Could string theory be any less believable if they tried?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Could string theory be any less believable if they tried?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:12 pm ... particles/

First they dreamed up a truly bizarre theory, based ironically upon a "naturalness" argument that is based upon the existence of multiple extra spacetime dimensions for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. They included a little bit of complicated math to supposedly give it some "scientific credibility" and then they used that model to help justify the investment in the LHC collider and to prop up the LCMD model. Of course, in their design, they made sure to give SUSY theory enough wiggle room to be able to be modified to fit just about any possible observation in the universe, er, or "multiverse". SUSY theory is the ultimate "theory of the gaps" claim by design.

Then they made a bunch of bold predictions about expecting to find lots of new"sparticles" at LHC, so many in fact that they predicted it would require a lot of calibration of the LHC detectors just to deal with the slew of new sparticles.

SUSY theory and "WIMPS" associated with SUSY theory were used over and over and over again and associated with "dark matter" to help support the investment in the LHC collider, and to support the LCDM 'dark matter" claims. They wrote paper after paper after endless paper extolling the magnificent virtues of SUSY theory and how it supposedly would explain the existence of exotic forms of stable matter.

Of course all of their predictions failed miserably at LHC, and nothing was found to even remotely support the bizarre SUSY concept, not even one new sparticle. It has been the ultimate predictive failure in the lab.

Now they 'rewrite'complicate up" their supposedly "natural" models to rationalize away the fact that their ideas have been an epic fail at LHC. This time however, they made sure to put the predicted "sparticles' out of reach from the next round of LHC upgrades so they can milk this absurd model for at least another twenty years. Of course the whole 'naturalness" argument was virtually abandoned altogether by introducing an 'any universe could happen in a multiverse, so lets take an average" argument into the math. Could SUSY theory be any less believable if they tried? How transparent can they possibly be about trying to "milk this dud" for the rest of their careers?

Wow. And to think that astronomers try to claim that pure empirical physics EU/PC models are 'crackpot' ideas, yet they publish M-theory and SUSY theory nonsense all the time. M-theory and SUSY theory are the crankiest, weirdest and least believable models that I can even think of. They're even worse than the LCDM model and that takes an enormous amount of effort.

Gah. Stop whipping the dry exposed bones of that long dead horse already....

LCMD theory and SUSY theory are proof positive that it's absolutely impossible to ever actually falsify any scientific theory outright. The most that anyone can hope to do is show that a particular model has no accurate predictive value at all, and that's already been done repeatedly for both models. Even still, some zombie variation of big bang theory emerged from the ashes of the SNIA observations and a new big bang theory will probably emerge from the ashes of that recent quasar study. A zombie SUSY theory has already reared it ugly head too, in spite of having absolutely *zero* predictive or useful value in the lab.

About the only value these theories have is their monetary value. They've already been milked to the tune of *billions* of dollars, which is exactly why they just won't die a natural scientific death, and their zombies always get resurrected from the grave.
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Could string theory be any less believable if they tried

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:34 am

A superb summary, Michael.
It's not science - it's religion. Science uses the Empirical Method, whereas religion is dogmatic.
LCDM/SUSY is dogma. Simples.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests