Second Attack of the Boltzmann Brains
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 May 2010 02:56 I have claimed in several recent newsgroup posts, and elsewhere, that there is credible evidence that the dubious marriage of theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology is an incestuous affair with a high probability of producing unsound progeny. A singularly amazing piece of evidence for my argument has just reappeared at arXiv. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3778v2.pdf The authors include Guth, Linde and Vilenkin. Please read the introductory section of this paper. I guarantee an unforgettable experience. QED Robert L. Oldershaw www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 12 May 2010 03:19 On Tue, 11 May 2010 23:56:57 -0700 (PDT), "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > >I have claimed in several recent newsgroup posts, and elsewhere, that >there is credible evidence that the dubious marriage of theoretical >particle physics and theoretical cosmology is an incestuous affair >with a high probability of producing unsound progeny. > >A singularly amazing piece of evidence for my argument has just >reappeared at arXiv. > >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3778v2.pdf > >The authors include Guth, Linde and Vilenkin. > >Please read the introductory section of this paper. I guarantee an >unforgettable experience. > >QED > >Robert L. Oldershaw >www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw hahaha....at least they are politically correct and install female Boltzmann brains... >For example, suppose that some normal observer, at >some moment in her lifetime, tries to make a prediction >about her next observation. hahaha... How many angels can sit on the tip of a needle... Angels are females, you know.... w.
From: Uncle Al on 12 May 2010 10:12 Helmut Wabnig wrote: [snip > How many angels can sit on the tip of a needle... > Angels are females, you know.... > > w. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 May 2010 19:32 On May 12, 3:04 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > So come up with a model that explains quantum theory and relativity and > provides "DEFINITIVE PREDICTIONS" distinct from those of quantum theory > and relativity. > > It's easy to criticize, it's a lot harder to actually do the work.- Hide quoted text - ----------------------------------- www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1 There you go pilgrim. Thirty-three years of unpaid effort to do what you have asked for. Try reading the material for a change, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 May 2010 11:49
On May 13, 11:11 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > That is why string theory and similar communities prefer to criticize, > invent excuses about their glaring lack of progress and to promote their > favorite credos using academic tricks (such as stoping the funding of > rival theories, hiring contrarians, etc.) rather than in real scientific debate. > > There is excellent books explaining all the tactics. Take a look to Smolin one. > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ ------------------------------- There is also the excellent blogsite: "Not Even Wrong". Very refreshing give-and-take on current physics with an emphasis on the lack of progress in "string theory" and what needs to be done to the substandard paradigm in order for it to become predictive science. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw <--- STUDY IT DILIGENTLY! |