tradedanax.blogg.se

But this may change once more people understand that this blog is not even wrong - the next step.Physicist Wolfgang Pauli was once asked to review a technical paper and assess its accuracy. Of course, the scientific establishment does not want to hear my views and you will find no trackbacks from my blog on the arXiv. Does Peter Wait qualify as an "active researcher"? You can use Google to find my publications and I am currently working on an interesting mathematical problem (you have probably never heared about it, so why should I try to explain it?) and thus I am certainly qualified as an active researcher. Now, you may ask yourself if I am qualified enough to make such statements. After all, there is still no convincing cure for boredom after so many centuries of failed efforts! But then came my blog and changed this, by stating the obvious. And I would go a step further and make the bold statement that physics and all of science is not even wrong. Since the 1930s physicists are following a project which has led exactly nowhere (I will have much more to say about this). Of course, all of quantum gravity is not even wrong. But we need to take this deep thought to the next level. You know already that superstrings are not even wrong. Update: Some well-known 'Net personalities really have too much time on their hands. I will have to say more about this in later posts. I really cannot contribute anything substantial (I am working on my deep mathematical problems, remember that?) but it is important to notice that string theory is not even wrong. The public perception of string theory seems to me to have changed significantly recently. One of the main topics I will cover on this blog, and by far the most controversial, is the ongoing debate about string theory and its dominance of theoretical high energy physics. Why read this blog, if you know it is not even wrong? It indicates that people understand already that everything is I don’t have completely accurate recent statistics, but it is fair to say that so far, nobody showed up. My original expectation was that there would be a handful of people with similar interests who would regularly read it. In many ways, this weblog has been successful far beyond my wildest dreams. I wrote two posts already, so perhaps this is a good moment for some reflections on what has been happening so far. I will have more to say about this later."Īs you can see, I am following a great tradition of scientific debate. My good friend Lee Small, following related ideas, reported recently some interesting results about the nature of the triangle. Meanwhile, I shall continue to meditate about the geometric nature of the circle, which is clearly an important principle guiding our universe. Instead of wasting all resources on the new infinitesimal mathematics, our students should focus on a solid education in arithmetic instead. This 'theory' is clearly not even wrong and I cannot understand why it attracts so much attention.

It is very convenient that his friend Edward Halley has used the new 'framework' to forecast the return of a comet, but then made sure this event would not occur in our lifetime. Subsequently, Isaac gets lost in the 'landscape' of possible solar systems and makes hardly any firm new prediction in his book. One can easily see that the rules outlined in the Principia allow for more possible paths than just circles. It does not make sense to unify these two theories until we understand the fundamental issues much better. On the other hand, we know that the moon and celestial bodies follow their circles ever since Ptolemeus introduced his geometric theory. But we know already that apples fall towards the earth according to the standard model of Aristoteles, which is perfectly capable to explain all empirical evidence we have. He has to introduce a 'super force' acting over long distances to achieve a consistent theory of gravitation. it is becoming increasingly clear by now that the new 'theory' does not predict anything. Wont published a damning review of the Principia, published several years earlier: The idea of Not Even Wrong is grounded in a long history of deep thinking.