STRING THEORY DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE I SAID SO!!1

I HAVE TO ATTACK SABINE TO COMPENSATE FOR MY LACK OF DEGREES

WAHHHHHHHH

string theory is garbage regardless of what professor faggot says

>>16719295
how so?

>>16719296
It's woo designed to fill in gaps with no observable proof. Junk "science" like dark matter and dark energy.

>>16719339
thats what they always say before they find proof

>>16719339
and evolution

>>16719342
Two more weeks and 5000 more theory revisions am I right?

>>16719354
""""""Professor"""""""" Dave will be an actual Professor before String Theory produces any physical results (so, never).

>>16719342
Every time string theory got disproven they would come up with more cope. See
>R-parity
>cosmological constant sign
>no susy at lhc

>>16719288 (OP)
Sorry chud, Angelic Angie has already deboonked string theory

>>16719390
This is in regards to his autistic antiscientific rant against sabine deboonking modern academia

This guy is like /sci/ personified

Why would I listen to anyone that looked like this slob about anything?

>>16719288 (OP)
Why would I listen to someone with ba?

>>16719353
I would like to see the arguments against evolution and the evidence used to support their arguments. I feel like there's a nuance I'm missing but don't know where to look to find a coherent non schizobabble response.

>MR FFFAAARRRIIINNNAAA

>>16719354
Two more particle colliders!

>>16719295
String theory might be wrong but it might make predictions about things we don't know otherwise, like what happens at a singularity. One thing I like about string theory is that it's predictions are consistent with hawking radiation. Another think I like is that it has interesting predictions about Einstein-Rosen bridges.

>>16719539
Shame it can't reproduce the standard model of particle physics.

>I have to get clicks on my videos to get incomes since I'm shitty in every other way.
>Here's something controversial. Please repost it everywhere so I'll get some rage clicks!
Best thing to do with this loser is to ignore him completely. Right now you're playing into his game.

>>16719288 (OP)
The math on string theory works fine, but thus far it's made no predictions that could be validated by experiment. Until that day comes, if it ever comes, it's mere metaphysics.

>>16719553
No one cares whether you or anyone here watches his video you retard. This board is dead.

>>16719555
>metaphysics
aka applied mathematics

everyone seriously talking about this charlatan is proof culture is dead and we're all just twerking over the corpse.

>>16719568
LOL, you care, Mr. Having an Emotional Reaction to a post.

>>16719812
the mere fact that he gained popularity was enough for me

>>16719295
Refer to Genesis 1. It said "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep" = first he created his own universe, since "God" is 11th dimension in string theory - he is the highest dimension, and below him is Heaven, and below that is our universe and every different layer of how it works (like 4th dimension or space-time / multiverse for example, in other words - every second you're in another universe/timeline, it's just that it's happening too fast for it to be registered, like when you look at a digital camera - every second is a split frame, and when you put it together fast enough, it'll create an optical illusion and trick the human eye into seeing motion - our universe is no different; you can simulate this by taking a sticky note pad and draw a ball bouncing up and down and flip the pages out; this is also how reality works - it flips like a page)(also, "2nd dimension" doesn't have any life of its own (unless you're referring to sound, since that can kill you at the right frequency), it's just an artifact of 3rd dimension)("dimensions" are energy too; called "sparticles," in string theory / multidimensional hypothesis- see that "Universe in a nutshell" lecture by Michio Kaku). What he's saying is DARK ENERGY (fermionic / negative energy) came first, then God threw in light, that energy reacted and created the "Big Bang" (refer to the Past Hypothesis)("God said let there be light").

>>16720465
>>16719295
But what preceded all matter? Light. What happens when you break down every last subatomic particle down to the smallest one? You create a stipulation, and that'll create the Big Bang effect. It's not the "afterglow" - it preceded the universe. You start small and get big. Are you born as a baby or an adult? "CMB" is pure radiation, because energy emits radiation, and since as we know electricity is present in the airwaves (radio/wireless) it would make sense this universe does also.

>>16719288 (OP)
I don't get why everyone is so horny for hating string theory. Its a niche field in a niche field. Who cares?
>Muh results. Muh predictions
I, legitimately, don't care. It's effectively a research programme in mathematics. You have retards like Sabine claiming that it's hovering up funding for other programs, but the reality is string theory research is so tiny, it's not having a material impact on research for other things.
>Smolin
Lee Smolin claims that string theory and his personal theory of loop quantum gravity are the same thing, just seen differently. He claims that lots of public funds have been given to ST without any actual predictions. The exact same criticism can be levelled at LQG: it's made no testable predictions either (and the ones it did make have been falsified... Which to lead to a very embarrassing climb down by Smolin and Rovelli). Moreover, Smolin says all of this while being employed at a very respectable research institute where he's given unlimited time to peruse his theory.
>Woit
Peter Woit has similar criticisms, except instead of him favouring LQG, he instead wants more funding for twistor theory (the research he's spent his life doing). However unlike LQG twistor theory has NEVER produced a prediction either. So instead he relies on supersymmetry to levy his critique, this is a totally valid criticism and I get mostly agree.
>Sabine
Sabine is a literally who in science. Her main contribution to the discourse on fundamental research was threatening to sue Lubos Motl. Sabine's main problem was her incredibly fringe ideas couldn't get funding. It has nothing to do with ST. It has nothing to do with string theory hovering up all the funding, and everything to do with her "guys, maybe gravity isn't quantum at all" ideas. Of course such an out there idea is going to be difficult to secure funding to explore.

>>16720493
Why should anyone agree with you?
Who is not-professor dave to the science?

>>16720499
>Why should anyone agree with you?
I'm just some dip shit on 4chan, while I've done some work in work quantum gravity in the past (just some double copy work), I wouldn't call myself an authority. I'm just describing the world as I see it.
>Who is not-professor dave to the science?
He's just another JewTuber. Exactly like Sabine, although with significantly less authority.