In the style of John Herbet Mandlbaur (COAM denier, see the sample below), reply to the following article, denying COAM:
article:
Today’s Washington Post has an opinion piece from Brian Greene, running under the demonstrably false title Decades later, string theory continues its march toward Einstein’s dream.

In the piece, the argument of string theory critics is given as:

Critics argue that the situation is untenable, noting, “If you can’t test a theory, it’s not scientific.” Adherents counter, “String theory is a work in progress; it’s simply too early to pass judgment.” The critics retort, “Forty years is too early?” To which the adherents respond, “We’re developing what could be the most profound physical theory of all time — you can’t seriously cross your arms, tap your foot and suggest that time’s up.”

The problem with the results of forty years of research into string theory is not that progress has been too slow but that it has been dramatically negative. To see this, one can just compare the text of chapter 9 of Greene’s 1999 The Elegant Universe, which has an extensive discussion of prospects for testing string theory by finding superpartners, fractionally charged particles, or cosmic strings. Twenty-five years later, the results of experimental searches are in: no cosmic strings, no fractionally charged particles, and most definitively no evidence of superpartners of any kind from the LHC.

The other sorts of predictions advertised in that chapter are based on the idea that string theorists would better understand the theory and be able to make testable predictions about neutrino masses, proton decay, axions or new long range forces, the nature of dark matter, and the value of the cosmological constant. Instead of progress towards any of these, things have gone in the opposite direction: all evidence from better understanding of string theory is that it either naturally predicts things in violent disagreement with experiment (wrong dimension of space time, huge number of new long-range forces, …) or predicts nothing at all. 25 years later, Greene now goes with the latter:

The challenge for string theory is that it has yet to produce any definitive, testable predictions.

The article goes on to make a different case for string theory:

… string theory continues to captivate seasoned researchers and aspiring students alike because of the remarkable progress that has been made in developing its mathematical framework. This progress has yielded provocative insights into long-standing mysteries and introduced radically new ways of describing physical reality.

For instance, string theory has provided unmatched insights into the surface of black holes, unraveling puzzles that have consumed some of the greatest minds, including Stephen Hawking. It has offered a novel, though controversial, explanation for the observed speedup of the universe’s expansion, proposing that our universe might be just one of many within a larger reality than conventional science ever imagined.

The problem here is that these supposed advances aren’t from advances in string theory. If you follow the link above that justifies “string theory has provided unmatched insights into the surface of black holes”, you’ll find the text:

Most physicists have long assumed it would; that was the upshot of string theory, their leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. But the new calculations, though inspired by string theory, stand on their own, with nary a string in sight. Information gets out through the workings of gravity itself — just ordinary gravity with a single layer of quantum effects.

The string theory “explanation” for the value of the CC is just the “anthropic” explanation, which besides not really being a scientific explanation, has nothing to do with string theory.

The piece ends with something highly speculative and ill-defined (ER=EPR) that has nothing to do with string theory:

Roughly, it’s as if particles are tiny black holes, and the entanglement between two of them is nothing but a connecting wormhole.

If this realization holds up, we will need to shift our thinking about the unification of physics. We have long sought to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics together through a shotgun wedding, fusing the mathematics of the large and the small to yield a formalism that embraces both. But the duality between Einstein’s two 1935 papers would suggest that quantum mechanics and general relativity are already deeply connected — no need for them to marry — so our challenge will be to fully grasp their intrinsic relationship.

Which would mean that Einstein, without realizing it, may have had the key to unification nearly a century ago.

Where string theory research is after 40 years is not on a continuing march forward towards “Einstein’s dream”, but in a state of intellectual collapse with no prospects of any connection to the real world, just more hype about vague hopes for something different, something for which there is no actual theory.

sample:

John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
5h
Replying to @EmperorZelos @physicsnoob5 @AstroSpanner @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @Qwertasdfplzh @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
Yes. Angular energy is conserved.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
4h
Did you already forget that this silly idea of you was proven wrong?

John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
4h
Nope. This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy which makes the mistake of trying to understand rotation using a fixed reference frame.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
4h
Showing you how it's impossible for the object to slow down between A and B isn't an appeal to tradition John. Stop pulling fallacies out of your ass.

Also you are unable to explain how changing the reference frame shows you're right. You simply don't have an argument.
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
4h
Nope, showing that you think it is impossible, when every flyby of a satellite or even space rock, does the impossible, shows that you are in denial.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
3h
Where does the ball slow down John?

And you should stop bringing up the flyby anomaly until you study it a bit better John. It is very clear that you don't understand what it is either if you think it's evidence for COAE.
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
3h
The flyby anomaly is consistent with COAE.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
2h
How do you know, where are your calculations?
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
1h
COAM - object must slow down as it leaves perigee.
COAE - object must speed up as it leaves perigee.
In reality objects all speed up as they leave perigee.

Which is consistent and which is not?
AnularMomentum
@AnularMomentum
1h
The flyby doesn't result in objects speeding up after leaving the perigee. The speed still decreases but a tiny little bit less than expected. If COAE predicts an increase in speed, then it is wrong as we have been saying all along. Thanks for the confirmation.
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
1h
Replying to @AnularMomentum @physicsnoob5 @EmperorZelos @AstroSpanner @CherylSmith201 @Qwertasdfplzh @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
The flyby anomaly is exactly the problem that objects see up after perigee.
If you don't know what you are talking about then rather shut up.
Sep 18, 2024 · 9:22 AM UTC

AnularMomentum
@AnularMomentum
28m
Replying to @Mandlbaur @physicsnoob5 @EmperorZelos @AstroSpanner @CherylSmith201 @Qwertasdfplzh @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
That is simply incorrect. Objects accelerating during flybies is entirely expected. It's the reason why we make such manoeuvres in the first place. The anomaly is just a discrepancy in the observed accelerations by 0.001%.

The one not knowing what he is talking about is you.
earlier replies
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
Sep 16
Replying to @physicsnoob5 @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @AstroSpanner @EmperorZelos @Qwertasdfplzh @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
Please stop harassing me and concede my proof like a grown up and learn and move forward in life?
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
Sep 16
Why should I concede? Your argument starts from a strawman version of COAM and goes straight into a non sequitur
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
Sep 16
My argument is to evaluate the existing textbook physics for a typical rendition of the established experiment.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
23h
What's the existing definition of COAM John?
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
23h
If you don't know then you are wasting my time.
physicsnoob5
@physicsnoob5
15h
It's very clear you don't know it, unless you prove otherwise.

What's the existing definition of COAM John?
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
6h
None of your business. Address my proof and stop,evading.
Zelos Malum
@EmperorZelos
5h
You don't know
Zelos Malum
@EmperorZelos
22h
Replying to @Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @AngelaMomentum @EMusk87114 @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @Qwertasdfplzh @physicsnoob5 @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
Except this proves you are a liar.


John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
5h
John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
5h
Replying to @EmperorZelos @AngelaMomentum @jk48800 @EMusk87114 @AstroSpanner @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @Qwertasdfplzh @physicsnoob5 @vivissiah @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
Liar liar is childish behavior. Stop being childish and do the experiment like a grown up?
Zelos Malum
@EmperorZelos
3h
Lying is dishonest and for osmeone who claim so much honesty, you sure do lie A LOT
Zelos Malum
@EmperorZelos
22h
Replying to @Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @AngelaMomentum @EMusk87114 @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @Qwertasdfplzh @physicsnoob5 @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
Except this proves you are a liar.


John Mandlbaur
@Mandlbaur
3h
Replying to @EmperorZelos @physicsnoob5 @CherylSmith201 @AnularMomentum @AstroSpanner @Qwertasdfplzh @vivissiah @jk48800 @RealPhysProf @Mahmoud34489685 @AngeSurTerre197 @aneuperspectiv @elonmusk
I do not lie and you misinterpreting and misquoting me out of context shows only that you are unable to fault my maths and do not want to concede. 

Please behave grown up and concede?
Sep 18, 2024 · 7:11 AM UTC