Peanut Gallery

Not really, for there is no one hypothesis - the "theory" in String Theory simple means the body of associated work. We didn't come up with the term for public consumption - it is simply how we refer to the work being done. No one would argue that Quantum Field Theory is misnamed given its staggering success, but the real-world, experimentally verified elements of QFT form just one part of the whole body of work, with much of it highly theoretical and often more an exercise in pure mathematics - just like String Theory.Anyone who claims (and I have ssen this often on the net) that String Theory has ideas above its station for using the word "Theory" compared with, say, Loop Quantum Gravity, is an idiot and/or does not know what they are talking about. We use whatever sounds reasonably "cool", "funny" or appropriate. Supergravity was so called because it sounds great, and calling it Supergravity Theory just takes something away. "String" doesn't quite cut it - although we would often use the diminutive "strings".

Yes, it is "just" abstract mathematics Hmmm, plausible, verified, and ONLY THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORIES MANKIND HAS EVER DISCOVERED !!!!!Yeah, it's "just" that abstract mathematics... Amazing how succesful the "sod the evidence, look at its beauty"* method has worked And we've been doing this for over 100 years now, so it shouldn't really be such a surprise...* P.A.M. Dirac - private communicationEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Not for Max and me - we know what's going on

I think his current expletive driven meltdown is a sign that he is not.If you want to have fun, read my post on the Midnight Sun, and hit him with it repeatedly. If this is the only observation we mention, he will run screaming

No, Humphrey's claims are useless:

quote:

---

Zircon, being harder than steel, would be much less compressible than lead.[5] So pressure should affect diffusion rates much less than in lead

---

...completely ignoring the point Henke raises concerning defects and fractures in the zircon. These should potentially have a MASSIVE effect upon the diffusion rates, but Humphreys completely fails to acknowledge this. Even in Humphreys'2008 article, he claims to have answered all critcisms regarding presuure, compressibility and diffusion rates back in his 2006 reply, which is blatently false and approaching deliberate falsehood.Just as an additional: Humphreys is a useless twat when he comes to physics. His amateur ability in General Relativity enabled him to come up with his creation cosmology, which simply does not work, but unfortunately he is too dumb to acknowledge it despite being taken to task by those immeasurably more gifted and knowledgable than he. And his guesses at the magnetic field strength of the lesser giant planets came with error bounds so broad that it would have been a miracle not to have bracketed the correct value

Ok, I have now gnawed off both my arms in frustration at Arphy completely failing to follow Nosy on Nosy's clock analogies - what the f'ck do I do when we go past the analogies and actually get the real deal????

No, Chuck, ICANT is just being toyed with. He is so clueless to basic science that his insistance on trying to debate relativity is both hilarious and outrageously arrogant. Please don't be impressed by people attempting to argue at levels so far beyond their own expertise. If someone in a debate or argument refuses to back down or acknoweldge their mistake, it does not necessarily mean that they are winning or "holding their own".At the moment I'm trying to get him to understand basic Galilean relativity (i.e pre Newton) and he's failing badly. His problem is that he has no desire to learn. He simply wants to be right. It's not an uncommen problem with those of advanced years.

Well, you have to admire his stamina! Yep, he definitely does deserve "something"