tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5701294195355228942..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50143690152606321572008-04-19T16:08:00.000-04:002008-04-19T16:08:00.000-04:00My take on the Zhen-Shan and Xian paper:The empiri...My take on the Zhen-Shan and Xian paper:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/the-empirical-the-mode-and-the-decomposition/" REL="nofollow">The empirical, the mode, and the decomposition</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6728116845324721942007-09-23T08:25:00.000-04:002007-09-23T08:25:00.000-04:00Marion. String Theory [sic] can't be proven wrong ...Marion. <BR/><BR/>String Theory [sic] can't be proven wrong -- it's not falsifiable.<BR/><BR/>String theory is simply not a scientific theory and therefore has no value as such.<BR/><BR/>AS Feynman said years ago: "String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66147244119732615832007-09-23T00:21:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:21:00.000-04:00anonymouse 4:46: I sincerely hope your characteriz...anonymouse 4:46: I sincerely hope your characterization of string theory is off base somewhat.<BR/><BR/>I wish you'd go look at the controvery over whether Lotfi Zaydeh's "theory of fuzzy subsets of real sets" (which we know of as fuzzy math, derived fuzzy logic, fuzzy subsets) was new math or just a restating of other math. <BR/><BR/>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/einstein07/einstein07_index.html<BR/><BR/>Brian Greene isn't dead wrong here. that string theory might devolve into having been a reformulation of field theory with additional assumptions that weren't useful would indeed make it wrong, ultimately. But it would still be useful. Also, believe me, the people working "in" string theory so to speak, other than the most speculative and purely theoretical (accepting the infinite landscape as fact, for instance) did follow strong constraints on right and wrong. A great deal of the physics lectures and presentations i've attended or watched on video were string theory supportive and they certainly were dealing with real physics. It's mostly parsimony that gets string theory.<BR/><BR/>Motl does seem not normal mentally and not in a good way - even his advocacy on string theory seems more emotional and competitive than contemplative. Still, go to Not Even Wrong and you see a milder but still discernible mirror of that attitude.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46465932027001841092007-09-23T00:10:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:10:00.000-04:00by the way, since we all need a laugh nowadays, th...by the way, since we all need a laugh nowadays, this from Cosmic Variance:<BR/><BR/>"I find it outrageous that people who don’t even try to contribute anything to science - and who build on purely negative support of various crackpots and science-haters - should have a better access to scientific resources than, for example, graduate students who work hard and struggle with serious scientific questions." - Lubos MotlMarion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30350048715260498372007-09-22T07:46:00.000-04:002007-09-22T07:46:00.000-04:00One of the nice things about working on String The...One of the nice things about working on String Theory is never having to admit you're wrong, because there is no wrong -- and no right.<BR/><BR/>I think that's precisely why some people find it alluring. <BR/><BR/>People who would (and do) look like idiots talking about basic physics can appear to be geniuses talking about something that has no connection to reality.<BR/><BR/>As long as there is lots of obscure math involved -- describing lots of extra dimensions wrapped up in little balls so tiny that you can not detect them (conveniently) and other such nonsense, no one can call you on it. Even if they try, you can just wave your hands and go on to the next vacuous derivation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86449335099933419702007-09-21T10:24:00.000-04:002007-09-21T10:24:00.000-04:00"after all, the commonest way to get good at one t..."after all, the commonest way to get good at one thing in science is to not bother trying to be good at everything."<BR/><BR/>Marion, you may be right about the general case. I remember a while back that Eli shredded a paper co-authored by a university physicist (in Germany, I believe) which used Celsius instead of Kelvin temperatures in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. So I guess nothing should surprise me.<BR/><BR/>But I sincerely hope you're wrong about the specific case of Harvard. Harvard is supposed to have one of the best physics departments in the US (if not world).<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't believe anyone should be granted a PhD unless they understand basic physics like the Stefan-Boltzmann law -- and can correctly apply it in cases like that above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23491095164358229582007-09-21T02:39:00.000-04:002007-09-21T02:39:00.000-04:00anonymous 7:39 that's because, after all, the comm...anonymous 7:39 that's because, after all, the commonest way to get good at one thing in science is to not bother trying to be good at everything. I doubt they'd be appalled. Probably just say "typical." It's people with particular expertise in what he's bloviating on ala Limbaugh who seem to be most amused/offended by his rants.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, It'd be amusing to see a string theory paper written the way Lubos approaches climate science et al.<BR/><BR/>"It's been suggested historically that this was a further extension necessary to reconcile I, IIA, IIB, HO, HE, but since one of the people suggesting it is a communist [1] and the other is probably a pacifistic communist [2], my supergenius (supersymmetry plus my own genius) theory which replaces all the dimensions and numbers with pleasant scalars and regular curves (following an idea anticipated in <I>The Fountainhead</I>) is clearly superior. Socialism loses again! The alleged consensus against my theory is simply an artifact of the bias induced by open source publications in hermeneutics."Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43586662581638423982007-09-21T02:26:00.000-04:002007-09-21T02:26:00.000-04:00how about d-braned theories for inarticulate p-bra...how about d-braned theories for inarticulate p-branes?Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34073324210385719762007-09-21T00:10:00.000-04:002007-09-21T00:10:00.000-04:005:30 - Please the Lord NO!5:30 - Please the Lord NO!EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39466243276293464092007-09-21T00:09:00.000-04:002007-09-21T00:09:00.000-04:007:04, please take your meds and check in with your...7:04, please take your meds and check in with your mom.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29084062779527641072007-09-20T22:39:00.000-04:002007-09-20T22:39:00.000-04:00I'd bet that the the only thing Lubos ever killed ...I'd bet that the the only thing Lubos ever killed with his blogging are his chances for tenure at Harvard.<BR/><BR/>If his Harvard colleagues actually read some of his blog posts, they would undoubtedly be appalled by his lack of knowledge of basic physical principles.<BR/><BR/>Witness his claims about "exponentially escalating temperatures" if positive feedback had been involved in the case of past CO2 increases shown by ice cores:<BR/><BR/>"Everyone who has basic understanding of feedback theory knows that what they talk about is a textbook example of a positive-feedback system, and if the climate were such a system, the mutually supportive interactions would lead to exponentially escalating temperatures in one of the possible directions. That’s clearly not observed in the data and the positive-feedback hypothesis is thus falsified.” <BR/><BR/>First, as a result of the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature increase, there is no exponential escalation in temperature. Each subsequent increase in CO2 of a given magnitude leads to a smaller temperature increase than the last one.<BR/><BR/>Second, the process is inherently self-limiting because, according to the Stefan Boltzmann law, the total radiation per unit time per unit surface area increases as the temperature goes up. In fact, because radiation is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature, there is a very strong damping effect. <BR/><BR/>There is no "exponentially escalating temperature".<BR/><BR/>Basic physics prevents it.<BR/><BR/>Anyone with a basic understanding of freshman physics should be able to recognize this.<BR/><BR/>This apparently does not include Motl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74766945731095101202007-09-20T22:04:00.000-04:002007-09-20T22:04:00.000-04:00LOL all the wabbit has is an excuse for his goog...LOL all the wabbit has is an excuse for his google fu and "watch your language"<BR/><BR/>Lubos killed the thread<BR/><BR/>all we have left after the Eli is taken down to germ level are some ad homs a EU man whore would be ashamed ofAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11916877016597681422007-09-20T20:44:00.000-04:002007-09-20T20:44:00.000-04:00Or how about "Lubos in an M-brane"? (he'd probably...Or how about "Lubos in an M-brane"? (he'd probably fit right in at the Academy Awards)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps he might even start a modeling company: "Motl's Models".<BR/><BR/>Perhaps he could get his best friends -- Peter Woit & Lee Smolin -- to model with him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9312745548367654842007-09-20T20:30:00.000-04:002007-09-20T20:30:00.000-04:00If I had onlt two choices, I think I'd rather see ...If I had onlt two choices, I think I'd rather see Lubos as a "naked singularity" (and how singular that would be) than in a String bikini.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28394777628911450982007-09-20T17:56:00.000-04:002007-09-20T17:56:00.000-04:00Eli, I'm sure you'll agree that the image of Lubos...Eli, I'm sure you'll agree that the image of Lubos in tights is infinitely superior to one of him <I>sans</I> any tights. Count your blessings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17716834319863742532007-09-20T17:53:00.000-04:002007-09-20T17:53:00.000-04:00"Lubos in tights"? How about "Lubos in a String bi..."Lubos in tights"? <BR/><BR/>How about "Lubos in a String bikini"?<BR/><BR/>That's the memo -- and the nightmare.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1063544669651735962007-09-20T15:25:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:25:00.000-04:00Looks like the Shulte article will NOT be publishe...Looks like the Shulte article will NOT be published in E&E:<BR/><BR/>http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be<BR/><BR/>But who really cares, it already made Newsbustersbigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66937651501027996232007-09-20T09:15:00.000-04:002007-09-20T09:15:00.000-04:00Hi Marion,I'm not absolutely clear which you are u...Hi Marion,<BR/><BR/>I'm not absolutely clear which you are using but Google Scholar still does not get cites right, WOS does. GS is rapidly improving on current lit (the stuff on the web), but still not very useful for citation analysis and it is not clear they want to go there. <BR/><BR/>Remember GS only looks at stuff that is electronically available, which means it is heavily biased towards current stuff.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, curse you for the thought of Lubos in tights guarding the carrot patch. He will not thank you either.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52125022969309734512007-09-20T02:49:00.000-04:002007-09-20T02:49:00.000-04:00By the way i didn't save it somehow but Motl is pr...By the way i didn't save it somehow but Motl is probably right about hundreds of cites for him, vs. cited. I got 800 hits for "L motl" and subbing out the 67 entries leaves hundreds.<BR/><BR/>but google scholar searches as numeric evidence of things is weird. I was also amused by tim lambert's having people do their own Schulte (with the same obvious problem Schulte had, of a frivolous definition set).Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13909220829843239112007-09-20T02:45:00.000-04:002007-09-20T02:45:00.000-04:00Eli:So that's how you can afford the Rabbit Cave a...Eli:<BR/><BR/>So that's how you can afford the Rabbit Cave and the Bunnymobile! If you made Lubos your ward, wouldn't he be too busy running around in mask and tights fighting crime to fight Science?Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48148023933951316122007-09-19T21:47:00.000-04:002007-09-19T21:47:00.000-04:00On the contrary Marion, Eli is a big noise on Goog...On the contrary Marion, Eli is a big noise on Google Scholar, holding a patent for <A HREF="http://www.google.com/patents?id=hdQ2AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=%22E+Rabett%22#PPP1,M1" REL="nofollow"> Tools for Use in Percussive Machines"</A> in other words a drum stick.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33451530062605934312007-09-19T20:30:00.000-04:002007-09-19T20:30:00.000-04:00by the way i agree eli is hardly a presence on goo...by the way i agree eli is hardly a presence on google scholar. however, moving along, for this:<BR/><BR/>author:l-motl<BR/><BR/>I get this:<BR/><BR/>Results 1 - 10 of about 67 for motl author:l-motl. (0.02 seconds)<BR/><BR/>Also for everyone, not just lubos, a lot of papers appear 2, 3, 4 times. same paper.<BR/><BR/>I think lubos didn't think there was an A motl, etc. out there.<BR/><BR/>If you don't do author search you include papers like "How Lubos Motl being such a total moronic dick turned me off of string theory" or "Why people who understand theoretical physics can't do statistics or chemistry or time series or pretty much anything once they're out of their element. Case Study: lubos motl" or "studies in immigrant shame: why one family abandoned the name motl"Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53949422259509641822007-09-19T20:16:00.000-04:002007-09-19T20:16:00.000-04:00guthrie it's a pity sometimes science ISNT politic...guthrie it's a pity sometimes science ISNT politicized the other way. Renaming, say, a viroid a "motl" would be dreadful science but fairly amusing.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22000435303386318382007-09-19T18:22:00.000-04:002007-09-19T18:22:00.000-04:00No, anonymous 2:36, it's a Lubos.Anyway, regarding...No, anonymous 2:36, it's a Lubos.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, regarding Bo Nordel, I had a scan of his paper, and he comes up with a figure of 0.02 watts/ metre extra from the energy dissipated. The fact that this is about equal to the climate forcing from several halocarbon greenhouse gases, and waaaaayyyyy less than that from Co2 seems not to matter to him, and nowhere could I see any consideration of the actual calculated forcings.<BR/><BR/>Add this to the lack of cities at the North Pole, no explanation for cooling whatsitsname, a a lack of reference of real climate papers rather than pretend ones, and you ahve a really poor paper that deserves oblivion. How it got published in the first place I do not know.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91976938743999791392007-09-19T17:36:00.000-04:002007-09-19T17:36:00.000-04:00At least "scientific germs" have tenure.What's low...At least "scientific germs" have tenure.<BR/><BR/>What's lower than a germ on the academic scale? A prion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com