14 years ago
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Dudely Wonders Never Cease II
Since it dawned on a few hotshots that I might actually know a little more physics than the arrogant hotshots who never took a real physics class in their life, I have suddenly begun receiving online befriend me requests. Now we are not talking about dudes with whom I have never had any interaction. Oh no, far from it. And we are talking about people (yes, there is more than one) who had every opportunity, for many years, to state, even quietly in private, that there might just be something a little wrong with leaving me to rot and be kicked in the gutter, but did they? Oh, no. Of course, these befriend me requests are a dude's way of saying: heh, maybe you are good enough to be in my Superhero Chat Club, after all, even if I won't actually publically admit that I know you, because that might lose me some street cred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If they actually wanted to, you know, help me get a physics job, or apologise, or something, they could just EMAIL ME.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist? There is really something very wrong with you, and you are clearly very delusional about what you think you've accomplished in physics.
ReplyDeleteYou mean, compared to String Theory perhaps? And I suppose I'm imagining all the experimental results and the people who want to befriend me? Yes, well, unless I name them all, there is no proof, is there?
ReplyDeleteClick here for Evil String Theorist's theory of everything, posted on his blog... Maybe it's just Peter Woit, trolling again.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Mitchell, that's hilarious! He/she really thinks they are The Emperor! Wow, so we're getting close to destroying The Empire, then ...
ReplyDeleteThings seem darkest before the dawn. Easy to feel forgotten when other people get the prizes. I've been having fun anyway, just consulted with a higher authority who admits that the cosmological constant was a blunder.
ReplyDeleteI see you're in Washington. Nice for some, I guess.
ReplyDeleteActually, your belief that experimental results are somehow supporting your ideas is a real joke. Just another sign of your self-delusion. Basically, you are a charlatan who takes bits and pieces from other people's work, and adds in a bit of nonsense in a vain attempt to convince people that you have some "special knowledge". Like I said, you should really seek some professional help. I'm sure many other people would agree with this assessment, including I'm sure members of your family.
ReplyDeleteStill here, Emperor? Yes, true, many, many people share your assessment. It is a rare person indeed that takes an independent female researcher in physics seriously at all. Actually, I can't think of any. A few people who hang around here seem interested in what I say, but obviously not really.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, good luck with making String Theory match experiment. I'm sure those delusions stroke cognitive dissonances stroke misogynist conditionings etc are working well for you.
E.S.T.: For a while now, I've been working towards a comparative study of Kea's ideas and string phenomenology. What you see as "bits and pieces" and "nonsense" is actually an unfinished but coherent research program, and it would be of great interest to line it up against one of string theory's many attempts to match the real world. You must be aware that at least two of Kea's favorite ingredients, motives and twistors, have already shown up in string theory, and as phenomenology, her work is partly an attempt to bypass the geometric description and obtain the standard model directly from diagrammatic algebra. We would all benefit from a precise understanding of the similarities and differences between what she is doing and what people like you are doing.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, I don't mean spurious psycho-sociological analyses which say that what you are doing is real science and that what she is doing is something else. You are both in the business of producing mathematical models of reality, and there is actually considerable overlap with respect to the mathematics and the data.
At the moment, my focus is on the G2 MSSM, as the string research program that can provide the conceptual counterpoint to what she's doing. However, since you're here and you presumably know something about at least one form of string phenomenology, there is the possibility that you could contribute constructively to such a comparison, by discussing the assumptions and methodology of your own research. If you can imagine playing that role, in a forum yet to be determined, please get in touch with me.
EST,
ReplyDeleteShe can see a few rainbows further into these abstract dimensions you only think you see there. Even a child can see this, she once said- and I am not much of anyone and can see it- I think the difference is she has found more of what is real than some stray vague idea of how the world works. I too would welcome a serious discussion, but I dare you to defend your position- that is if there is anything to it beyond opinion.
Her insight was here long before now and will be here long after some of the lesser but bold ideas of strings and cosmology are forgotten in the dust bin with mere names of those forgotten, their real lives and gold stars to make the less than adequate feel good in their unjustified sense of psychology. My, you protest so!
The PeSla
Thanks, The Pe Sla. Yes, such protest from a real scientist can only be construed as encouragement, especially when coupled with such an outstanding ability to ignore all the experimental data. But then, we still have to wait for the fairy fields to be excluded, and as every one knows, string theory predicts everything that is correct.
ReplyDelete