Is Lubos Motl's Dissertation "Nonperturbative Formulations of
Superstring Theory" a Postmodern Hoax? Does a none-perturtbative
forumlation of ST exist? Is that why Motlattacks Smolin & Woit?
Because they are trained physicts who attended and work at prestigious
institutions who're calling his bluff?

It seems that the major motivation for Lubos Motl's impassioned,
snarky, morally questionable, and rude attacks on Smolin and Woit is
that they have called him out. You can imagine the source of the
panic-driven, impassioned attacks--how can one get tenure in the
Harvard Physics Department if one's dissertation is a postmodern hoax?

But perhaps that is the only way. How much longer will NSF be forced
to fund the hoax and complete failure that is ST with millions upon
millions of tax and tuition dollars?

Does Lubos's tenure depend primarily on his ability to secure Randall's
future funding and summer vacations, as opposed to performing rugged
science, such as that found within Moving Dimensiosn Theory?

From: hep-th/0204131

"The long-standing crisis of string theory"

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second,
it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY!!

http://physicsmathforums.com

ROCK ON!!

opensourcearts@gmail.com wrote:

Possibly, you noticed that Smolin is "enthusiastic"
about ST, in spite of your alleged problems with it,
as a "physics raconteur" with a "better Theory of Nothing"
(which, as far as I'm concerned, is a rather loose and
metaphorical reification of the Department of Eisnteinmania,
The Musical ... you should have your own chapter
in the book !-)

everyone in the early parts of your epistolary cut-and-paste job agrees
that "perturbative theories" are not as direct as non-, so
whether or not this Motl guy was successful, is the question;
any opinion on that?

anyway, STs just a reformulation in "higher dimensions,"
which are certainly well-accepted in mathematical physics,
going way back to Hamiltonian and Lagrangian phase-spaces
(spacetimes .-)

While Randall Quotes Eminem, She Forgets to Quote Einstein

http://physicsmathforums.com

Randall forgets to quote Einstein, Feynman, and other winners of the
Nobel Prize in Physics.

"String theory is textbook post-modernism fueled by irresponsible
expenditures of money," Nobel Prize-winner Robert Laughlin griped to
the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year.

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a
five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one
of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. -Feynman,
Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.
-Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

I'd also have to say that you are a liar, but
possibly the liar of Russell's paradox, or
the barber who never leaves his own village:
is he lying about not cutting his own hair --
does he have a secret customer-apprentice-nephew?

that is, when you say that
your so-called theory fits the experimental data,
there's no way to know that, since
you apparently have no way of quantifying your wordsoup
(them, which are *potentially* more powerful
than their anagram .-)

or, of even putting it into a recognizable wordproblemma;
that is to say, solveable. if you could, you then could,
say, explain the meaning of E=mcc in terms
of the "expanding 4th D;" but, you won't even try
to do that; eh?

in other words, you're wearing too much lipstick,
other than for a close encounter
with the Rectal Dysplay Unit!

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str154.html

couldest thou explainit?

thus:
oops, I'd put the wrong URL in my sig, because
of the "W05" in two of them (well,
the other article is good, two). I want to quote
from the PDF -- I will!...
I discovered this construction while contemplating
a fragment from Diophantus' lost work "On Polygonal
Numbers," which describes a proposition
by the classical Greek geometer Hypsicles:
"There has also been proved what was stated
by Hypsicles in a definition, namely, that 'if
there be as many numbers as we please beginning
from 1 and increasing by the same common difference ...'"

In my opinion, success in such enterprises requires a better
understanding of the theory than has been achieved as yet. It is very
difficult to assess whether this level of understanding is just around
the corner or whether it will take many decades and several more
revolutions.
In the absence of this kind of confirmation, we can point to three
qualitative "predictions" of superstring theory. The first is the
existence of gravitation, approximated at low energies by general
relativity. No other quantum theory can claim to have this property
(and I suspect that no other ever will).
The second is the fact that superstring solutions generally include
Yang--Mills gauge theories like those that make up the "standard model"
of elementary particles.
The third general prediction is the existence...