🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:00:42 -0700, "hhc314@yahoo.com"
<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/universe/
>> Sycophant: "Welcome to the webpage of a Brian Greene's bestseller "The
>> Elegant Universe"....String theory, as it is often called, is the key
>> to the unified FIELD theory that eluded Einstein for more than thirty
>> years......String theory, as the author vividly describes, reveals a
>> vision of the universe that is sending shock waves through the world
>> of physics. Thrilling and revolutionary ideas such as new dimensions
>> hidden within the fabric of space, black holes transmuting into
>> elementary particles, rips and punctures in the SPACE-TIME
>> CONTINUUM...."
>>
>> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/einstein07/einstein07_index.html
>> Brian Greene: "So the question I have is, we, many of us, are working
>> on Einstein's legacy in a sense, which is trying to find the unified
>> theory that he looked for such a long time and never found, and we've
>> been pursuing an approach called super string theory for many years
>> now. And it is a completely theoretical undertaking. It is completely
>> mathematical. It has yet to make contact with experimental data. I
>> would like to ask Einstein what he would think of this approach to
>> unification. Does he see the same kind of beauty, the same kind of
>> elegance, the same kind of powerful incisive ideas in this framework
>> to give him the confidence that he had in the general theory of
>> relativity?"
>>
>> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
>> Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
>> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
>> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
>> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
>> contemporary physics."
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
>I can only hope that Brian Greene is not waiting for a reply.
>
>I ask why do dumb F***s posts this infantile crap in a physics
>newsgroup, since it becomes obvious that the majority of posters have
>never cracked a textbook on the subject?
>
>Hope you can explain that one to me, and yes, I am a graduate
>physicist after spending 5 years in undgraduate study, working through
>all of the assigned problem sets, suffering through all of the all
>night cram sessions, and finally passign all of the exams.
>
>Physics is pretty logical, and if you carefully learn the basics in
>Physics 101, and follow through for the next 6 or so years of intense
>study, you willl eventually have acquied sufficent knowledge to
>pontifiate on the subject, and possilblh be even in a position to
>dispute their ideas.  Until you reach this level of knowledge, it is a
>rather good idea for everyone else to sit back, crack their textbooks,
>and keep their pie holes closed.
>
>Too much crackpot, ignorant crap is today being posted on sci.physics.
>It's time to slam the door in the face these ignorant assholes who
>post this nonsense!

You can jump up and down and foam at the mouth while showing off that
you graduated from some chicken shit physics program but the truth
remains that Brian Greene (of Columbia U., a bastion of crackpottery,
ahahaha....) is a fucking time travel superstring crackpot who loves
to appear as a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM. ahahaha... But none of this
is new. The physics community is filled to the rim with crackpots like
Greene and their Star-trek voodoo physics.

Here's a short list of crackpot physicists:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

Feel free to nominate more candidates for the list. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA...

PS. If nature if discrete (which it is, since continuity is
crackpottery) then it is indeed true thaty nothing remains of
Einstein's entire castle in the air.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm