling, thus proving your claims false. In the case of the neutrinos it was demonstrated the speed of the neutrinos was not correctly inferred due to clock sync issues and the neglecting of electroweak Cherenkov radiation.

You're the one whose ignoring the experimental data. The OPERA paper shows that physicists are willing to consider knocking over their central results, it isn't the 'communist' conspiracy you claim it is. If the results were going to be ignored they'd not have been announced to the world. Your evaluation of the situation is self contradictory. Like your work.