iannis
Musty Nester
Well yeah. What I know of string theory (which is basically at most the abstract) doesn't seem all that dumb at all. It may or may not be true, but it can be useful in the meantime.At least the mathematics work with string theory. It might not falsifiable at our current level of technology and might well be wrong, but the mathematics that are coming out of continued research in the field could likely be useful elsewhere.
What really attracts me to this nutter is his rejection of the idea that while as far as we can determine light is absolutely constant that fact THEREFOR AND FURTHERMORE (to borrow his phrasing) requires that it is constant throughout the duration of its existenz. That really would make it unique. Everything changes, up to and including the structure of creation itself. Except light? It can be diverted, reflected, refracted, absorbed, or anihilated -- but for so long as it exists it is immutable? That smells like prejudice. A greater part of our brain is wired for processing light, after all. It may be that for all purposes we might as well concede that, if only because the scale of the change will always remain bounded outside of our physical and mental perceptions.
Or maybe I did too many drugs when I was young and I really don't fucking know enough about light to be thinking these sorts of thoughts. It seems like the idea that this aspie is trying to pursue... maybe fraudulently. It seems like a potentially useful area of investigation at least. Which is what I mean by "no dumber than string theory".