String Theory's Mathematical Fright of the 4-D Bumble Bee

[Graybeard]

Greg, I've studied string maths for years. I've studied Perelman's 100+ pages twice, as he published two different sets of papers. I've read a lot of Witten's math and am fully familiar with AdS/CFT, plus August Stern's conformal matrix algebras, plus hundreds of the best others. I know what they are trying to unite. It's already united, they just can't do the proper math, so have resorted to far too much trial and error math, producing more error than trial...

I ain't buying a completely unnecessary invisible particle...

P.s.
I'd much prefer you state your ideas, not refer to someone else, except to back your own ideas... It's that simple... That's why I ask you to answer... Just be original...

I agree .... your as well versed in String Theory as you are in Evolution ..... that is obvious

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And why would I be well versed in something I think is ridiculous. Inflationary/bb emergence, your baby, any way you want to cut it or call it, is just as dumb in either string theory, or de Sitter and Schwarzschild space, etc., of any kind... All Planck length emergences are insane, no matter how you cut the cookie...

I also see through your sarcasm too, Greg... You can't have your way, so you roll on the floor, crying...

Emergence is just another one of those evolution god words__All meaning from no meaning...

All the god-maths are failing to produce a viable physical model...

I agree .... your as well versed in String Theory as you are in Evolution ..... that is obvious

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Greg, I've studied string maths for years. I've studied Perelman's 100+ pages twice, as he published two different sets of papers. I've read a lot of Witten's math and am fully familiar with AdS/CFT, plus August Stern's conformal matrix algebras, plus hundreds of the best others. I know what they are trying to unite. It's already united, they just can't do the proper math, so have resorted to far too much trial and error math, producing more error than trial...

I ain't buying a completely unnecessary invisible particle...

P.s.
I'd much prefer you state your ideas, not refer to someone else, except to back your own ideas... It's that simple... That's why I ask you to answer... Just be original...

Dear Lolyd, Greg, Pat & Leskey:
There's a cabal of string theorists mathematically dominating any number of threads I've encountered; one in particular at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97999.
I started that thread and was obliged to depart it in suspension, because I can't do math (post traumatic stress disorder, math block).

When they learned of my handicap, George Orwell's rats came pouring in.

I'm generating a synopsis on that entire thread as it unfolded, for a book in progress on the politics and bull baiting of some string theory advocates.
The essay's tentative title is: 'The Godfather Who Failed'.

Wish to clarify that Greg and Pat (for example) are not in the category (genre) of antagonists I am alluding to. One of the features I've noticed about your posting is not only your acuity, but also the fact that you (apparently) use your real name. I've already got the essay material to make the points I wish to make and am not asking you to 'get involved', but if you choose to do so, would you kindly introduce these people to a nemesis in mathematics - they plunge and disappear below Planck length and sub quantum standards and frankly I don't come anywhere near doing that kind of math, but they sure to depend very heavily on it. Indeed, I have learned a lot from these people, but only inadvertently. They (IMHO) represent a trend among professional string theorists.

Incidentally, it's not Ed Witten I've ever had a problem with, it's his 'yes men', who allude to ape - and hide behind - his acknowledged mathematical genius.

In summary, IMHO, string theory is a tragic wasteland of talent that could be more constructively employed. Calling hypotheses 'theory' doesn't mix well in the laboratory flap jacks. Don't care for any iconoclast 'God particles' in my respectful tangle of genuine Italian spaghetti either.

Meanwhile, like you, I simply ain't buyin' no inessential invisible particle(s); however they wish to embellish them ('It's turtles all the way down, my son')... The half-smiling Zen Master's 'solution' is jovially appreciable, as long as it isn't taken too seriously.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi RP, and thanks for the invite, and though I've studied all these maths in depth, I'm not fluent in all the intracacies of verbalizing them proficiently. I know where the major problems are from my long years of chasing out both economics and physics maths faults to the 19th and early 20th century, then again in the early 1950's, and it's clearly 'the ergodic theorem' and probability maths use of, that's the central problem in both economics and physics foundational maths. I've followed all the sites of other physics and maths forums also, am a silent member of some, and see the same problem as you mention. Are you familiar with AlphaNeumeric math posts about physics on PhysForum...?

Math being such a huge field of individual systems, developed over the centuries, is just about impossible of disputing on mathematical grounds, and all those other forums protect themselves from philosophical and logical grounds of dispute, by either banning or not allowing such topics. I feel logic is the only real recourse of disputing these bad foundations in math, but then it's a private matter with papers, books, blogs and what not, if you know what I mean. Any contribution I'd have would be on logical grounds, indirectly and directly showing certain areas of the fundamental problems of these maths__though there are many...

Dear Lolyd, Greg, Pat & Leskey:
There's a cabal of string theorists mathematically dominating any number of threads I've encountered; one in particular at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97999.
I started that thread and was obliged to depart it in suspension, because I can't do math (post traumatic stress disorder, math block).

When they learned of my handicap, George Orwell's rats came pouring in.

I'm generating a synopsis on that entire thread as it unfolded, for a book in progress on the politics and bull baiting of some string theory advocates.
The essay's tentative title is: 'The Godfather Who Failed'.

Wish to clarify that Greg and Pat (for example) are not in the category (genre) of antagonists I am alluding to. One of the features I've noticed about your posting is not only your acuity, but also the fact that you (apparently) use your real name. I've already got the essay material to make the points I wish to make and am not asking you to 'get involved', but if you choose to do so, would you kindly introduce these people to a nemesis in mathematics - they plunge and disappear below Planck length and sub quantum standards and frankly I don't come anywhere near doing that kind of math, but they sure to depend very heavily on it. Indeed, I have learned a lot from these people, but only inadvertently. They (IMHO) represent a trend among professional string theorists.

Incidentally, it's not Ed Witten I've ever had a problem with, it's his 'yes men', who allude to ape - and hide behind - his acknowledged mathematical genius.

In summary, IMHO, string theory is a tragic wasteland of talent that could be more constructively employed. Calling hypotheses 'theory' doesn't mix well in the laboratory flap jacks. Don't care for any iconoclast 'God particles' in my respectful tangle of genuine Italian spaghetti either.

Meanwhile, like you, I simply ain't buyin' no inessential invisible particle(s); however they wish to embellish them ('It's turtles all the way down, my son')... The half-smiling Zen Master's 'solution' is jovially appreciable, as long as it isn't taken too seriously.

[RascalPuff]

Are you familiar with AlphaNeumeric math posts about physics on PhysForum...? - Lloyd

In response to the question, Lloyd, AlphaNumeric is - that I know of - the alpha mathematician on SciForum , the url I posted here in my previous post. Anyone who peruses that thread may observe that he excels in math, accusations and name calling.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"sporange"

[RascalPuff]

"sporange"

Dear Austin:
The Webster's 20th Century Dictionary don't got that word in it. But, maybe they should put it in there?

[austintorn@aol.com]

They don't have all the biological stuff, I guess.

See the end of the 'Norm' thread in the 'Many Worlds Pub', for a clue, plus a bit of you, as usual as a GrandMaster Ninja.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yes, same guy, as I already checked SciForum after I posted to you. AlphaNumeric uses quite sound foundational math methods, we both agree, so his maths are not assailable by purely logical confrontations due to the fact that he uses mathematically quantifiable logics, and is pretty careful not to make mistakes. I've read just about all his posts, to see if there were fault lines in his mathematical knowledge, but he's quite sound. He debates with his English wrangling style, and when tied into a quite sound mathematically quantifiable analyses, and his personal attack style, it's near impossible to make the real physical world points of logical view in the forums he participates in. It's like I have a problem with 0.9^r = 1, but there's no defeating it, because it is the ground base of academic math acceptances. It's like pi, we use it as a necessity, but it's never quite absolutely accurate__but math works no other way. As far as his personal analytic criticisms, that's an area that just has to be dealt with, fought or ignored, as his personal logical skills, even if pointing the entire mathematical community toward strings, is just about impossible to assail, due to the fact, so many followers of his sound center of academic math. The problem isn't as much people following people like Witten and AlpahNumeric, as it is not understanding the entire organization of academic math has a fundamental flaw in its self-foundation__But that takes massive mathematical verbal skills, which Witten and others like AlphaNumeric do have. I haven't discovered either Witten or AlphaNumeric making use of the bad areas of math, so maybe both of them are fine as mathematicians. It's just in what and how they apply that mathematics to physical reality, and as AlphaNumeric has often stated, he's applying his maths to the possibilities of extending theories, so that leaves his method sound to showing its flaws, if he has real flaws, because he's always quite careful to keep his posts within quite sound grounds of maths and logics of maths. Applying it to strings, per say, as a mathematical construct, not applied to physical reality, is usually the pure mathematicians exit strategy, as I've seen him often do...

So, if taking AlphaNumeric on is your goal, I'd need more evolution of my method to even begin an attempt, then I may find his maths sound, but as you and I know, they still may not apply to the real world__so I think at that point, their own maths will have to deal with the truly quantifiable logical ground of reality, which will be a logical debate, somewhere out in the future. I'm just following the stringies, and waiting for that moment, when math is perfected, and does not apply to reality, as being below the physically measurable, and totally untestable, then it's back to the soundness of fundamental algebras, and logical interpretations, to the real world experiments and physical proofs of...

I'm not really worried about the stringies, as I see them doing themselves in__in the end...

If any of that makes sense, so-be-it, or if not, so-be-it...


P.s.
I think it more profitable to work on new mathematical foundations, ourselves. That's the direction I'm headed, because it takes all three for sound proofs__Math, logic and physical experiments...

Are you familiar with AlphaNeumeric math posts about physics on PhysForum...? - Lloyd

In response to the question, Lloyd, AlphaNumeric is - that I know of - the alpha mathematician on SciForum , the url I posted here in my previous post. Anyone who peruses that thread may observe that he excels in math, accusations and name calling.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Austin:
I went to the ToeQuest Pub and had a look at what you and Tarina are up to in the RPG story - noticed that every time you post one of your illustrations, all that becomes of it is a square around a red x. It looks like your work is being absconded and I think the guilty party animal is 'Webshots'... (Delphi's 'Biblinski' says that it's 'Webshots', and not 'Photobucket' or 'Photoshots' that need to be dealt with). They have not responded to the below messages, but it looks like they're still targeting your work...


Special effects by Austin P. Torney
---------------------------------

Special effects by Austin P. Torney


From: Gordie (BIBLINSKI) 1:05 am To: Kai (Kaiduorkhon) (2 of 2) 14288.2 in reply to 14288.1 The images that have been replaced by Temporarily Unavailable are sourced at webshots.com, not Photobucket. You'll need to contact webshots.com about restoring the use of those images.

Gordie
Delphi Forums staff

Options
------------------------------

Dear Webshots staff:

After using a free photobucket service to transmit 3 C.I.A. declassification documents
to my computer, all of the illustrations disappeared from four books and essays I have
posted on several different forums on the net. Back up illustrations are not displacing
the 'Temporarily Unavailable' blanks that now occupy the space the subjected missing
illustrations used to be.

I have been advised by your affiliate (photoshots - 'Robert', at 1-800-746-8696), that in
order to speak to you on the phone I am required to buy a 'Premium' account. I have
been repeatedly asked if I 'uploaded' anything to you or 'photo-shots', whereas, I have
not uploaded any information, neither have I done any business whatsover with
webshots or photoshots, nor do I have any intention of buying a 'Premium' account so
that I may talk to you on the phone about this unexpected, uncalled for imbroglio.

Your affiliate at photoshots says that you have my illustrations 'stored'. I request that
they be replaced by the same means that they were initially displaced.

All of this impostion on my posted books and essays (disappearance of the
illustrations therein) originated with a free photobucket transmission of the
described (3) documents. I do not have any use for the offered services that have
since then been brought to my attention, tantamount to requiring me to pay for your
services.

I respecfully request that all of the missing illustrations be returned to
their proper places on my websites, at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
K. B. Robertson (aka Kaiduorkhon/Kaidu41).

------------------------------------
Dear Dennis R.
Webshot Support Representative
http://www.webshot.com

I have not 'uploaded' any illustrations or photos to you, or 'photoshots'. Upon doing 'free' business with photobucket, I find that my full length book and essay sites have been raided and deleted of their illustrations. I want them returned. I do not wish to run any gauntlets from photoshots to webshots to retrieve what webshots pilfered from me. Thousands of people are being deprived of my hand drawn and professionally enhanced illustrations that you have 'stored'. Are you extorting me to do business with you sir? Holding my illustrations as ransom? (Note: Webshots requires the purchase of a Premium account before they will talk to you on the phone; though you may talk to their fractious affiliates at photoshots.com listed ph. # 1-800-746-8696.)

Webshots: A.G. Interactive Inc. One American Road, Cleaveland Ohio 44144

Better Business Bureau Foundation, 1169 Dublin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43215

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 80 E. Broad St. 17th Flr. Columbus, Ohio 43215