Scientists find a practical test for string theory

Jan 06, 2014
This is an image of a two-dimensional hypersurface of the quintic Calabi-Yau three-fold. Credit: Jbourjai/Wikipedia.

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's famed test of gravity by dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa.

String theory is infamous as an eloquent theoretical framework to understand all forces in the universe —- a so-called "theory of everything" —- that can't be tested with current instrumentation because the energy level and size scale to see the effects of string theory are too extreme.

Yet inspired by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, Towson University scientists say that precise measurements of the positions of solar-system bodies could reveal very slight discrepancies in what is predicted by the theory of and the equivalence principle, or establish new upper limits for measuring the effects of string theory.

The Towson-based team presents its finding today, January 6, 2014, between 10 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society, in Washington, D.C. The work also appears in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet incompatible theories that describe all known physics: Einstein's general relativity, our reigning theory of gravity; and the standard model of particle physics, or , which explains all the forces other than gravity.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

String theory posits that all matter and energy in the universe is composed of one-dimensional strings. These strings are thought to be a quintillion times smaller than the already infinitesimal hydrogen atom and thus too minute to detect indirectly. Similarly, finding signs of strings in a particle accelerator would require millions of times more energy than what has been needed to identify the famous Higgs boson.

"Scientists have joked about how string theory is promising...and always will be promising, for the lack of being able to test it," said Dr. James Overduin of the Department of Physics, Astronomy and Geosciences at Towson University, first author on the paper. "What we have identified is a straightforward method to detect cracks in general relativity that could be explained by string theory, with almost no strings attached."

Overduin and his group —- including Towson University undergraduate research students Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki —- expanded on a concept proposed by Galileo and Newton to explain gravity.

Fable has it that Galileo dropped two balls of different weights from the Tower of Pisa to demonstrate how they would hit the ground at the same time. Years later Newton realized that the same experiment is being performed by Mother Nature all the time in space, where the moons and planets of the solar system fall continuously toward each other as they orbit around their common centers of mass. Newton used telescope observations to conclude that Jupiter and its Galilean moons fall with the same acceleration toward the Sun.

The same test could be used for string theory, Overduin said. The gravitational field couples to all forms of matter and energy with precisely the same strength, an observation that led Einstein to his theory of general relativity and is now enshrined in physics as the equivalence principle. String theory predicts violations of the equivalence principle because it involves new fields which couple differently to objects of different composition, causing them to accelerate differently, even in the same gravitational field.

Building on work done by Kenneth Nordtvedt and others beginning in the 1970s, Overduin and his collaborators consider three possible signatures of equivalence principle violation in the solar system: departures from Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion; drift of the stable Lagrange points; and orbital polarization (also known as the Nordtvedt effect), whereby the distance between two bodies like the Earth and Moon oscillates due to differences in acceleration toward a third body like the Sun.

To date, there is no evidence for any of these effects. Indeed, the standard astronomical ephemeris assumes the validity of Kepler's Third Law in deriving such fundamental quantities as the length of the Astronomical Unit. But all observations in science involve some degree of experimental uncertainty. The approach of Overduin's team is to use these experimental uncertainties themselves to obtain upper limits on possible violations of the by the planets, moons and Trojan asteroids in the solar system.

"The Saturnian satellites Tethys and Dione make a particularly fascinating test case," said Warecki, who is presenting this work at Session 109 at the AAS meeting today. "Tethys is made almost entirely of ice, while Dione possesses a significantly rocky core. And both have Trojan companions."

"The limits obtained in this way are not as sensitive as those from dedicated torsion-balance or laser-ranging tests," said Mitcham. "But they are uniquely valuable as potential tests of nonetheless because they cover a much wider range of test-body materials."

Moreover, in an era of increasingly big-budget science, they come at comparatively little cost, said Overduin.

Explore further: Gravity lab discovered: A pulsar in a unique triple star system

More information: "Expanded Solar-System Limits on Violations of the Equivalence Principle," m.iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/31/1/015001

Provided by Towson University

4.5 /5 (123 votes)

Related Stories

New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram

Dec 13, 2013

(Phys.org) —In publishing a story regarding work reported by Japanese physicists last month, Nature News has set off a bit of a tabloid firestorm by describing an obscure bit of physics theory as "the clearest evide ...

New website dedicated to discussion of string theory

Oct 03, 2012

(Phys.org)—Look hard enough, string theory says, and at a scale so small that atoms loom as large as entire continents do to us you would see that every particle in the universe is just the product of vibrating ...

String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Dec 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A trio of Japanese physicists have applied a reformulation of string theory, called IIB, whereby matrices are used to describe the properties of the physical universe, on a supercomputer, to effectively sho ...

Recommended for you

How cloud chambers revealed subatomic particles

11 hours ago

Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of quarks. These are just some of the elementary particles that make up the foundation of modern particle physics. ...

When a doughnut becomes an apple

12 hours ago

In experiments using the wonder material graphene, ETH researchers have been able to demonstrate a phenomenon predicted by a Russian physicist more than 50 years ago. They analyzed a layer structure that ...

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Sep 21, 2014

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2 / 5 (20) Jan 06, 2014
String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet incompatible theories that describe all known physics: Einstein's general relativity, our reigning theory of gravity; and the standard model of particle physics, or quantum field theory, which explains all the forces other than gravity.


The postulate/assumption/conclusion that all forces must be unifiable "mathematically" could be a fallacy, particularly in the context of being within the "continuum".

Let's examine a video game as Analogy.

Many "laws" of the game universe have absolutely no relationship to one another within the laws of the game universe.

While they are unified in the sense that they all appear in one application, the "functions" and their associated mathematics and logic are definitely not unified in the way astronomers and physicists seek to unify the forces of the universe.

The "Jump" function and the "Deal Damage" function are unrelated and have no code in common.

Radical?
Beyond Math?
Returners
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 06, 2014
I am not claiming that the laws definitely are not unifiable.

All I'm saying is there is not necessarily any good reason to believe they are unifiable, regardless of the universe's present condition or manner of existence.

The fact that I could so easily think of an example of non-unified "laws" in a conceivable universe ought to give pause to physicists.

It doesn't necessarily mean searching for unification is a waste of time, but ultimately it may be just as waste of time.

It may be there is no comprehensible unification theory, or it may be there is one.

Even if we found it, there may or may not be a practical use for it, since at some basic level, reality is ultimately limited by what reality is, which is to say the ability to study and manipulate disappears.

You have found some "functions" and you seek the code to the "Application," the "Main Program" which calls those "functions," as an analogy, yet we know reverse-engineering that can be arbitrary in some cases.
d_robison
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
@Returners

It *could* also be correct to assume a mathematical/physical unification. "Could be" and "would be" are irrelevant, vigorous mathematical proof and empirical evidence are relevant.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 06, 2014
The real "code" of the universe may not be mathematically, logically, identical to the "relationships" we observe, which string theory obviously recognizes this fact, yet what it's developers may not recognize are the true physical and meta-physical consequence of this fact.

The function for a ballistic projectile neglecting air resistance is a relationship we observe and test. it describes and predicts the reality we observe. However, the true reality may involve any number of processes and "entities" behind the scenes which we can never observe and understand directly, nor perhaps even indirectly.

A flaw of "model dependent reality" is you attempt to "post-dict" the source of reality using a mathematical formula which only describes the "output" of the true reality, whereas the functionality of reality may not have the same characteristics of the relationships we observe. Sort of like how QM doesn't have characterists of Relativity, yet even deeper, more fundamental.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2014
It *could* also be correct to assume a mathematical/physical unification. "Could be" and "would be" are irrelevant, vigorous mathematical proof and empirical evidence are relevant.


I recognize that and I'm getting to that, which I just mentioned a problem.

Both QM and Relativity are mathematical models which describe the relationships of certain classes of observations, but don't work on the other theory's classes of observations.

This is yet another example of two "Laws" which may not be unified at all.

Perhaps one or the other, like the video game thread I spoke about, is not a law at all, but an "Emergent Property" which only appears to be a law, therefore you can't unify them, because they are beyond the "mere" mathematics you think represents them. Together they produce results that neither of them produce alone, nor could any simple modification of either of them produce alone.

You can learn a lot about the concept of "universe" from a simulation or game, actually.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2014
For example, a classical computer counts in binary. That's all it has. Every decision, every math operation, every photo, everything is constructed, memorized, and manipulated as nothing more than different combinations of 1 and 0, which are discreet, unitary.

Yet we can represent floats/decimal values with nothing more than variation in how other "1" and "0" systems interpret the sequence of 1 and 0 we are studying or using.

The computer can do decimal math with precision up until the last possible digit, yet at it's fundamental level, it is nothing more than a combination of switches which are either on or off.

If you only saw the output, you'd have no idea whatsoever that the calculations were done in Binary, on a machine which has no inherent decimal logic.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 06, 2014
I don't think it's actually correct to say that the "Laws of physics break down" in black holes.

The Event Horizon does not break the laws of physics. The event horizon, (assuming true ones exist at all,) is produced by the laws of physics, and because it has properties the laws themselves do not have, on the surface you say, "It breaks down the laws," but in reality the laws are unaffected.

The results you see, or would see were you inside the EH appear to violate the relationships we think we know, which we call "Laws," but they don't violate the true laws at all.

The BH is just an effect created by a combination of laws under circumstances which happen not to exist elsewhere.

If BH broke the laws they'd appear more like a "White Hole". You'd see random crap fly out of them, random objects and entitites undescribable to us escaping, overflowing reality, like a computer "Print" command displaying gibberish after an "off-by-one" error.
shavera
5 / 5 (22) Jan 06, 2014
Returners:
All those things, those phrases your bring up, are analogies physicists use to try and get the point across to lay people. No we don't think the laws of physics "break down" anywhere. What's more accurate to say is that we come to areas where if you apply one kind of calculation, you get one answer, and if you apply a different calculation you get a different, contradictory answer; or an area where the inputs to one equation from another physical theory leave you with a nonsense answer.

What that tells us is nothing more than "we don't know it all yet." And guess what, most physicists will agree there. We don't know it all yet. We have a map that has a lot of territory filled in, but also has some "Here there be dragons" areas blacked out. We're doing our best to figure out what's in those areas. We largely know where they are, and we have some guesses from what lays near by as to what may be in there. Time and data will tell.
tadchem
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2014
@Returners: The problem is not whether or not the forces must be unifiable. The problem is in developing a mathematics that simultaneously describes all observable to within the precision and accuracy of observations.
For example, the four equations that describe the laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell's Equations) were elegantly unified by developing a mathematics that uses four-tensors in Minkowski space to describe all four laws in a single equation.
Similarly, quantum mechanics was rife with a demon's nest of refinements until Dirac developed the mathematics of Quantum Chromodynamics.
Thus can physics drive mathematical innovation.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2014
I hadn't previously considered "laws" of physics as emergent properties on a conscious level prior to reading this thread. I think that this is something worthy of considerable thought. As the physical world tends to "prefer" the simplest, lowest energy state, "economical" circumstances it makes sense that the overriding and basic unit of the whole drama is itself very simple. Very simple things make very complex things rather easily. We experience this every day. Life is an "emergent property" of chemistry. And yet is life a "law" of chemistry? It's very helpful to remember that science is made up by humans to fit human concepts and consciousness which enables it to deal effectively with what is actually objectively real. I like what both Returners and shavera said about the laws of physics not really breaking down, but it's more accurate to say "our math breaks down", or "our model breaks down". Reality is blithely unaffected by either.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
Perhaps one or the other, like the video game thread I spoke about, is not a law at all, but an "Emergent Property" which only appears to be a law, therefore you can't unify them, because they are beyond the "mere" mathematics you think represents them.


I appreciate what you're saying, but it's helpful to remember that we have indeed unified everything up to the electroweak interactions (electricity, magnetism, and the weak nuclear force), indeed I think we might have gone as far as the "electronuclear" or "electrostrong" force. All that remains is gravity.

I think you're on to a conceptual framework that is more helpful than the current one being used however. It's not that we can't unify emergent properties together (we have already done that), or that one can't be unified while all the others can. I think that "seeing" them as emergent properties or manifestations might allow for some more productive thought and inquiry on the matter however.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2014
PURSUING THE LIMITS OF FAILED SYMMETRY Abstract: The universe violates mirror-symmetry at all scales. Gravitation is postulated to be mirror-symmetric. Test gravitation with a metaphoric pair of shoes: non-superposable mirror-image atomic mass distributions, five classes of experiments herein. Physics could selectively fall to a footnote. (http://mazepath.c...qz4.htm)

Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test The weak interaction is strictly left-handed. Parity Violating Energy Difference (PVED) experiments seek a measurable energy divergence between left-handed and right-handed molecules from weak interaction Z0 neutral current exchange between nucleus and electrons. Optimistic PVED is 8·10-12 eV. Room temperature energy background kT = 0.0257 eV. Carbon-carbon bond strength is 3.6 eV. Benzil PVED deltadeltaH(fusion) will not exceed 4·10-10 J/gram from the weak interaction. (http://mazepath.c...jos.htm)

VENDItardE
5 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2014
well said shavera
Zephir_fan
Jan 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2014
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams

Tesla and his knowledge disappeared then we got the bizarre ramblings of Einstein and his disciples followed by the inexplicable Feynman and the magical QFT.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2014
Let's see if we can think about this another way.

Let us examine Chess. Most of the pieces can move several spaces in any one direction, as long as it is not obstructed. The knight is special in that it jumps, and can thereby end in a location without occupying the spaces between it's origin and destination.

So if you compare the Bishop and the Knight, even though they both inhabit the same "universe" they obey laws which are not transforms of one another. In fact, the Knight's "Law" is not a purely mathematical law at all. There is no simple, elegant transformation you can do to either piece to make it behave like the other. In fact, the Bishop can't even pass on half the spaces, while Knight hits all. Knight has limited range in eight directions, Bishop has unlimited in 4 directions.

Now, take Ruy Lopez' "Archbishop" piece, which has all the moves of both the Bishop and the Knight. It possesses both "Laws" yet the laws are not "unified".
davidivad
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
i am not necessarily into string theory, but if having it around helps to weed things out then so be it.
shavera
4.9 / 5 (18) Jan 06, 2014
Returners, we're not making *rules* about how reality *must* behave. We're trying to describe *how* reality behaves, mathematically. To date, everything we can observe can be described mathematically. We know a few things that lie outside of our present capacity to describe. And we're trying to figure out how to describe those things best.

Physics isn't a book that tells the universe how to behave. Physics is humanity translating the universe's behaviour into words and symbols we can understand. Rather than us writing the rules of chess, it would be as if we watch the game unfold around us and try to write down what happens and why. In the case of your "archbishop" we would simply realize we don't have all the rules down yet, and need to figure out what governs its movement. *But* we do know that it moves like pieces we know, and we know it doesn't turn into Petunias. So that's a good start for us.
benjamin_solheim
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
Doesn't the simple fact that a local field effect will always exert more force with less energy than and stronger overall field that is further from the point of contention? Like gravity from the sun's well pulling so much but the centrifugal force of the earth being smaller but having a more stabilizing effect because it is happening closer to point of the contention. Similar to Coriolis effect not effecting toilets because the physical mechanics of toilet have a stronger local effect. Similar to using torque to oppose friction allowing bullets to shoot straighter and longer if you get the spin fast enough.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2014
Shavera:

What I'm trying to show you is that isn't necessarily possible.

One theory is causal, while the other theory is non-causal at least some of the time.

One theory is continuous, while the other is not.

It doesn't even necessarily make sense to try to unify that mathematically.

For example, let's think about both known possibilities: The forces and theories can either be unified, or they cannot.

Unless we can determine some functionality, obtain some technology, from a unified theory which is not obtainable without it, then it is not as valuable if found.

Again, not promoting ignorance is bliss.

Point is there may be no benefit to us knowing a unified theory even if it exists, and also if it doesn't exist, is that such a bad thing?

Perhaps a non-unified physics allows more loop-holes and discovery for technology than a unified physics.

Obviously we don't always get what we want anyway.

Point being, just prove which one you'd rather have and why, for example.
Returners
1 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2014
Shavera:

But the Archbishop, by having non-unified laws, can do things which it could not do were it unified. Turns out that een though the Bishop is half as powerful as the Rook in Chess, the Archbishop is the same power as teh Arch-rook. The reason is not obvious to some, but the mere fact that the "Knight" aspect allows it to change "color" doubles the power of the Arch-bishop, so that the Bishop gains a lot more from the Knight than does the Rook.

If you "unified" the laws, there's already a "fairy" piece for that, which simply continues the Knights move to be of length "N", rather than just one move, and it is nowhere nearly as powerful as the Arch-bishop.

Having a favorite potential outcome isn't a bad idea, it produces passion to find the answer, as long as you avoid bias in the research.

I just think sometimes we do focus too much on this notion that everything is related in a way we can discover by a single equation or set of equations.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2014
Over 2000 years passed between the first Atomic theory and the discovery of actual atoms.

They didn't have the technology, at all, to discover atoms. We had to invent microscopes and discover electricity and magnetism to understand what an atom is.

It's not fun to think about the fact that there might be "something" beyond our ability to comprehend even in this age of knowledge and technology. Scientists see such problems as "fun" for a while, but then when they are discovered it's on to the next thing, but what if, maybe, you just never, ever "crack" something?

Some rules simply don't arise as transformations of other rules.

Look at Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They don't even obey the Inverse Square law, yet people keep trying to compare Dark Matter to ordinary matter. Dark Energy doesn't even logically have units of "Joules," yet we have leading scientists talking about the "mass" of the universe being mostly Dark Energy. Why?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2014
Look at Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They don't even obey the Inverse Square law


We already know DE will, that's because DE is electro-magnetism. Energy is never anything other than electro-magnetism or it isn't ENERGY. The only thing mysterious about the DE concept is that we don't currently have spectroscopy instrumentation to reveal the full range of the electro-magnetic spectrum, therefore we don't know how much energy exists in the Universe that we can't detect. DM of course is another issue.

...... yet we have leading scientists talking about the "mass" of the universe being mostly Dark Energy. Why?


No, they are not talking about the "mass" of the universe being mostly DE. The leading scientists know how to distinguish the difference between MASS & ENERGY, that they are transformed products of one another. It is precisely because they are transformed products of one another that both have inherent gravity fields & via these gravity fields we detect DE.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2014
Benni:

Dark Energy doesn't have a gravity field. Dark Energy is the alleged "thing" which causes the expansion of the observational interpreted Universe to accelerate.

If Dark Energy had a gravity field it wouldn't even behave the way the "mystery entity" behaves, because gravity is attractive, while Dark Energy is not attractive. Dark Energy most certainly is not inverse square related to anything that is obvious, since the greater the distance between objects the faster they are observed/interpreted to be moving and accelerating away from one another. Not only is that not a gravity field, it's not even the opposite of a gravity field. It's completely mathematically different.
shavera
5 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2014
@Benni: no, there is energy of motion (momentum) and energy of existence (mass). Energy is not a stuff, or a thing. It's a number one can calculate. E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (in c=1 units). Electromagnetic *fields* have an associated energy, as do the color fields of the strong force, and the fields of the weak force, and the other particles. Some of the energy (EM, Strong, is only energy of motion. Some of the energy (weak, quarks, electrons and the like) is energy of mass *and* motion.

To both of you: Please, take some time. Learn what we already know about the universe, instead of pontificating wildly without experience. The universe is a wonderful place. And we know a very good deal already.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
@Returners

Benni:

Dark Energy doesn't have a gravity field. Dark Energy is the alleged "thing" which causes the expansion of the observational interpreted Universe to accelerate.

If Dark Energy had a gravity field it wouldn't even behave the way the "mystery entity" behaves, because gravity is attractive, while Dark Energy is not attractive. Dark Energy most certainly is not inverse square related to anything that is obvious, since the greater the distance between objects the faster they are observed/interpreted to be moving and accelerating away from one another. Not only is that not a gravity field, it's not even the opposite of a gravity field. It's completely mathematically different.


With your above response you've amply demonstrated everything you don't know about ENERGY......... I'll say it one more time & hope you'll accede the argument to me: ALL ENERGY IS ELECTRO-MAGNETISM. BECAUSE ENERGY IS TRANSFORMED MASS, IT MUST HAVE AN INHERENT GRAVITY FIELD.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
@Shavera

@Benni: no, there is energy of motion (momentum) and energy of existence (mass). Energy is not a stuff, or a thing. It's a number one can calculate. E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (in c=1 units). Electromagnetic *fields* have an associated energy, as do the color fields of the strong force, and the fields of the weak force, and the other particles. Some of the energy (EM, Strong, is only energy of motion. Some of the energy (weak, quarks, electrons and the like) is energy of mass *and* motion.

To both of you: Please, take some time. Learn what we already know about the universe, instead of pontificating wildly without experience. The universe is a wonderful place. And we know a very good deal already.


I am a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, gamma ray spectroscopy is part of my job description. Your statement that: "Electromagnetic *fields* have an associated energy....." is not correct, a correct statement would be: "Electromagnetic fields ARE energy".
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
@ shavera & Returners

To both of you: Please, take some time. Learn what we already know about the universe, instead of pontificating wildly without experience. The universe is a wonderful place. And we know a very good deal already.

Zephir_fan
Jan 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rah
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
So what would they be looking for?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
So what would they be looking for?


String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet incompatible theories that describe all known physics: Einstein's general relativity, our reigning theory of gravity; and the standard model of particle physics, or quantum field theory, which explains all the forces other than gravity.

Ralph
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Like any decent, reasonable person, naturally I hope that some discrepancy might be found in Einstein's Equivalence Principle. But also being a sensible person, I would be prepared to bet heavily on a null result in any such test. General Relativity has developed a reputation for unassailability, and my guess is that it is not yet ready to yield to any other theory. Likewise the Standard Model has shown its extreme tenacity, its stubborn refusal to make concessions or compromise with any other testable structure for the world of particles.

Maybe, after all, the universe actually has two sets of laws: Einstein's and the Standard Model. The idea will be troubling to purists, but in fact the two rules of conduct inhabit opposite ends of the spectrum of existence, and never get in each other's way. Maybe the two mutually contradictory universes only look (to narrow-minded us) like one big place.
Sagar_Gorijala
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
I've my own theory. My theory is "Fundamental Theory Of Existence" FTOE for short. I developed FTOE after reading Prof. Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time". In my theory I state that there are three and three dimensions only. 3 spatial 1 temporal and no more. How do I explain that? Let us take 4th Spatial Dimension... If we prove that there is no 4th Spatial Dimension then we prove that string theory needs correction and can still be correct if the other dimensions are electricity, magnetism, etc; So 2 Dimensions means Area. 3 Dimensions means Volume. What does 4th Spatial Dimension mean? Earth Sun relation ship will be different if there is 4th Spatial Dimension. Also 4th Spatial Dimension can't be mutually perpendicular to other Spatial Dimensions. Also, Gravity field takes everything that occupies Space with it but not space. Space's Volume never shrinks, never expands. Space is absolute. 4th Dimension can't be small what so ever. http://sagargorij...spot.in/
Zephir_fan
Jan 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
Let's get back to basics. Dichotomy! Continuous Dichotomy tells us theoretically that we should end up with something that can no more be divided up into 2 distinct parts. Experiments show us that 'smashing' various atoms etc gives energy which is absorbed or 'decays' into something else (e- & e+ and gamma rays for example). So what is the next question? It's 'what are the constituents of 'energy' or is this 'energy' the ultimate indivisible part that we are searching for?
String Theory says that particles are not 'points' but strings, extended 1D filaments that vbrate. A different excitation of a string results in a different particle. The uncertainty principle becomes affected inasmuch that it is given a 'cut off' point with the inclusion of an extra term, eg, dx=(bar h/dp)+(a'*dp/bar h). So is this observed? Laser experts will surely say that it is not!
With regard to gravity the many compactified dimensions of string theories will have to account for extra terms (cont.)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
(cont.) where the square in 'r^2' becomes adjusted by a dimensional figure. With as many as a possible 26D that could result in an adjustment that is not observed. That is to say the G constant has not been confirmed to vary anywhere. Such adjustments would also be necessary for BH entropy calcs.
I think the jury is going to 'be out' for some time yet.
theon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Post for dumbos. Nothing to be expected, zillions of down-to-earth corrections to be considered should the effect be found.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
Sub: Incomplete Perceptions
Where do we stand today in understanding the Cosmic Dance of SIVA - origins Space Cosmology vedas Interlinks ?
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Galileu never threw any ball or any object from the Pizza tower (he used inclined planks) and Newton never saw an apple falling from any tree!
This is myth spread by screwed minds such as Venditards.
You do not have to believe me just read a single book about Newton or Galileo for instance: Einstein's Heroes: Imagining the World through the Language of Mathematics
http://www.amazon...95308905
GegenteilBuchhalter
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Seems forever just out of reach.
Zephir_fan
Jan 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
didslpole
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
I think physics is at an impasse. String theory and in general any theory which seeks to explain everything once for all, will fail, but will provide interesting material for reflection.
ziphead
5 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2014
Seems forever just out of reach.


Ooops, you make the boo boo, eh Skippy you?


@Zephir_fan: the unifying hole of all the arses in the Universe.
He often wonders why he was not liked as a child.
baudrunner
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
@Zephir_fan: you are a true wit. thanx for being here.

I hope these researchers aren't getting funding, because they are so full of b.s. I can smell it from here. The want to use gravity (no-one has explained how gravity works) to correlate matter-matter interactions ("Shrunken proton baffles scientists, Researchers perplexed by conflicting measurements." http://www.nature...-1.12289 - shows how much we know about matter) to test string theory (shouldn't they first be able to explain how these "strings" assemble to make up a quark?). Yawn.

It's all mathematics, and mathematics can prove the impossible. I'm not falling for it.

Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
@baudrunner, rather think
'It's all mathematics, and mathematics can prove the impossible. I'm not falling for it.'
could be restated. ST is full of maths and possibly that is where it becomes useful. It shows us that mathematicians can still make new advances and we are not satisfied that we 'know it all'.
Zephir_fan
Jan 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rdavid
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2014
"Words, words, words."

Hamlet might argue that to know, we must think, express and act in numbers and in their equations. Don't see any here.

davidivad
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
well, i might ought to try an equation or two, but the frustration of not having my office plug-in available really negates any futile effort i might posses. if there are options for this editor, please tell me now.
indio007
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2014
Galileu never threw any ball or any object from the Pizza tower (he used inclined planks) and Newton never saw an apple falling from any tree!
This is myth spread by screwed minds such as Venditards.
You do not have to believe me just read a single book about Newton or Galileo for instance: Einstein's Heroes: Imagining the World through the Language of Mathematics
http://www.amazon...95308905


Newton was also more an alchemist than a scientist. He wrote more on that than any other subject.
I just don't know how this scientist myth got started....
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
indio007 maybe that has something to do with him [Newton] having a job at the Royal Mint.
Drjsa_oba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
I like vibrating strings idea. I would not have been game to suggest it though.

Validating this stuff has to be be fun though and I envisage a great deal of effort expended by many to decide the outcome. It is no more a wast of time than watching football or cricket. So if you want to explore strings etc then go for it. At least it will keep them off the street.

I am just thinking of a practical side effect of strings that vibrate. You put a few strings together and they start to vibrate in synchronisation. I wonder if we can observe things made of strings transforming from one object in to another. Have to think very small like Neutrinos can we conceive of Neutrinos that might change character?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2014
Well Drjsa_oba, neutrinos aren't perhaps the best to start with since most of them pass through without affecting anything. If a change were to take place then it might be that we would be able to detect 'the change'. Perhaps more interesting to start with a charged particle and it's anti- partner...don't you think?
krundoloss
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2014
I have always liked the kind of abstract ideas that are produced in theoretical physics. It seems that while unifying theories are possible, that what we really seek is the "next layer", much like the other "layers of existence" we have found in the past. Just like when we discovered germs, which opened a mew microscopic world and helped us make advances in the macro world. Then we discovered the atomic layer of existence and made advances based on that discovery. We looked out and saw solar systems within galaxies floating in a huge open space. Each one is a layer of existence with its own way of using natural forces. In the subatomic layers things behave in a way that doesn't correlate so well with the other scales we observe.

The layer below may hold the key? Or is it endless? I would tend to think that it loops on itself, universes within universes.
I might sound crazy but didnt Einstein say that imagination and intuition are most important?
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2014
@indio007,
I think the myth develops due to ignorance + curiosity.
People that are not fully aware of a subject have strong ideas about it. Even when their knowledge is borderline. (Vide AGW)
Newton was a genius no doubt about it but most of his interesting personality is lost below piles of "myth". Just an example: he became a ferocious enemy of Robert Hooke (http://en.wikiped...t_Hooke) because Hooke defended the wave nature of light together with Christiaan Huygens. Newton got so angry with Hooke that he rewrote the various pages of his Principia to remove all Hooke citations. Amongst them, the famous one about the variation of attraction according to the square of the distance between the centres of two spherical bodies! Newton got so mad with Hooke that he hold his already finished paper about light until after Hooke's death to release it. Becoming then the President of the Royal Society. Meticulous as he was he made only one mistake while moving to the new (cont.)
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2014
(Cont.) @indio007
Royal Society building that he proposed after becoming its President.
What "mistake" was it?
Amongst all things moved to the new Royal Society building one was lost forever: The painting of Robert Hooke!...:)
There are many very interesting features in all those famous (Galileu is a great example) that are completely lost due to poor education by teachers that are absolutely ignorant themselves about what they are teaching or at least lack the passion to research into the subject before start teaching. The way science is taught the human part of it is relegated to a mere name and date leaving its promoters in a vacuum that is naturally filled with myth as "nature hates vacuum"...:)
GuruShabu
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2014
Interesting that someone already gave me 1 star even without reading the entire post.
And moreover, I did not put a single opinion here. I just mentioned facts available for anyone though the literature.
But I suspect who the gentleman is.
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2014
You have a personal problem and do this sort invisible/coward attacks.
Put another 1 star!
Zephir_fan
Jan 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GuruShabu
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2014
I am happy that I can control your uncontrollable stupidity!
And even happier that you've exposed you wicked personality.
Now you go to the toilet and look at the mirror and say: I am very stupid! 3 times...
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
@GuruShabu

you DO know you can see who votes on you, right?

and lashing out because someone down-votes you is rather stupid, unless you know who did it and you can direct your replies to that individual, and show logic and reasoning.
now that you show your ease of anger, you are likely to get various trolls down-voting you just to get you riled.
there are sock-puppets of various people here who do exactly that.

peace
GuruShabu
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
I know who was and he showed himself at the first opportunity.
I have exchanged pleasantries with him. Directly. So if you say this is stupid I cannot agree with your statement nor with your advice.
And to be frank I cannot understand someone calling other stupid and then seeing peace...
BTW, I put 5 Stars on your comment just for the sake of "peace".
wasp171
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
Sorry Captain but you seem to have missed the point.
This wind Zephyr is a bully guy that calls everyone around a "skippy". A word used all over this website in a wide range of subjects and always abusing people never contributing to the clarification of the subject.
As Shakespeare said: "He is full of piss and wind".
I don't want to take any side here but Guru stated correctly that he did not issued any opinion on his post just contributed with facts available in the literature, btw quite pertinent to the subject.
Even though the windy guy has tried to diminish his contribution giving a 1 star for a quite nice clarification on Guru's conversation with indio007.
It was a civilised exchange until the whirlwind came and thrown his skippy disrupting the flow.
So, why Guru is called stupid I also cannot understand.
Peace too.
jorge_brown
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
I give 10 stars to Mr or Mrs? wasp!
This Zephir_fan should be banned from the site.
However, I can see people gave him on his first "contribution" to this article nothing less than 10 one star already!
...so he receives the feedback but does not care or realize how unwelcome he is.
jorge_brown
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
Rephrasing:
..how unwelcome this sort of comments are.
Zephir might be welcome IF he stops behaving like a spoiled child and stay quite amongst adults.
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
@Returners:
Your ideas are not new, nor are they insightful. Here's a link you might like: http://en.wikiped...mergence

If I had to guess, you've already read that Wikipedia article or something similar and are coming on here to pontificate as if you're going to teach everyone something profound. We aren't members of your family, friends, or cult and you aren't some great philosopher or professor, so spare us your pomposity.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
@GuruShabu
So if you say this is stupid I cannot agree with your statement nor with your advice.

perhaps I should have said "futile". It actually is more representative of what I was thinking.
Wasn't calling anyone specifically stupid. Just the act of lashing out for no reason (or 1stars) is stupid.

@wasp171
Sorry Captain but you seem to have missed the point.

I didnt miss it, just wasnt eloquent enough. See above.

So, why Guru is called stupid I also cannot understand.

again, I called the ACT stupid... and again, I probably should have said "futile"

to BOTH
if you sit and argue with everyone that 1star's you then you will eventually just burn out and go away. It is a tactic that some have used to chase others off the site. I know at least 2 personally that left for the same reasons I stated.
I was trying to say "just relax and ignore it"
unless maybe there is pertinent info that you can pass on

PEACE
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
The word futile is perfect.
Now I understand your argument and I agree it is futile but some day the Windy guy just gets on your nerves, you know.
It is the second time I call him stupid and he replies "accepting my apologies"...
He is a pain on the neck here.
Best regards!
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
If enough people send feedback to Phys.Org requesting the idiot zephir_fan troll to be banned, they may eventually do this.

This dolt rates everyone of my posts a 1 irrespective of content. I simply cancel the invalid ratings out. He has admitted to being banned from another site, so must have a low IQ and with nothing better to do than being a mindless troll.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
So, why Guru is called stupid I also cannot understand.


That's because you just showed up this morning and haven't been around long enough to see the Gubu Skippy in action. Or the Ira either.

Laissez les bons temps rouler couyon Skippy.



You're just a low class degenerate that has nothing of interest to say. Internet trolls are a dime a dozen, and could only be amusing to a dense 14 year old.

Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
@Nounemom
I like your idea of banning this junk from the website.
I will write to Physorg about the troll.
Getting rid of this pest will improve Physorg overall content!...:)
Cheers.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jorge_brown
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
Please everybody!
Please go to (http://phys.org/h...edback/) and write to Physorg about this troll.
I think it is time to clean the table.
If enough number of people hit the same button the imbecil will be ejected from the website.
Let's get active and show this " low class degenerate" (I liked the expression, Nounemom) his behavior is not acceptable.
wasp171
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
I am following the wise guys and writing a feedback to clean the site!
Zephir_fan has done enough for justify "its" (yes because I do not consider a troll being a person. So IT is recommended!...:) ban from Physorg!
Bye bye imbecil!
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
Maybe, after all, the universe actually has two sets of laws: Einstein's and the Standard Model. The idea will be troubling to purists, but in fact the two rules of conduct inhabit opposite ends of the spectrum of existence, and never get in each other's way.


Dang... This has got to be one of the most common-sense posts on the whole site. Prob'ly the closest to being true as any I've read.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
@Nounemom
I like your idea of banning this junk from the website.
I will write to Physorg about the troll.
Getting rid of this pest will improve Physorg overall content!...:)
Cheers.


@ Gubu Skippy. You might as well just post complaints here, that's the only place anyone will read them. All the whining that the nounemom Skippy does is considered the fan mails by the nice peoples at the physorg. It shows them I am doing my dutys.


Are you claiming that Phys.Org admins hired you to troll after commenters ? Why would anyone think to donate money to a site that fails to moderate the comment section or actively participates in trying to obscure the value of posts of specific individuals? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
Maybe, after all, the universe actually has two sets of laws: Einstein's and the Standard Model. The idea will be troubling to purists, but in fact the two rules of conduct inhabit opposite ends of the spectrum of existence, and never get in each other's way. Maybe the two mutually contradictory universes only look (to narrow-minded us) like one big place.


Dang... This has got to be one of the most common-sense posts on the whole site. Prob'ly the closest to being true as any I've read.


I don't think too many people would be willing to give up the correspondence principal any time soon. But, that doesn't mean it is possible to bridge the gap in practice.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014

Are you claiming that Phys.Org admins hired you to troll after commenters ? Why would anyone think to donate money to a site that fails to moderate the comment section or actively participates in trying to obscure the value of posts of specific individuals? Doesn't make a lot of sense.


That is because you don't understand the business stuffs any better than the science stuffs. I get the most clicks nounemom Skippy, about fifteen or ten times more than you do.


So according to you (whom I don't believe), Phys.Org is corrupt and financially scamming their sponsors? If that is true why would you be stupid enough to admit that here? You're just a low class troll troll trying justify it.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
Why would I make several screen names when I've had this one for over six years,... come to think of it, why I'm I even talking to you,.....
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
4 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2014
I've brought it up in a couple previous posts.......if anyone at PhysOrg really wants to make a constructive attempt to solve trolling problems here, it must start with banning voting by those who do not have a posting history. It's the NOM's, Open, Toot, etc, who are the real problems here, not the guy who votes under his posting name.

GuruShabu
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
@Noumenon
Mate, is it futile (taking the words from Captain Stumpy) to discuss with an unreasonable person.
It is like talking to a wall, to a stone...
I hope enough people has addressed the imbecil and he will be kicked off soon.
He will probably change his ID for a new secret one Zephir_fan 2 (much difficult to catch!....:)) but his comments and behaviour will not change -yes, this is an assumption but frankly speaking who expect any improvement from such a sick mind?- letting us catching him again and again until he behaves or quit definitely.
GuruShabu
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
@Benni,
I agree with you with relation to multiple IDs issue but there is another very important issue here that you are not addressing - So I gave you a neutral rate (3) on your post.
The issue is bulling readers, trolling and annoying reasonable people with stupid comments.
Do you agree?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
I've brought it up in a couple previous posts.......if anyone at PhysOrg really wants to make a constructive attempt to solve trolling problems here, it must start with banning voting by those who do not have a posting history. It's the NOM's, Open, Toot, etc, who are the real problems here, not the guy who votes under his posting name.



I've asked phys.org to disable the comment rating system altogether, many times to no avail.

I believe that the zephir_fan imbecile IS the open/toot/lite/NOM troll as those screen names did the exact same thing wrt 1-trolling literally every post I made irrespective of content as the zephir_fan kid is doing now. The open/toot/lite/NOM trolls stopped around the same time zephir_fan registered.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2014
@Benni,
I agree with you with relation to multiple IDs issue but there is another very important issue here that you are not addressing - So I gave you a neutral rate (3) on your post.
The issue is bulling readers, trolling and annoying reasonable people with stupid comments.
Do you agree?


Bullying readers is a different issue. The Open,Toot, Lite, Sicilian & that crowd are already frequent posters voting under something other than their posting name. These have an agenda for diluting ratings of other posters with whom they vehemently disagree but who are themselves extraordinarily shy about explaining in terms of real science why they disagree with those posters, in most cases they don't try because they themselves don't have a good grip on the subject material.

This business of voting under one name while posting an opinion in another is nothing less than a bullying tactic utilizing the setting of the filter to prevent specific posts of others from being read.
jorge_brown
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2014
Benni, you are not addressing the real problem here: Zephir_fan.
There are many of us trying to get rid of this troll.
Other issues can be addressed later on.
This guy is a pain in the neck.
I myself created this account just to address this imbecil.
I use to read Physorg for so many years that I don't remember when I discovered it but it is very likely from the beginning of this webpage as I am a avid science and internet user.
This guy is a disaster!
He makes me feel so angry.
Just read his last post. he is AGAIN "accepting apologies" for an insult!
His mind is absolutely twisted.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
krundoloss
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
It is sad to see this comment section reduced to squabbling. Talk about superstrings or something. No one cares about comment ratings.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2014
Benni, you are not addressing the real problem here: Zephir_fan.


You're almost correct, but not quite. Zeph is calling out ALL the hypocrisy as it presently exists, he probably doesn't know it himself, or maybe he does but is just being overly cute about it.

I have been on this site & quoted material right out of Einstein's GR only to have the NOM, Lite, Open, Toot, & their posting supporters come right out & deny such words even exist in Einstein's GR when they know very well that it does. What kind of science is that? Has Zeph done something so much worse? He doesn't appear to be off in a perpetual motion Universe where he denies the existence of entropy or that small points in the middle of black holes are perfect examples of infinity.

I seldom vote. Why not just tell the poster why you disagree? So that's what I do, I write it up my disagreement in a followup post, ask appropriate questions for which seldom get a lucid response, just a blizzard of 1 votes.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
You're almost correct, but not quite. Zeph is calling out ALL the hypocrisy as it presently exists, he probably doesn't know it himself, or maybe he does but is just being overly cute about it.

Interesting theory, Benni...

I seldom vote. Why not just tell the poster why you disagree? So that's what I do, I write it up my disagreement in a followup post, ask appropriate questions for which seldom get a lucid response, just a blizzard of 1 votes.

I do not vote negatively, unless by accident (too much coffee?). If I do not like a post, I don't vote at all.
Anyway, wouldn't surprise me at all that this were some sort of analytical testing method done by - Google, maybe...?
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
I myself created this account just to address this imbecil.

I, myself, am having a tough time understanding why you would need a different account just to do that. Why not your original one?
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2014
Interesting theory, Benni...


Anyway, wouldn't surprise me at all that this were some sort of analytical testing method done by - Google, maybe...?


I've wondered the same........Zeph's writeups are just too folksy cute to be the product of someone of only grade school vintage. In the meantime, he's got others here thinking about how many times they may not sound altogether different when they deny Einstein said something they very well know he did say, so think about those things.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Jan 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
Nope I'm not so smart like that. I came here when I heard the Zephir was posting here from a person who knows I am a fan of his. He was posting here to. But he went through three or two of his "name" cycles then was gone. Still he's gone it seems to me.

I think Zeph (only knew him by other names) is actually quite an intelligent guy. His viewpoints were in opposition to accepted dogma, however he provided a useful purpose. For me he provided useful counterpoint with which to take a wider view of "stuff". He must be left-handed.

Quantum nature is about the simplest thing in the world, if ya really think about it. It's the trying to make it mechanically useful with linear reference methodology that complicates things. But that's human nature...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
@Noumenon
I believe that the zephir_fan imbecile IS the open/toot/lite/NOM

[SIC]

and I can guarantee that Zephir_fan is NOT open, toot, or lite as none of the three were EVER capable of even considering more than 1star for anything I wrote, true or otherwise.

Like Benni said
Zeph is calling out ALL the hypocrisy as it presently exists, he probably doesn't know it himself, or maybe he does but is just being overly cute about it

I think he is much more aware than you realise.

@everyone
And I also think getting yourselves worked up over it is "futile".

You know... maybe the length of the comments is used in some ranking system for the site?
Any highly controversial post/article is bound to have a high number of comments...

something to think about
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
yall might not AGREE on this, but you have to admit... Zephir_fan
is calling out ALL the hypocrisy as it presently exists


and he doesn't care about who he makes angry.
Read above for proof!
It SHOULD be making yall think about what you post. It does me...
just like Otto's blasts (which are much more aggressive) makes people think about what they post.
You may not AGREE all the time with the post, but you have to admit they serve a purpose.

Again... sit back, relax, and just enjoy the show.
And if you are targeted... rethink the argument and get methodical, post your references and links, and make a better argument.

Who cares about ranking? Some do, some dont.
BUT - None of it matters unless you are being PAID to keep it something ranked high, right?
Otherwise it is EGO.

and EGO is all about your personal view of yourself

if you cant laugh at YOURSELF...
someone else WILL

Osteta
Jan 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
yall might not AGREE on this, but you have to admit... Zephir_fan
is calling out ALL the hypocrisy as it presently exists


and he doesn't care about who he makes angry.
Read above for proof!
It SHOULD be making yall think about what you post. It does me...


How anyone could attribute any rationality to zephir_fan's vacuous posts, is beyond me. How could this dolts posts make you think about anything, when the clown does not make substantive comments relevant to anything?

All he does is insult people and calls them stupid. Wouldn't it be more effective to tell people WHY they are wrong, if supposedly he had some purpose for his trolling?

Also, I could care less about comment ratings, as I requested that Phys.Org disable that system.
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Regarding the 1 voting trolls, I couldn't care less. Regarding my star rating, I couldn't care less. However, the people that can't keep their posts under 1000 characters really bug me. Sometimes I hit the 1000 character limit and have to edit my post down to fit. When that happens I'm rambling and/or making superflous points and the limit helps me to re-focus and get to the point.

When it comes to multiple posts, I won't read anything past the first post, and generally ignore the resident scientist wannabe's. I used to engage them, but came to realize that it's a fools errand and it's best to just ignore them.

It would be nice if physorg had an ignore button that you could click to add a poster to the list of posters to you want to ignore. Thay way, their posts would show up in your view of the page as the posters name with "View post" and "Hide Post" buttons and their ability to vote on your posts would be disabled. I think that would solve a lot of troll problems.
Osteta
Jan 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
And if you are targeted... rethink the argument and get methodical, post your references and links, and make a better argument.

Who cares about ranking? Some do, some dont.


Usually the one's that are troll'rated 5's don't care about ranking, while the one's who have legitimate purely factual posts 1-rated by known trolls as an attempt to obscure it's value, care about that.

Could it be that the only two posters above (Benni & Stumpy) who put forth a convoluted justification for the trolls behavior, are the very two posters who receive 5's from him?

Could it be that these same two posters in fact DO care about ratings as is evidenced by their avoidance of upsetting the adolescent, and getting put on the trolls Ira-list for 1-ratng? Just asking, :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
Could it be that the only two posters above (Benni & Stumpy) … two posters who receive 5's from him?

I have rec'd 5's AND 1's. I have been ridiculed as well. I just dont CARE.
Just like I dont care what YOU say.
You are angry that I dont agree with everything YOU say.
Deal with it
Could it be ... care about ratings

if I cared, I would have a MUCH higher overall rating than 2.2

in all honesty, I think it is rather FUN watching people like you, Noumenon (and SO many others), get ANGRY with him. You take yourself SO SERIOUSLY, and you cannot accept science logic, accept sometimes, and begrudgingly at that.
And unlike YOU, I dont take it personally, nor do I use the fact that others are against me as proof of being right.

You dont like to be wrong, therefore when certain posters are against you, you MUST be right: and I have seen you say this and NEVER offer proof...
rationality to zephir_fan's... posts

it pisses off the TROLLS!
and THAT's FUNNY

just get logical
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
@Noumenon
Wouldn't it be more effective to tell people WHY they are wrong,

yes, it WOULD be more effective, BUT... i've noticed that he tends to concentrate on people who are usually posting in many threads with common theme's, like EU/PU hypothesis supporters, or others that are just paranoid.
You and I have had some decent discussions, however, you also take your views too seriously, as you tend to appear offended when people dont always bend to your supposed superior logic.
not to say i havent been irritated in the past, but... i get over it quickly.
I could care less about comment ratings, as I requested that Phys.Org disable...

why have them disable something that you dont care about.
Either ignore it, or post and dont worry about it.
End of story.

Because you use this as a forum to push YOUR pet theories/agenda

Otherwise, why get so serious?

in the end, none of this matters... no one will care in 100yrs.

deal with it
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Could it be that the only two posters above (Benni & Stumpy) … two posters who receive 5's from him?

I have rec'd 5's AND 1's. I have been ridiculed as well. I just dont CARE.
Just like I dont care what YOU say.
You are angry that I dont agree with everything YOU say.
Deal with it

if I cared, I would have a MUCH higher overall rating than 2.2

in all honesty, I think it is rather FUN watching people like you, Noumenon (and SO many others), get ANGRY with him. You take yourself SO SERIOUSLY, and you cannot accept science logic, accept sometimes, and begrudgingly at that.
And unlike YOU, I dont take it personally, nor do I use the fact that others are against me as proof of being right.

You dont like to be wrong, therefore when certain posters are against you, you MUST be right: and I have seen you say this and NEVER offer proof...


Dude, relax, don't take it so seriously, did you not see the ":)" smilely?

you cannot accept science logic

WTF ?!
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
Because you use this as a forum to push YOUR pet theories/agenda


I've never had, nor pushed any "pet theories" on this forum beyond main stream physics. You just made that up.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
.....Do you just make things up?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 13, 2014
.....Do you just make things up?

do you take things too seriously?

I've never had, nor pushed any "pet theories" on this forum beyond main stream physics. You just made that up.

maybe i am talking about some other posts...
semantics vs reality?
philosophy vs science?

LOL

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2014
did you not see the ":)" smilely?


actually i DID miss that!
LOL
sorry
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2014
I've never had, nor pushed any "pet theories" on this forum beyond main stream physics. You just made that up.

maybe i am talking about some other posts...
semantics vs reality?
philosophy vs science?

LOL



Couldn't be, because I provided several references there. That subject has a long and well debated history, that continues.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
Because you use this as a forum to push YOUR pet theories/agenda


I've never had, nor pushed any "pet theories" on this forum beyond main stream physics. You just made that up.


Yep Cap, I know just what you mean about the "pet theory" stuffs (gosh, it's rubbing off).

Look at the history of a few of my past posts when quoting directly from Einstein's GR & note the quantity of non-posting one star trolls who apparently imagined they must be smarter than Einstein. All their couch potato time watching Star Trek caused bottom-side roots to grow & they become geniuses by osmosis. But me, I had to do it the hard really dumb way when at age 19 I took my first nuclear reactor critical.

You know what really pisses off some of posting & non-posting voting trolls on this site? Competent posting. Inform them of your personal experience with the material under discussion & instantly they want to engage in personal warfare. Q-Star, you still around?
edward_ponderer
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2014
Whether the evidence supports, challenges, or proves indeterminate regarding String Theory, this effort must be applauded. String Theory has too long gone off into the wild blue yonder of theory without sensory perception (i.e., measurement). Except for the advantage of mathematics, this would totally degrade to philosophy. And even here, we need to pay close attention to challenges such as those by Roger Penrose (THE ROAD TO REALITY), that the potential set of string theories is so huge that a minore ad maius, it would be as, say, looking for a certain house in North America and thinking that you found the right address because the house was two stories, red brick, and had a tree in the front yard. Odds are very high that you are in for a grave disappointment.

Economic theories are also a mathematically sound, but lose it in terms of the basic tangibles of human ego--socialist suppression, capitalist patronizing, or today's mythical measure, the "util."

Welcome back Physics!