BRIAN GREENE ASKS, ALBERT EINSTEIN ANSWERS

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/eins...n07_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...09145525ca.pdf
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

On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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!

Harry C.

wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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!
:
: Harry C.
img76 says you can't use img22 to derive img76.
img22 is catch 22.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif
DUMB****!
It's time to slam the door in the face these ignorant arseholes who
post this nonsense!

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:00:42 -0700, "
wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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 **** physics program but the truth
remains that Brian Greene (of Columbia U., a bastion of crackpottery,
ahahaha....) is a ****ing 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

On Oct 22, 6:22 pm, Traveler wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:00:42 -0700, "





wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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 **** physics program but the truth
remains that Brian Greene (of Columbia U., a bastion of crackpottery,
ahahaha....) is a ****ing 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Traveler, that "chicken **** physics program" was a product of
Drexel Universisty (5-years of study and a BS) followed by Princeton
University (2-years of study and a MS). :-)

I have little time or patience for those that post their silly
theories about physics in sci.physics, who without exception have
never studied the subject beyone coffee table level popular books that
the likely purchased at 'Barnes and Noble', plus have no idea
whatsoever about how to arrive at the solution of a second order
differential equation.

The silly, nonsense posts from ignorant people of this ilk simply add
noise to the newsgroup.

The popular media has absolutely no clue. Recall that Bob Lazar and
his incredible UFO tales once attracted 3-minites of media attention.
Today the only man that I know of who claims to have seen a UFO first
hand in Aread 51 is pandering fireworks chemicals to adolescents after
his claims to hold a degree from anywhere were found to be
falsifications. The guy worked for the government as a technician, and
even his credential for that are a bit shakey. :-)

I am not out to tar and feather anyone, but I wish that those having
uninformed, flakey ideas about physics would take their silly theories
to alt.physics rather than sci.physics.

Harry C.



Harry C.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 22, 6:22 pm, Traveler wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:00:42 -0700, "





wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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 **** physics program but the truth
remains that Brian Greene (of Columbia U., a bastion of crackpottery,
ahahaha....) is a ****ing 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Traveler, that "chicken **** physics program" was a product of
Drexel Universisty (5-years of study and a BS) followed by Princeton
University (2-years of study and a MS). :-)

I have little time or patience for those that post their silly
theories about physics in sci.physics, who without exception have
never studied the subject beyone coffee table level popular books that
the likely purchased at 'Barnes and Noble', plus have no idea
whatsoever about how to arrive at the solution of a second order
differential equation.

The silly, nonsense posts from ignorant people of this ilk simply add
noise to the newsgroup.

The popular media has absolutely no clue. Recall that Bob Lazar and
his incredible UFO tales once attracted 3-minites of media attention.
Today the only man that I know of who claims to have seen a UFO first
hand in Aread 51 is pandering fireworks chemicals to adolescents after
his claims to hold a degree from anywhere were found to be
falsifications. The guy worked for the government as a technician, and
even his credential for that are a bit shakey. :-)

I am not out to tar and feather anyone, but I wish that those having
uninformed, flakey ideas about physics would take their silly theories
to alt.physics rather than sci.physics.

Harry C.



Harry C.

It was Lord Kelvin who predicted heavier than air craft would not fly.

It was von Neumann who predicted that the future of the computer was a
system so big it would have to occupy a Pentagon size building and only the
largest governments or the largest corporations would ever be able to afford
to own one.

It was the Royal Astronomical Society who dismissed out of hand a lowly
carpenter and tinkerer in clocks...concerning longitude.

It was the physicists who predicted Christopher Columbus would never
return from his [first] voyage west.

Last here, but not least by any means, there is the Big Bang! If you are
going to track mud through everyone's home without any exception whatsoever,
expect your own home to have no other than a mud floor. If you are going to
be a bull crashing through everyone's china shop without any exception,
expect your own to be overcrowded in bulls. You go for theories of
everything, expect everything (particularly including everyone) to get
involved.

Silly theories? Impossible universes? Then FALSIFY them cleanly and
ABSOLUTELY beyond all shadows of doubt! Be very careful though that you are
not left with egg on an arrogant face.

GLB

On 22 Oct, 22:00, " wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev 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/eins...n07_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...0-433a-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!

Harry C.

That would necessitate a moderation system on sci.physics, which isn't
going to happen. Thus the schizophrenics will continue to scoff,
bull**** and smear anyone in the way of their damaged worldview.

Pentcho is never going to stop since he simply lurves the attention he
gets. He probably gets an erection while at the keyboard, who knows?

"Professor" Androcles of Hogwarts, Traveler (Louis Savain) and "Dr"
Henri Wilson and other deranged idiots will continue to drool into
their keyboards until those nice men in white coats come to take them
away. Then they'll be replaced by the next generation of borderline
mental patients.

You can either get mad about all of this, or try to derive
entertainment in the way that Dirk van der Moertel does.

On 22 oct, 12:51, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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.
In my opinion, Einstein would definitely answer to Brian Greene that
he completely disagrees with such an approach (string theory). The
reason being that string theory does not depart from the
undeterministic picture of the world provided by QM. I have read a
biography of Einstein and it is clear that his major concern was to
invalidate the undeterministic picture of the physical world provided
by QM.