[deleted]
hello lawrence,
actually lqg has noting to do with b-modes in the cmb. lqg makes no predictions, and like lqg "B-modes in the CMB are a prediction of gravitons in the early universe, so this is a prediction," is an unscientific, untestable prediction on par with "i predict that monkeys will fly out of your nose." speculative predictions do not a science make.
no need to politicize war as both the democrats and republicans promote war. obama increased the troops in afghanistan in a massive manner, leading to july being the deadliest month left. woodrow wilson, a democrat, ushered in the era of foreign intervention.
it is the federal reserve system that never changes which funds the wars while bankrupting the country, and it is that same federal reserve system which bailed out goldman sachs which funds the non-science of lqg, as a poster alluded to above. have you read ron paul's "end the fed?" as you are opposed to war, you would enjoy ron paul as he is also opposed to all the foreign wars on foreign shores. please read the book and let us know!
you wirte, "Anyway, to use the economic arguments, why don't we just close out physics entirely? Come on. lets take all these speculative people in universities and throw them out on their butts?"
Well, Feynman would agree with you that we ought get rid of the dishonest, fed-funded cargo cult science; and once we defund the arroagnce and fanatasy physics requiring expensive videogame consoles (like other fantasy games), then perhaps physics will come roaring back! after all, those plystations cost far more than einstein's funding during his annus mirablis--but today the elders would see no playstations and they would reject einstein's work.
here's feynman on lqg & string theory and the attitude of those who are placing us in debt to buy playstations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
"But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of
having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something
that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that
I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are
the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about
that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other
scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after
that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to
tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be
a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll
leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
mr. crowell--you are violating feynman's spirit and maxim by not only promoting forty-year-old failed theoires, but by, rather than "bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong," you are using words to obscure and cloak the failure and soullessness of your non-science, resulting in passages such as, "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level."
Never in a million years would Feynman get caught uttering such nonsense.
:)