Why not try String Theory on Pulsars or Neutron Stars?

See what happens. We know what happens to General Relativity. It fails big. I mean real big, so the goal is not to unify General Relativity with anything.

Cosmology was weak during Einstein era’s (ie Local). We now have the most advance telescopes in the world and that is what is proving General Relativity wrong. Strings should have stayed on the subatomic level because on this level we know how stars move. If String try to piggy back on General Relativity the will fail as well.

General Relativity will be replaced but not with Strings.

that word describes our double-edged scissored view of string theory, which seems like a postmodern system of epicycles …. or … do branes have brains?

At
http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/2005/01/belief-without-proof-evidence-and.htm
we write:

“What are the main logical problems with string theory (alleged physical laws) from our point of view?

a. Perceived physical reality in physics is always a function of the system of measurement. Measurements are by definition relations presupposing frames of reference to be measured by some sort of “measurement ruler”. Thus, “measured” reality is
1) a function of the frames of reference chosen for the relationships being measured (for example, particles, waves or “strings”) and
2) the means of measurement (motion, inertia, velocity, weight, dimension, extension, contraction, etc.) “….

Speaking of “measure”, has anyone considered the rather simple idea that “God” did not “make” the universe, but that God “is” the measured universe….

Perhaps the world is an “ultimate” string – but no string ever vibrates by itself, but needs to be plucked by something – frankly, we think that the idea of an infinitely extensible and unsnippable vibrating “rubber band” is better than simple string theory because it would more accurately reflect a yo-yo world alternating between the impossibles of absolute something and absolute nothing….

For the math freaks this means that the Universe U could conceivably be defined by the formula U = >0 and

It seems I have missed much in the last few months of not checking this blog.

I would like to make a few points here, and I am by no means a physicist, but a few things do strike me as… off.

It does appear that string theorists are struggling to maintain superiority. Many very reputibale scientists are standing up and taking a stand FOR ST. But what they lack is the factual paper results. This has been said over and over, but the mainstream needs (or will need soon) some sort of physical evidence.

Newtonian Physics lasted hundreds of years and was widely accepted because it fit. It had just enough experimentable data to satisfy the main stream, but when we get down to it, newton was wrong. (insert apology for all MOND lovers here)

I am well aware of the difference between MOND and ST, but the point i am trying to make is that every since i got into science (I forecast weather… less complicated lol) was that unless you had some sort of experiment that could be done by many people in many places, unless you had some solid sort of debatable…. thing… then well you dont have much to begin with.

The math is nice to see, and although a bit of it is above my level.. well i am beating a dead horse.

I just don’t understand how ST can be considered the true UFT or any resemblance to it at all…

Maybe someone can point me to something that has all the gouge that I am missing. (A little more in-depth than the powerpoint slide please.. I would like to see some of the math.)