8 April 2011

Czech communist dreams up a proof of string theory against evidence

A communist is a person that values his ideology more than the facts, and uses violence to spread it. A well-known czech communist  - and sadly also physicist, once researcher at Harvard - has now transformed the recent Fermilab error in their data evaluation first into a new force, then into a invented Z' particle and finally into a proof of string theory. These are not lies any more, but fraud.

So we see that in Czechia, at least one string theorist is so deranged that he needs to deceive others for a living. If belief in supersymmetry is only a delusion, belief in string theory is now definitely proven to be a mental condition.


  1. If somebody is a radical, they call him a radical. In this case he is a radical in physics.

  2. do you have a e-mail I can contact you through? I have some questions regarding these ideological issues within physics

  3. Vladimir,

    radical is not the correct term. Fraudster is.


    questions that cannot be posted here are not worth asking. Go away.

  4. Haha. Well, I am an undergraduate student and will be working on an honor's thesis for the next few years that will discuss the historical development of physics and economic theory from their respective ideological standpoints (both carrying a mechanistic viewpoint of their respective subjects, nature and society). Both subjects have distinct points in their history where their underlying ideological viewpoint has imploded from contradictory ideas, and have not been resolved. Since we are taught in a harmonious fashion, I don't have a clear conception of what to study to have a firm critical base of physics and contemporary theory. It won't be an easy task at this level and I wanted to see if you had any recommendations (reading, mathematics, or otherwise) to help consolidate the task. I will be completing majors in both math and physics (math more extensively) if that helps.

    My plan is to outline the interaction between theory and experiment since the crisis between relativity and quantum mechanics, from a critical standpoint, if that makes my inquiry any less broad, heh.

  5. "The historical development of physics ... from their ideological standpoints"

    - The subject is either too vast or too narrow.

    - No physicist will ever admit that he is driven by ideology.

    - Hundreds of philosophers have done similar studies; but most of these studies are worthless, because the philosophers in question usually have dreamt up ideologies that physicists have never thought of nor believed in.

    - This is a satirical blog; and it is about fundamental physics only.

    - This is a satirical blog; do not expect serious statements.

    Anyway, why do a philosophical thesis if you study physics and math? What a waste of your time and energy. Do something serious instead, something about which you will be proud when you are done!

    Why take commentator's role when you can do a real job yourself? Commenting is for old women and men, not for young people.

  6. When I refer to ideology, I do not mean of any one physicist's "choice" (Ideology, anyhow, is usually an unconscious guide to thought). The discipline has a definite conception of nature, and therefore ideological standpoint, that is independent of its scientists.

    What do you mean by commentator as opposed to "doing the job" myself?

    Although this is satirical, I believe it to have important underlying meaning. My "generation" of physics students that surround me are not informed or conscious of the ideological problems in physics. This is extremely important, for it means that many students tread blindly into a discipline that is fading; this is their life commitment.

    Even if you'd rather not have serious discussion, I want to ask again: do you have any recommendations as to what I should study of modern theory (particular readings, perhaps?) and mathematics that it employs so that I can see what, more precisely, are the ideological issues that you speak of?

    For example, you have claims to the fundamental physics ideas that are 'false,' as you have posted on the page in the top right. I need/want to know exactly WHY they are potentially false.

    I have a huge task ahead of me, and am simply trying to be more efficient. I plan to elaborate in my thesis on the mathematical methodology throughout the disciplines and their implications; for example, what mathematical objects have been employed by physicists that have been tied to artificial theoretical ideas (strings, of course, are on of the blatant ones)? (You dont have to answer that explicitly, I only pose the question to let you know of what I'm looking to learn). I would really appreciate your input if you have any.

    It is almost impossible to find someone critical, in whatever sense, of physics, that actually knows the details; so I was only hoping that if you did you could help me in some way.

  7. Nikov,

    I make fun of many fundamental physicists, but not of all physicists.

    Physics has no ideology at all. If you believe that physics as a whole has some sort of ideology, you are deeply wrong. Also, physics has no "definite conception of nature". This is simply nonsense. Who told you that? What examples do you have for this statement?

    I guess that young men are strange beings. Go to the idiot(s) who put this nonsense into your head and ask back for your money that you paid in university fees.

    In this blog I only speak of supersymmetry and related topics; they concern only 1 out of 1000 physicists. I make fun of this, because I think it is nonsense.

    You write that there are few people critical of physics. Of course - why should one be critical of a science that has truth as its aim?

    I too am not critical of physics. I like it! I am critical of nonsense, not of truth. If you are critical of physics as a whole, your thesis will be just nonsense.

    In fact, I understand from your messages that you are prisoner of an ideology yourself, this one: "physicists/physics are led by ideology". As a whole, this is wrong.

    You do not have a huge task ahead of you. Led by the nonsense ideology you have in your head, you only have to put all that nonsense on paper.

    People like you, who know nothing about physics, are funny when they want to comment about its ideology. First get yourself a physics degree, then you can talk and write about the ideology of physics with some sense. (Weizsacker did it that way.)

    Science is an adventure to separate truth from nonsense. You seem to have chosen the nonsense path. What a pity.

  8. Tell me PRECISELY what you mean by truth. You will find that such a careless phrase has no meaning whatsoever; there are no absolute truths. If you look at the field of physics, this is BLATANTLY obvious; there are myriad contradictions between its explanation of nature that have not been resolved.

    Physics as a whole DOES have a simple ideology. In fact, it has two CONTRADICTORY ideological standpoints in its view of nature: that the relations on a quantum level are fundamentally uncertain; on the other hand, the universe as a whole is a deterministic interaction between all of its substance through the force of gravity. Two irreconcilable IDEOLOGIES. This does not mean that physicists care to talk about it, or even are concerned, but this contradiction has not been resolved, and I believe that it will not be.

    Physics, for example, is in direct contradiction to the biological conception--that is, ideological standpoint, of nature: that nature can only be understood as a dynamic, nondeterministic, evolutionary process. These are the ideological guides to the disciplines, respectively; you have a very strange, immature conception of what ideology means. Furthermore, it is puzzling that one who appears to be knowledgeable of physics such as yourself (it is clear, after you completely ignoring my questions, that you cannot answer them) can so vulgarly address (read ignore) such issues. For being so concerned with science, your general tone is worse than the Tea Party fanatics standing outside the white house (that is, it is UTTERLY unscientific). It is fascinating how childish you look while attempting to be condescending to someone you perceive to be below you.

  9. O man! Truth is agreement with facts.

    There are many absolute truths. Every sentence, apart the first, in what your write is either nonsense or false. What will you say when a judge tells you to say only the truth? Will you tell him that there is no truth? He/She will tell you what this means: that your place is in jail.

    Men who say "there is no truth" are all, without exception, agressive and liars. ("No, I did not cheat on you".) There is only one solution: get yourself a partner who teaches you how to be loving and kind.