Ad hominem attacks in modern physics

[astro]

Legions of aging, tenured bureacrats are now hiring postdocs and professors to perform the dark deeds that they are too cowardly to perform themselves--the destruction of critics of their meaningless groupthink theories and fictions pertaining to multiverses, wormholes, time travel, string-a-ling-strings, and mbranes.

Although these rising postdocs/professors have never contributed to physics in any way shape or form, they are given prestigous positions and tons of cash--federal grants/tax/tuition--to support their snarky ad hominem attacks.

[astro]

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=453 (note Lubos's (Ivy Leauge String Theorists') Tactics)

http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/05/duff-on-susskind/

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=439

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/many-universes-or-many-fairies/


http://nige.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/gravity-equation-discredits-lubos-motl/

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2007/06/it-is-time-for-crackpot-hunting.html

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/arxiv-trackbacks.html

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/

wow--once physics was rooted in logic and reason & backed by experiment.

today it is rooted in mysticism and tyranny & backed by ad hominem attacks.

[Epsilon=One]

wow--once physics was rooted in logic and reason & backed by experiment.

today it is rooted in mysticism and tyranny & backed by ad hominem attacks.If you are referring to academic, theoretical physics, you seem to have a sound grasp of the current situation.

However, you may be overstating the prior situation; there is much to castigate there as well.

[Pachomius]

Have you also noticed that Buddhism or more correctly Western Buddhists are claiming to be in the same league as scientists, and some scientists or people who parade themselves off as scientific are all gasps for the scientific prowess of Buddhism.

You know what I have observed, though limitedly only, that Buddhists think themselves on the same footing as rational skeptics and physicists who specialize in quantum mechanics?

No, I am not any scientist in any laboratory nor teaching science, but just a guy with his head firmly set on his shoulders, and know that if some scientists tell us that the whole universe starts from nothing, they are talking nonsense -- why?

Because if the universe started from terminus a quo nothing to terminus ad quem something, then you can write a formula by which nothing on the left of the equation would be linked with something on the right of the equation; like this

= x

Or am I such a dummkopf in science and in mathematics?


Anyway, if socalled mystical scientists want to say that the whole universe starts from nothing, then I can also say that the whole universe starts from something, and who is more logical or evidence or proof based?


I am however ready to accept wisdom from better informed and smarter people here.

;)

Pachomius

[Epsilon=One]

Have you also noticed that Buddhism or more correctly Western Buddhists are claiming to be in the same league as scientists, and some scientists or people who parade themselves off as scientific are all gasps for the scientific prowess of Buddhism.Yes. The connection between Buddhists and true scientists is quite logical.

Certainly, said connection is more logical than a connection between scientists and most other major religions.

You know what I have observed, though limitedly only, that Buddhists think themselves on the same footing as rational skeptics and physicists who specialize in quantum mechanics?Possibly, when it comes to understanding Nature, the environment, and the totality of the human experience Buddhists are on a better “footing” than “rational skeptics and physicists who specialize in quantum mechanics.”

No, I am not any scientist in any laboratory nor teaching science, but just a guy with his head firmly set on his shoulders, and know that if some scientists tell us that the whole universe starts from nothing, they are talking nonsense -- why?I would bet on the scientists "talking" less "nonsense" than “just a guy with his head firmly set on his shoulders.”

Because if the universe started from terminus a quo nothing to terminus ad quem something, then you can write a formula by which nothing on the left of the equation would be linked with something on the right of the equation; like this

= x

Or am I such a dummkopf in science and in mathematics?You seem to be such; because, if the locus of the Universe and the singularity, Infinity (I.101123.com) (analogous to motionlessness or “nothing”) were not congruent with one another than there would always be the question of what is “something” (the Universe) within if not “nothing.”

Anyway, if socalled mystical scientists want to say that the whole universe starts from nothing, then I can also say that the whole universe starts from something, and who is more logical or evidence or proof based?The answer to your question is that your position lacks the rationale of the “socalled (sic.) mystical scientists.”

I am however ready to accept wisdom from better informed and smarter people here.You are not entirely without wisdom.