String theory

Since the main body of your argument was taken from a Wikipedia article, I will first start by attacking this article. From there I will move on to your arguments. Wikipedia described string theory as an "as-yet incomplete mathematical approach to theoretical physics." Thus far, all attempts to arrive at an equation associated with strings have failed. The equations would be started, but could never be completed. So what these string theorists are left with is a group of incomplete equations and the notion that if an equation could be formed to give (at the very least) some mathematical plausibility to superstrings, it would PROBABLY look like one of the half-completed equations. Now I must ask: Can something without a single complete equation be considered a mathematical approach? I think not. Secondly, there is the claim that strings lead us to "an apparently consistent quantum theory of gravity." Admittedly, beyond the realm of string theory no attempts have been made to incorporate gravity into quantum theory. But before giving praise to string theory for this accomplishment, we must look at its quantum gravitational proposal. String theory began back in 1968 with Gabriele Veneziano, a theoretical physicist working at CERN in Geneva. In his attempts to make sense of experiments on the strong nuclear force, he turned towards the Euler beta-function (note: this may seem inconsistent with my statement of no equations, but I cannot consider a formula proposed by Leonhard Euler two hundred years ago a string theory equation). This function worked well with experiments at CERN, but without explanation. Two years later is the point where, in my opinion, science took a dive. In 1970, Yoichiro Nambu, Holger Nielsen and Leonard Susskind proposed that these vibrating one-dimensional strings could be the true elementary particles and would work with Euler's beta-function. These strings are too small for anyone to see, too small to ever detect even with the most sophisticated equipment, have no evidence to validate their existence, and no predictions can be made based on their existence. Already things are getting fishy. Now this so-called theory incorporated several configurations of these vibrating strings, some of which were labeled gluons (string particles supposedly associated with the strong force). Other configurations were dreamed up and in 1974 Schwarz and Scherk proposed that some of these could be strings associated with the gravitational force that they called gravitons. (Side note: these strings associated with the various forces are referred to as messenger particles by string theorists). Now this is where it gets interesting (or ludicrous). These strings are all said to have vibrational patterns. These patterns are supposedly related to the mass of the string. Scherk and Schwarz's claim is that the vibrational patterns in these strings can cancel each other out. In the case of the graviton, the vibrational patterns cancel each other out completely! This leads to the outrageous claim that if these gravitons exist, they have a length of approximately ten to the negative thirty third centimeters AND zero mass!! This is by far one of the most inconsistent things I've ever heard of. On the one hand, the string does take up space (however minute) and at the same time has no mass due to some vibrations. Wikipedia calls it a consistent theory of gravity for one reason and one reason only: with this new explanation, all of the known forces are caused by the same thing (i.e. strings). So this quantum theory of gravity is consistent in that it too uses strings as its ultimate underlying cause. But a particle with dimensionality and zero mass is INCONSISTENT with reality. Now we come to string theory's suggestion that there are ten or eleven spacetime dimensions. For starters, the reason why there is disagreement between the two values is due to the fact that no concrete calculations have been made. Considering that these calculations have been taking place in the realm of string theory for over twenty years, I doubt that they ever can or will be solved. The approximate calculation began with ten dimensions (nine spatial and one temporal). Then in the mid-90's Edward Witten claimed that the approximate calculations left out a space dimension and gave a new approximate calculation with ten spatial dimensions. Already we are seeing a complete disregard for scientific thought. All science is based on one major premise: we can find things out about our surroundings and the laws of science and nature should be applicable everywhere. In our daily lives, we are only able to experience three spatial dimensions. There is nothing that suggests evidence for more dimensions. But now here is the kicker. String theorists circumvent our daily observations with a clever non-falsifiable loophole. They claim that these other dimensions are "curled-up" in the spacetime fabric in the form of something known as Calabi-Yau shapes. Calabi-Yau geometry is six-dimensional geometry, and although there are not six spatial dimensions (unless you believe in string theory) it is still a valid branch of mathematics. You can perform calculations on geometrical figures that cannot be seen or even pictured. For example, I can calculate that a 27-sided polygon will have exactly 4,500 degrees. I have never seen a 27-sided polygon, and I cannot begin to picture one. But using the simple formula of (N-2)*180 degrees, I have performed a valid calculation to arrive at a true answer. This may seem like I am going way off on a tangent, but I only included this paragraph to show that in what follows, my attacks are only on string theory itself and not on Calabi-Yau geometry. So here we have string theorists claiming that there are these tiny Calabi-Yau shapes curled up in the spacetime fabric that are too small for us to see and impossible to detect. You may still call this science, but I call it balderdash! Now I finally will come to Sanchez's arguments. You claim that string theory is an approach "that could, in time, be quite helpful in understanding the way the universe works." If you think that proposing tiny curled up dimensions, particles without mass, and vibrating strings that can never be detected will lead us to understanding how the universe works, you are sadly mistaken. You admit that it is not verifiable as of yet, but those last three words are misleading. String theory is not verifiable PERIOD. There is no point in time in which it will ever be verifiable. The idea has been constructed in such a way as to ensure that it can never be verified nor falsified. Finally, I did not claim that something has to be testable to be worthwhile. My claim is that something has to be testable (either experimentally or mathematically) to be considered science. The difference between these two statements is immense. There are many worthwhile ideas that are not testable. The very idea of falsificationism that I have used to start this debate is one such example. That is why falsificationism is a philosophy and not science. So, in conclusion, string theory does not belong in the field of science and, in my opinion, it is not even worthwhile as a mere philosophy.