Is it possible we are not equiped to understand the universe

[hackenslash]

That would be a hypothesis then, if it can be falsified but isn't testable it isn't even a very good one but meh I've seen worse.

Which bit of 'it has made testable predictions' is escaping you here?

Do you just repeat such things like a mantra to convince yourself that theory means maths not evidence, and a hypothesis is something that wont be testable for perhaps ever.

Without even a hint of irony...

I never argued it wasn't science to hypothesise but to not deliver on your promise is not science it is arm waving away things. What I object to is not that it isn't science, I don't think it is even proper science but meh been there seen that. I think its nothing more than the doodles of bored mathematicians that can and does apply to anything. But then prove me wrong? I don't get why anyone becomes enthralled by a "theory" with so little going for it empirically, I don't get why they feel no need to prove anything they say and just go on to build ever taller house of cards. That is not science speculation on speculation is wishful thinking, it certainly isn't good form.

All our best theories were formulated this way. Why the problem? It is proper science if and when it makes testable predictions, which it has. That you don't like it is neither here nor there. Also, I have clearly stated, without ambiguity or equivocation, that I am neither a supporter nor a detractor, so why are you painting me as some sort of string nut?

Ultimately, reality doesn't give a flying fuck what you think. Again, I will wait for the experimental data and base my conclusions on those.

[The Dagda]

That would be a hypothesis then, if it can be falsified but isn't testable it isn't even a very good one but meh I've seen worse.

Which bit of 'it has made testabler predictions' is escaping you?

Do you just repeat such things like a mantra to convince yourself that theory means maths not evidence, and a hypothesis is something that wont be testable for perhaps ever.

Without even a hint of irony...

I never argued it wasn't science to hypothesise but to not deliver on your promise is not science it is arm waving away things. What I object to is not that it isn't science, I don't think it is even proper science but meh been there seen that. I think its nothing more than the doodles of bored mathematicians that can and does apply to anything. But then prove me wrong? I don't get why anyone becomes enthralled by a "theory" with so little going for it empirically, I don't get why they feel no need to prove anything they say and just go on to build ever taller house of cards. That is not science speculation on speculation is wishful thinking, it certainly isn't good form.

All our best theories were formulated this way. Why the problem? It is proper science if and when it makes testable predictions, which it has. That you don't like it is neither here nor there. Also, I have clearly stated, without ambiguity or equivocation, that I am neither a supporter nor a detractor, so why are you painting me as some sort of string nut?

Ultimately, reality doesn't give a flying fuck what you think. Again, I will wait for the experimental data and base my conclusions on those.

It has to be falsifiable as well ie able to be tested or they aren't testable predictions. Although you'll just arm wave away the distinction between the two as usual like most indoctrinated people.

I'm sure I've had this discussion with you before and you maintain despite all mainstreams scientists view to the contrary that there is evidence of string theory and even despite many people contending it that it is testable. Your position wont change because you take your cues from the faithful and so are already indoctrinated into their religion. We are string theorists only we know the truth! no one else can understand it. Since this has all been said before I'm just going to laugh at your foolish notions until you pony up an experiment, and explain to me what the hell is a hypothesis. Is it something that can be tested, or just some maths on a piece of paper that imagines itself distinguished? What up coming experiments are going to falsify string theory? None. I think that's all that needs to be said unless you are going to erroneously claim that a background independent theory is falsified by the falsification of a back ground dependant theory in which case I'm just going to do this.

No it isn't and no it is barely even a hypothesis as the eminent Woight and Smolin say it is not even wrong and it is the trouble with physics. If you didn't have your head so frimly buried in the sand you might listen to criticism instead of the propaganda from those who have too much at stake to admit that they are still at the planning stage.

[hackenslash]

It has to be falsifiable as well ie able to be tested or they aren't testable predictions. Although you'll just arm wave away the distinction between the two as usual like most indoctrinated people.

And those predictions are fucking falsifiable, as I have repeatedly stated. Speaking of religion-style arm-waving, you seem to be displaying a severe case of that yourself. If those gravity waves do not manifest, or they manifest other than at the blueshifted energies predicted by the model, then the model is fucking falsified.

And indoctrinated in what?

I'm sure I've had this discussion with you before and you maintain despite all mainstreams scientists view to the contrary that there is evidence of string theory and even despite many people contending it that it is testable.

I'm sure you're talking through your fucking rectum. Evidence for string theory? That's easy. Pick any paper on the topic, and that will categorically demonstrate that string theory exists. Of course, I'm sure you just have no knack for constructing coherent sentences, and that you actually meant that I had suggested that there was evidence in support of the postulates of string theory. You would still be fucking wrong, because I have never suggested any such thing. As for the views of mainstream scientists, would you not include Hawking in that list?

Epic fucking fail. Next time, think hard about what you're saying and see if it actually measures up to reality, because the above is a fantastic example of made-up bum-custard.

Your position wont change because you take your cues from the faithful and so are already indoctrinated into their religion. We are string theorists only we know the truth! no one else can understand it.

Which bit of 'I am neither a supporter nor a detractor' is failing to make it through your fucking skull here? I am not, and have never been, an advocate of M-Theory. My position with regard to it is the same as it is for any hypothesis, namely show me the fucking money. I even said this in the post you quoted.

Since this has all been said before I'm just going to laugh at your foolish notions until you pony up an experiment,

I already did, but you are clearly too tied up in your resistance to the idea to bother looking at it. The predictions concern the manifestation of blue-shifted gravitational waves, which should be detectable by the LHC when it gets up to power.

and explain to me what the hell is a hypothesis. Is it something that can be tested, or just some maths on a piece of paper that imagines itself distinguished? What up coming experiments are going to falsify string theory? None. I think that's all that needs to be said unless you are going to erroneously claim that a background independent theory is falsified by the falsification of a back ground dependant theory in which case I'm just going to do this.

I think you really need to pay attention. You clearly have a religious resistance to new ideas.

No it isn't and no it is barely even a hypothesis as the eminent Woight and Smolin say it is not even wrong and it is the trouble with physics. If you didn't have your head so frimly buried in the sand you might listen to criticism instead of the propaganda from those who have too much at stake to admit that they are still at the planning stage.

And if you bothered to read my posts on this topic you might find that I am still not a supported of fucking string theory. Perhaps you might take that into consideration before erecting your puerile fucking drivel about 'religious arm-waving'. The only arms in the air here are yours.

Have fun with the rest of your random ramblings. I think I'll go talk to somebody who actually fucking has a clue.

[Tigger]

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I'm sure it's not necessary to get over heated about this topic is it? Might put off people who are having a bit of a read.

[The Dagda]

It has to be falsifiable as well ie able to be tested or they aren't testable predictions. Although you'll just arm wave away the distinction between the two as usual like most indoctrinated people.

And those predictions are fucking falsifiable, as I have repeatedly stated. Speaking of religion-style arm-waving, you seem to be displaying a severe case of that yourself. If those gravity waves do not manifest, or they manifest other than at the blueshifted energies predicted by the model, then the model is fucking falsified.

And indoctrinated in what?

I'm sure I've had this discussion with you before and you maintain despite all mainstreams scientists view to the contrary that there is evidence of string theory and even despite many people contending it that it is testable.

I'm sure you're talking through your fucking rectum. Evidence for string theory? That's easy. Pick any paper on the topic, and that will categorically demonstrate that string theory exists. Of course, I'm sure you just have no knack for constructing coherent sentences, and that you actually meant that I had suggested that there was evidence in support of the postulates of string theory. You would still be fucking wrong, because I have never suggested any such thing. As for the views of mainstream scientists, would you not include Hawking in that list?

Epic fucking fail. Next time, think hard about what you're saying and see if it actually measures up to reality, because the above is a fantastic example of made-up bum-custard.

Your position wont change because you take your cues from the faithful and so are already indoctrinated into their religion. We are string theorists only we know the truth! no one else can understand it.

Which bit of 'I am neither a supporter nor a detractor' is failing to make it through your fucking skull here? I am not, and have never been, an advocate of M-Theory. My position with regard to it is the same as it is for any hypothesis, namely show me the fucking money. I even said this in the post you quoted.

Since this has all been said before I'm just going to laugh at your foolish notions until you pony up an experiment,

I already did, but you are clearly too tied up in your resistance to the idea to bother looking at it. The predictions concern the manifestation of blue-shifted gravitational waves, which should be detectable by the LHC when it gets up to power.

and explain to me what the hell is a hypothesis. Is it something that can be tested, or just some maths on a piece of paper that imagines itself distinguished? What up coming experiments are going to falsify string theory? None. I think that's all that needs to be said unless you are going to erroneously claim that a background independent theory is falsified by the falsification of a back ground dependant theory in which case I'm just going to do this.

I think you really need to pay attention. You clearly have a religious resistance to new ideas.

No it isn't and no it is barely even a hypothesis as the eminent Woight and Smolin say it is not even wrong and it is the trouble with physics. If you didn't have your head so frimly buried in the sand you might listen to criticism instead of the propaganda from those who have too much at stake to admit that they are still at the planning stage.

And if you bothered to read my posts on this topic you might find that I am still not a supported of fucking string theory. Perhaps you might take that into consideration before erecting your puerile fucking drivel about 'religious arm-waving'. The only arms in the air here are yours.

Have fun with the rest of your random ramblings. I think I'll go talk to somebody who actually fucking has a clue.

Blue shifted gravitational waves are predicted by other theories.

Please you know this and I've said it before but you insist on the discreteness of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

By Einsteins general relativity for a friggin start.

Anyone who defends a hypothesis that is barely even that is a supporter if you ask me.

And can the insults it merely demonstrates you are losing the argument. And becoming frustrated like most religious people.

Lol your argument is pathetically delusional. I don't care what you think because of what you read in your propaganda ridden existence I have read both sides and one side is considerably lacking in scientific method. EOS. Aww sweet the babies thrown his toys out of his pram. /argument

String theory exists, strings don't, until they do then all this arm waving is but another fall of science.

[The Dagda]

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I'm sure it's not necessary to get over heated about this topic is it? Might put off people who are having a bit of a read.

Quite but this guy is clearly losing perspective. I've debated it before with him he lost and claimed to have won while his cronies applauded, he has much too much invested in his argument to argue reasonably which suggests adherent to me more strongly than his objections ever could. If he wasn't an adherent why become so angry over something that is barely even a hypothesis?

[hackenslash]

Blue shifted gravitational waves are predicted by other theories.

Please you know this and I've said it before but you insist on the discreteness of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Thanks for the link to the Wiki, but there is no mention of a blue shift there.

By Einsteins general relativity for a friggin start.

Err, no. GR contains gravitational waves, but no mention of the energy spectrum.

Anyone who defends a hypothesis that is barely even that is a supporter if you ask me.

I'm not defending it, I'm opposing your ridiculous objections to it. The valid objections to it, I have conceded as being valid objections which I happen to share. Your hysterical opposition is unscientific in the extreme.

And can the insults it merely demonstrates you are losing the argument. And becoming frustrated like most religious people.

Care to point out an insult? No, didn't think you could.

Lol your argument is pathetically delusional. I don't care what you think because of what you read in your propaganda ridden existence I have read both sides and one side is considerably lacking in scientific method.

WHich argument would that be? My argument is simply that I haven't hysterically dismissed the hypotheses. There are massive problems with M-Theory, and specifically with the 'brane-worlds' hypothesis from which the predictions have arisen, mostly to do with the incompleteness of the mathematics at the bounce, but the fact is that testable predictions have been made, and your objection to those predictions is to cite GR as containing blue-shifted gravitational waves, which are not contained in GR. And you want to tell me you understand what you're talking about? Please.

String theory exists, strings don't, until they do then all this arm waving is but another fall of science.

What fucking arm-waving? WHich part of 'I await the results of the predictions' constitutes arm-waving, or a fall of empirical principles?

You have no argument here, just a load of puerile hysteria. How can you be taken seriously in this regard?

[Nautilidae]

It's a house of cards built on a house of cards with no scientific foundation atm too. But then since when has scinece neededd experiments that are independantly tested and verified? Oh no right always. And no I'm not trolling I just don't see how an evidenceless theory is a theory at all. Science requires you to at least take a shot at experiment without it you're not even wrong.

1. Spontaneous symmetry breaking - never been tested
2. Hawking radiation - never been tested
3. Grand unification - never been tested
4. Hoop conjecture - never been tested
5. Loop quantum gravity - never been tested
6. String-nets - never been tested

If you claim that none of these theories are scientific, you greatly misunderstand science. Science requires, like hackenslash said, for your concept to give testable predictions. String theory does this, yet you, to use your words, arm-wave away the testable predictions to make your utterly facile arguments seem consistent.

[The Dagda]

Blue shifted gravitational waves are predicted by other theories.

Please you know this and I've said it before but you insist on the discreteness of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Thanks for the link to the Wiki, but there is no mention of a blue shift there.

By Einsteins general relativity for a friggin start.

Err, no. GR contains gravitational waves, but no mention of the energy spectrum.

Anyone who defends a hypothesis that is barely even that is a supporter if you ask me.

I'm not defending it, I'm opposing your ridiculous objections to it. The valid objections to it, I have conceded as being valid objections which I happen to share. Your hysterical opposition is unscientific in the extreme.

And can the insults it merely demonstrates you are losing the argument. And becoming frustrated like most religious people.

Care to point out an insult? No, didn't think you could.

Lol your argument is pathetically delusional. I don't care what you think because of what you read in your propaganda ridden existence I have read both sides and one side is considerably lacking in scientific method.

WHich argument would that be? My argument is simply that I haven't hysterically dismissed the hypotheses. There are massive problems with M-Theory, and specifically with the 'brane-worlds' hypothesis from which the predictions have arisen, mostly to do with the incompleteness of the mathematics at the bounce, but the fact is that testable predictions have been made, and your objection to those predictions is to cite GR as containing blue-shifted gravitational waves, which are not contained in GR. And you want to tell me you understand what you're talking about? Please.

String theory exists, strings don't, until they do then all this arm waving is but another fall of science.

What fucking arm-waving? WHich part of 'I await the results of the predictions' constitutes arm-waving, or a fall of empirical principles?

You have no argument here, just a load of puerile hysteria. How can you be taken seriously in this regard?

Lol you don't even understand special relativity how sweet.

Mate your insulting me, whether its skating close to the line or not you know full well what you are doing. I wont report you because I am perfectly fine with insults unless you just rant like a child, but I'd go easy on the ad homs if I was you.

Lol I'm not the one becoming hysterical, you are. You lost, it now behoves you to show the whole wolrd how string theory is currently testable, many people don't think it is. And they are at CERN, what have you got, a load of priests of the voodoo?

That's the problem with String Vodon they basically hide behind the fact that no one outside of string theory can understand it. Then make grand claims they can't make experiments for then just retreat into their background independent hell of proving anything. My advice read Smolin and woight. You wont because you don't do counter opinions, but it literally tears down the basis of string theory from thhe ground upward. You have nothing more to say to me until you tackle Woight and Smolin's points which I am happy to quote. Quote me happy? Show me one experiment that would distinguish string theory from the pack, and not just one experiment advocated by String Theorists, one that would pass peer review amongst either ex String Theorsists or non String Theorists. Or just admit you got nada.

I don't support any hypothesis because I am, waiting for CERN, you are waiting for what?

Put your money where your mouth is and show which experimental set up will prove Strings more than a mere hypothesis, although a lousy one. At least you've given up on claiming it's a theory progress has been made.

[Nautilidae]

Lol you don't even understand special relativity how sweet.

... When was special relativity mentioned once in Hackenslash's reply?

incidental acquaintance your insulting me, whether its skating close to the line or not you know full well what you are doing. I wont report you because I am perfectly fine with insults unless you just rant like a child, but I'd go easy on the ad homs if I was you.

There are no ad hominems in Hackenslash's reply. You have no means to report him. There are no personal attacks of any kind in his statement.

Lol I'm not the one becoming hysterical, you are. You lost, it now behoves you to show the whole wolrd how string theory is currently testable, many people don't think it is. And they are at CERN, what have you got, a load of priests of the voodoo?

Hackenslash hasn't lost anything but respect for you. You continue to ignore testable predictions in order to make your arguments look less facile.

That's the problem with String Vodon they basically hide behind the fact that no one outside of string theory can understand it.

Many physicists outside of string theory understand string theory. Stephen Hawking is one example.

Then make grand claims they can't make experiments for then just retreat into their background independent hell of proving anything. My advice read Smolin and woight. You wont because you don't do counter opinions, but it literally tears down the basis of string theory from thhe ground upward.

It is clear that you do not understand string theory. String theory is a background-dependent theory, not a background-independent theory

I, as well as many others, have stated MANY physical tests for string theory. You continue to arm-wave them all.

I've read a bit of Smolin. I'm not impressed. Smolin does not "tear down the basis of string theory". He, as well as his theory, is nowhere near a threat to string theory.

As I have already pointed out, the ironic thing about Smolin is that the theory that he supports, Loop Quantum Gravity, possesses many of the traits of string theory that he criticizes.

You have nothing more to say to me until you tackle Woight and Smolin's points which I am happy to quote. Quote me happy? Show me one experiment that would distinguish string theory from the pack, and not just one experiment advocated by String Theorists, one that would pass peer review amongst either ex String Theorsists or non String Theorists. Or just admit you got nada.

Why don't you debunk the predictions we have listed rather than arm-waving them away and pretending that they aren't there?

I don't support any hypothesis because I am, waiting for CERN, you are waiting for what?

You don't support any hypothesis? I suppose that means you don't support:

Hawking radiation
Loop Qauntum Gravity
Higgs Mechanism or any other theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking
Electroweak theory

Put your money where your mouth is and show which experimental set up will prove Strings more than a mere hypothesis, although a lousy one. At least you've given up on claiming it's a theory progress has been made.

When did either of us claim that string theory is a theory? We said that it is a hypothesis.

Put your money where your mouth is and show us reasons that the predictions that we have listed are incorrect, although lousy reasons.

The Dadga, thus far, you have made facile arguments based upon arm-waving, misconceptions (if not flat out lies), and claims bloated with pride. Until you present a coherent argument, you will continue to be ridiculed.

[The Dagda]

Lol you don't even understand special relativity how sweet.

... When was special relativity mentioned once in Hackenslash's reply?

incidental acquaintance your insulting me, whether its skating close to the line or not you know full well what you are doing. I wont report you because I am perfectly fine with insults unless you just rant like a child, but I'd go easy on the ad homs if I was you.

There are no ad hominems in Hackenslash's reply. You have no means to report him. There are no personal attacks of any kind in his statement.

Lol I'm not the one becoming hysterical, you are. You lost, it now behoves you to show the whole wolrd how string theory is currently testable, many people don't think it is. And they are at CERN, what have you got, a load of priests of the voodoo?

Hackenslash hasn't lost anything but respect for you. You continue to ignore testable predictions in order to make your arguments look less facile.

That's the problem with String Vodon they basically hide behind the fact that no one outside of string theory can understand it.

Many physicists outside of string theory understand string theory. Stephen Hawking is one example.

Then make grand claims they can't make experiments for then just retreat into their background independent hell of proving anything. My advice read Smolin and woight. You wont because you don't do counter opinions, but it literally tears down the basis of string theory from thhe ground upward.

It is clear that you do not understand string theory. String theory is a background-dependent theory, not a background-independent theory

I, as well as many others, have stated MANY physical tests for string theory. You continue to arm-wave them all.

I've read a bit of Smolin. I'm not impressed. Smolin does not "tear down the basis of string theory". He, as well as his theory, is nowhere near a threat to string theory.

As I have already pointed out, the ironic thing about Smolin is that the theory that he supports, Loop Quantum Gravity, possesses many of the traits of string theory that he criticizes.

You have nothing more to say to me until you tackle Woight and Smolin's points which I am happy to quote. Quote me happy? Show me one experiment that would distinguish string theory from the pack, and not just one experiment advocated by String Theorists, one that would pass peer review amongst either ex String Theorsists or non String Theorists. Or just admit you got nada.

Why don't you debunk the predictions we have listed rather than arm-waving them away and pretending that they aren't there?

I don't support any hypothesis because I am, waiting for CERN, you are waiting for what?

You don't support any hypothesis? I suppose that means you don't support:

Hawking radiation
Loop Qauntum Gravity
Higgs Mechanism or any other theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking
Electroweak theory

Put your money where your mouth is and show which experimental set up will prove Strings more than a mere hypothesis, although a lousy one. At least you've given up on claiming it's a theory progress has been made.

When did either of us claim that string theory is a theory? We said that it is a hypothesis.

Put your money where your mouth is and show us reasons that the predictions that we have listed are incorrect, although lousy reasons.

The Dadga, thus far, you have made facile arguments based upon arm-waving, misconceptions (if not flat out lies), and claims bloated with pride. Until you present a coherent argument, you will continue to be ridiculed.

Hackenslash is laughably quoting his religion and dogma. No one but its Witch Doctors believe that it can become a discrete theory at CERN. EOS.

why is the Higgs boson hypothetical and Strings are theoretical?

Riddle me that batman. And while your at it show me one single experiment that could distinguish strings. You can't because there isn't one outside of your dogmatic insistence there is.

No I don't support them in the same way I don't support anything that isn't a theory because it could well be wrong. That doesn't mean I wouldn't investigate it, that's what science is, proving things right or wrong. Something string theorists seem to loathe.

[Nautilidae]

Hackenslash is laughably quoting his religion and dogma. No one but its Witch Doctors believe that it can become a discrete theory at CERN. EOS.

And you're laughably ignoring our points.

Hackenslash is commenting on gravitational waves, This has nothing to do with his ideology. He did not say anything about special relativity, so your comment "He doesn't understand it how sweet" is completely null. This comment on dogma and religion is also completely unrelated. It is a purely boastful comment, one in which you must result if you are running low on true arguments (as if you ever made one).

why is the Higgs boson hypothetical and Strings are theoretical?

They are both hypothetical. You may have been able to discover this for yourself if you hadn't ignored our points.

Riddle me that batman. And while your at it show me one single experiment that could distinguish strings. You can't because there isn't one outside of your dogmatic insistence there is.

... FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-

I have already given several examples. Before accusing us of having nothing, please debunk THOSE examples first. Why is it that you continue to ignore those examples? Is that what your overlord Smolin teaches you? "Ignore their predictions and then claim that they have none"? You accuse us of following dogma, yet it's becoming evident that you follow your own dogma; string theory isn't science and ignore all predictions that it makes.

No I don't support them in the same way I don't support anything that isn't a theory because it could well be wrong. That doesn't mean I wouldn't investigate it, that's what science is, proving things right or wrong. Something string theorists seem to loathe.

String theory is just as scientific, if not more scientific, than Loop Quantum Gravity or any other theory of quantum gravity. It offers testable predictions, including AdS/CFT correspondence. It has the ability to "prove things right or wrong". It is simply infantile that you continually ignore all predictions that go against your ideas. It is unscientific that you do so. If you are so unscientific, you are in no position to inform us about science.

[lpetrich]

why is the Higgs boson hypothetical and Strings are theoretical?

As to testing string theory and similar theories, there are three possibilities:

1. String theory is inconsistent with the Standard Model.
2. String theory can have the Standard Model as a low-energy limit, but it can have lots of other low-energy limits.
3. String theory only has the Standard Model as its low-energy limit.

String-theory researchers have partially demonstrated (2), but (1) and (3) are still up in the air.

The Large Hadron Collider looks like it will be able to see the Higgs particle -- if it exists.

The simplest Standard Model approach is to have one Higgs doublet. It has two neutral Higgses and one charged Higgs with charges -1 and +1. A neutral Higgs and the charged Higgs disappear into the longitudinal modes of the massive Z and W, leaving behind the other neutral Higgs.

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model requires two Higgs doublets, and after the W and Z eating, three neutral Higgses and a charged Higgs remain.

The MSSM also predicts lots of superpartners: the wino, zino, photino, and gluino, Higgsinos, and left and right squarks and sleptons. All these sets of particles mix:

Wino, charged higgsino: 2 charginos
Photino, zino, two neutral higgsinos: 4 neutralinos
Gluino doesn't mix with anything
Up-like squarks: 6
Down-like squarks: 6
Sneutrinos: 3 or 6
Charged sleptons: 6

I wish I could post something about their expected masses, but the MSSM has several free parameters, making predictions of them vary over a wide range. However, the squarks and the gluino usually come out more massive than the others, and the lightest Higgses and neutralinos are not much more massive than the W and Z.

The weak interaction has about the strength of the electromagnetic interaction at the LHC's energies, meaning that the LHC should produce about as many neutral particles as charged ones.

[The Dagda]

Hackenslash is laughably quoting his religion and dogma. No one but its Witch Doctors believe that it can become a discrete theory at CERN. EOS.

And you're laughably ignoring our points.

Hackenslash is commenting on gravitational waves, This has nothing to do with his ideology. He did not say anything about special relativity, so your comment "He doesn't understand it how sweet" is completely null. This comment on dogma and religion is also completely unrelated. It is a purely boastful comment, one in which you must result if you are running low on true arguments (as if you ever made one).

why is the Higgs boson hypothetical and Strings are theoretical?

They are both hypothetical. You may have been able to discover this for yourself if you hadn't ignored our points.

Riddle me that batman. And while your at it show me one single experiment that could distinguish strings. You can't because there isn't one outside of your dogmatic insistence there is.

... FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-

I have already given several examples. Before accusing us of having nothing, please debunk THOSE examples first. Why is it that you continue to ignore those examples? Is that what your overlord Smolin teaches you? "Ignore their predictions and then claim that they have none"? You accuse us of following dogma, yet it's becoming evident that you follow your own dogma; string theory isn't science and ignore all predictions that it makes.

No I don't support them in the same way I don't support anything that isn't a theory because it could well be wrong. That doesn't mean I wouldn't investigate it, that's what science is, proving things right or wrong. Something string theorists seem to loathe.

String theory is just as scientific, if not more scientific, than Loop Quantum Gravity or any other theory of quantum gravity. It offers testable predictions, including AdS/CFT correspondence. It has the ability to "prove things right or wrong". It is simply infantile that you continually ignore all predictions that go against your ideas. It is unscientific that you do so. If you are so unscientific, you are in no position to inform us about science.

There's a perfectly good thread for this where your points are addressed. Gravitational blue shift is a consequence of more than one theory though. What experimental set up do you have to test it anyway?

Loop quantum gravity is not currently a theory either but there we go. And the distinction is doing science, ie experiment, and thinking about equations, pure maths.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=50