Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:55:52 UTC No. 16251410

It's not a theory in the first place.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:57:56 UTC No. 16251413

>>16251265
String theory doesn't produce any falsifiable hypotheses, so it isn't science

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:31:05 UTC No. 16251498

>>16251413
I think you meant to say climate """"science"""""

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:37:51 UTC No. 16251515

>>16251265
This reminds me that I need to get my gf sluttier underwear

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:41:11 UTC No. 16251519

>>16251413
What would you qualify it then? Why did it even see the day? I mean, there are a bunch of reputable physicists that spent years on it, most notably Susskind. Surely there's something useful about it.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:47:25 UTC No. 16251526

>>16251519
Many physicists have become so obsessed about models that they have forgotten about hypothesis testing and experimenting. Model is always a simplified version of reality, but for many physicists, models have become reality.

String theorists have delved too deep into theorycrafting. They have created a framework that has "perfect" inner logic in it, but it can not be verified by any experimentalist because it has no surface to reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:12:50 UTC No. 16251571

>>16251265
>It feels like string theory faded into the rear view mirror bros
We don't have the technological capability to test anything that small.
So it'll have to wait until that catches up.
>Bro just give us $50 Billion more for a more larger particle collider bro
The money would be better spent on space or fusion reaction development.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 22:41:31 UTC No. 16251775

>>16251498
>I think you meant to say climate """"science"""""
we will know in 5 years if they're right or not. the world should end by then.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:48:56 UTC No. 16251879

>>16251571
>The money would be better spent on space or fusion reaction development.
Umm, what about the under-privileged migrant families and the trans community?

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 05:55:50 UTC No. 16252230

>>16251413
Who says science has to be falsifiable? It's an arbitrary rule set by some oldass retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:14:49 UTC No. 16252243

>>16252230
If you don't test any hypotheses, what are you doing as a scientist? Just fucking around?

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:31:54 UTC No. 16252248

>>16251519
It's not intrinsically untestable. The necessary energies are simply extremely high. Somebody could find a weird trick, so to speak.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:42:50 UTC No. 16252559

>>16252243
Testable is different from falsifiable.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:15:27 UTC No. 16252742

It's all bullshit.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:16:28 UTC No. 16253572

>>16252559
You test whether data supports a hypothesis or contradicts it, i.e. falsifies it.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:25:58 UTC No. 16253986

>>16253572
>>16252559
There is no such thing as falsifiable though. Everything that has yet to be falsified may be falsified in the future. That's why people care about testing and not the le heckin truth