Re: String Theory: Physics or Theology?

["Thomas Johnson" <thomas_johnson00@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Uncle Al wrote:
> We will grow them again with a better technique.  Crystallization from
> the melt is out - plastic deformation during cooling disorders the
> lattice.
>
> >    Burt Richter writes, "Much of what currently passes as the most
> >    advanced theory looks to be more like theological speculation."
> [snip]
>
> Don't send a physics theorist to do a bench chemist's job.  Theorists
> are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the
> nonexistent.

I love the way you can move seamlessly from an admission that your
chemist-skills were not up to the task in growing crystals to
complaining that theorists don't understand things...

Theorists typically know the difference between forces and masses.
Heck, most freshmen do.

One might call it "obvious" that an Eotvos balance shows a signal that
varies during the day due to the varying accelerations on the masses.

One might also call it obvious that a direct measure of mass
differences--say, as in your proposed calorimeter experiment--would not
show that time-varying signal since it is not dependent on the
accelerations involved.

For those who may be wondering--yes, Mr. Schwartz blindly copied some
of the pieces of the Eotvos experiment that were not only unneccessary,
but demonstrate that he doesn't understand either experiment.

Thomas.