Is “Strings” a Dud Theory? I am amazed in the manner in which the so called brilliant scientist are so closed minded to say things like `` So in their opinion, string theory is not scientific in the usual Popperian sense because it cannot be falsified.``
Now come on bright boys why is it so hard to believe or even look to the possibility that the string that binds us into assuming that string theory cannot be falsified is naive...why not the possibility that that our first step to understanding this lies in the first sentence of the new theory of everything by dimitri nanopoulos where he states, ``the key point was when we realized that strings dont have the specific representation-oh jesus.`` thus the point is that we are being deceived because we dont understand the specific represention of strings, but when we do that will open the door, per se, the key point...of that which we assume cannot be given to us unless it is real...are lies not as powerful as truths? Read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox,`` which will be published this year and then you will see the reason the scientist havent found the answer is because they are only looking in the lab and strings are everywhere...right...but those strings are connected to actions and or contracts....wake up guys...it ain`t about your credentials or where you teach if you speak so negatively when you admit you dont have the answer...so say I dont k know but the answer may be in the near future...so sad to be so negative when the answers are right before all our eyes....you will see that specific representation in the near future....this is one of those hear me now believe me later things...get out of the lab and look around you in this great big vacuum we are living in...dont want to give to much away just read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox.`` then your eyes will be opened :o)