Black holes were theorized and you could design experiments that, given the proper instruments, would allow them to be detected. Relativity was similar (famously, the curvature of spacetime was demonstrated during a solar eclipse by being able to see stars that should have been behind the sun).

String theory has nothing even theorized that would allow us to prove it.

String theory, being a high-energy theory, predicts that at high energies things will look “stringy.” It’s not untestable in principle. But it is out of reach of current experiments. I think that distinction is important.

Same as the parallel comment: the situation of string theory is the same as with black holes and relativity. It is not it is not testable, it is that it is not testable yet. The situation is very similar of the situations of black holes and relativity at their own time.

The fact that so many people, like you, just INVENT that it is not testable is quite worrying. Why? What's the point of doing that?

No one has "invented" that it's untestable. String theory literally doesn't give predictions that would allow it to be falsified. There are an astounding number of possible geometries that mean that any set of data could technically be "consistent with string theory". There are no specific energy bounds where it kicks in - if an experiement doesn't show existence of strings, it's "try again with more energy" instead of "falsified".

String theory can't be disproved even in theory. Spending decades on that is akin to spending decades rearchitecting your software to make it more beautiful and full of design patterns and promising users/management that some day it'll all make sense.

First, it is incorrect to say that "any set of data is consistent with string theory". For example, string theory is death in water if we observe a single Majorana fermion with no partner at a comparable scale. This is an observation that fully falsifies string theory.

But more importantly, "falsifiable" means "observations reduce the landscape". It does not matter if the landscape never fully disappear, as long as the observations constrain the parameters of the theory, then the theory is falsifiable. This is the real condition for a theory to be unfalsifiable. Astrology is not falsifiable: whatever the observation, the full astrology theory remains exactly the same, nothing has been constrained.

Why is it the correct definition? Because your definition leads to illogical situations. For example, I can divide "string theory" into "string theory of region 1", "string theory of region 2", "string theory of region 3", ... which are all in different parameters space. In this case, suddenly, "string theory of region 1" can be fully excluded. But it is illogical to pretend that "string theory of region 1" is suddenly "good falsifiable science" just because you renamed it while the physics is 100% the same. Another example of illogical situation is "an observed theory suddenly qualifies as falsifiable" (cf. the example with the electromagnetism below).

Also, "try again with more energy" is very common in beyond standard model physics. It is the case for lepton compositeness, heavy bosons, fourth lepton generation, SUSY, all of Effective Field Theory, ... None of these theories are abandoned because "unfalsifiable". The argument that string theory is bad because unfalsifiable feels like a bad faith argument while plenty of other physicists activities have the same characteristics but people who are against string theory does not care when physicists work on those.

It's also the case with common theories like electromagnetism or weak force: we are happy with them because we have observed them, but theoretically (in their current formulation), their parameters are free: if the alpha constant was 10 to the power -100, electromagnetism would have been undetectable up to now (the world would be quite different, but still). And if in this parallel universe a physicist would have came up with the theory and tried to observe it and failed, they could have always said "well, it just means that the alpha constant is even smaller". So, do you agree that electromagnetism is a non falsifiable theory because the alpha constant is a free parameter and could have been arbitrarily small? Because if not, you are saying that exactly the exact same theory is sometimes falsifiable, sometimes unfalsifiable, depending on where the free parameters are: right now string theory is unfalsifiable, but if we observe cosmic superstrings, suddenly, the theory qualifies as falsifiable.

Finally, the more you eliminate part of the landscape, the more the credibility of the theory decreases. And even if some part of landscape remains, the theory is abandoned when it is virtually useless.

String theory necessitates observable objects to remain viable as an useful theory (for example, SUSY particles, specific inflationary signature, ...). If these are not observed, the theory is not 100% rejected, but it becomes "useless": it will prove that the reality needs another fix than the string theory to explain some of the problem we observe in the current standard model. In other term, "string theory" can always remain a possibility, but "string theory as the answer of the current problems" would be 100% rejected and physicists will start working on other theories.

The idea that you pretend that physicists will still work on string theory when all the "juice" would been removed due to constraints is just so surreal to me. The reason string theory is popular amongst physicists is because they want to understand the current problems and that, according to them, string theory is a good candidate to explain them. It is crazy to imagine that when we have demonstrated that string theory cannot explain these problems, people whose main motivation is to explain these problems would say "we know we will not get anything of what we want if we work on this subject, but, hey, it's theoretically not fully excluded, so, I have to continue for eternity before passing to a more promising subject".

Why are you always so mad, Cauch? I'm worried about you, Cauch.

Oh, it took me a while to find out who you were. Are you stalking me now? I did made an impression on you. I'm sorry.

We're in too deep to let go of each other now, Cauch. Stalking? No. I'd say, unsolicited following.

On a serious note, I was reflecting the other day and recognize I need to do better with how I address people online. I genuinely apologize for my part in our nasty interaction. It's something I've struggled with, but I will do better.

Too deep? Have you considered seeking help? Our interaction should not be a big deal for balanced people. I had forgotten about it myself and moved on. If you cannot, it shows there is something wrong going on and maybe it should worry you.

As for the unsolicited following, I'm not sure what you would get out of it. I guess you will regularly spew your bile. But it does not really affect me, it just confirms I'm right about what I think of you. The "unsolicited following" perfectly fits the character, it is not really an action that you expect from the "winning side" of the story.

I think that if you wanted me to be compassionate, you should have avoided to be so creepy. Put yourself in my shoes, I just feel like I'm been accosted by a drunk who want to both become my best bud and shout at me. And because of that, I'm, on purpose, avoiding to give you any compassion or any other excuse to believe I care about you. That's the best strategy with this kind of crazies.

And this is quite creepy: 1. tracking me back, months after we had our discussion, as if it is something you still think about, this is super creepy, 2. saying, even under the cover of humour (cf. next point), that we're "in too deep" or that it is an "unsolicited following", this is creepy, 3. and bringing all that as a "joke", that is just so bizarre, it reminds me of the caricatural obsessive date "oh we should definitively move in together ... just joking ... and decide the name of our future children ... just joking ahahah ..."

So, yeah, just consider that I'm a rotten person if it helps you, or blame others for not showing you the compassion you crave when you admit that you have been shitty with them. You are not relevant to me, I've forgotten about you so fast last time and I can easily block your username if I decide I have better entertainment elsewhere, and I truly don't care about whatever fantasy you invented about me in your strange brain.

I'm still not sure what you imagine this conversation will do. What do you think will happen? You know I think you are ridiculous and pathetic, already from the previous conversation. And you're coming back after months to do this strange little dance, it just looks so unhinged. Do you really think this whole conversation will change that, and not in fact reconfirming that my first impression was correct?

I feel that you are trying to convince me that you are very wise by doing more and more unhinged things. I'm not sure why you think this would even work.

As I've said, I'm 100% fine to know that you think I'm rotten. You already insulted me previously, I got the message and I can't care less, so why come back to do it again? Why would you think I will take you seriously now? Are you "trying to save me from myself"? That's not really convincing: coming back to a stranger on the internet after few months for pure altruism, that is not something that a sane person would do (especially as you were pretending that you did not care at all). Instead of "trying to save me from myself", the readers will suspect that you came back because you still have things on your chest, and that this conversation is more for you than for me. That's sad.

This conversation won't change the fact that you like this. Bitter people like having a vehicle they can't get their toxicity out on. That is why you can't help yourself and you continue.

At this point, every single one of your responses is just a reflection of you, not me.

You keep saying you don't care. But you can't help yourself from responding to me every single time.

You do care, Cauch. You care because the toxicity in your bones that you refuse to let go of needs an online enemy you can't direct your toxicity towards.

The point stands: Cauch responds, Cauch cares!

Responding is fun because your answers are entertaining and make me laugh. The fact that I keep putting a coin to see the little monkey dance does not mean that when the little monkey emits some sound I would take it personally.

And I enjoy thinking you get more and more convinced that I care the more I answer. Why would I stop? You are literally giving me reward for answering you.

> You care because the toxicity in your bones that you refuse to let go of needs an online enemy you can't direct your toxicity towards.

I cannot let go so much that I recontacted you out of the blue after weeks. Oh, wait, it was you. "We broke up but my ex is so not over me, it is very annoying. They even said my name and got angry when they saw me stalking them behind the bush, if it's not the proof".

Again, you did not answer: what is your goal here? What do you think you will receive? You know that it will never go further than that, that you will never feel that you've "won", that you will never be really convinced that any of your insults have ever landed. It will end like the last conversation, and it will be as unsatisfying for you.

In fact, even if I say exactly what you want to hear, you will not be satisfied, because you will always have a doubt in the back of your mind that I just said that to fool you to think you've "won".

Whatever rationalization you need to keep responding -- it's all yours Cauch!

The guy who initially accused me of being creepy all of a sudden understands that there's an entertainment component to how I communicate.

You ask me what my goal is. The question is, for someone who keeps saying they don't care -- what is yours?

The good old Cauchenator needs somewhere he can release his anger.

You mention that tried fooling me so that I can think I've won. I apologized to you. Someone who has even the slightest desire of winning doesn't apologize bubs.

Good ole, Cauch. If we ever run into each other, that'll be in an interesting discussion. We're not that far from each other.

> The guy who initially accused me of being creepy all of a sudden understands that there's an entertainment component to how I communicate.

You realise I laugh at you and not with you, right?

For example, the hilarious fact that you try to convince me that I "refuse to let go" when not only you are the one starting talking to me, saying we're in "too deep", saying you want an "unsolicited following" of me, and now wishing to "run into each other" and implying you care enough to be interested to know where I live.

You are really obsessing over me, don't you?

> You ask me what my goal is. The question is, for someone who keeps saying they don't care -- what is yours?

What? My goal for what? For answering? It was literally the content of my previous comment, you pillock.

Your turn to answer now, what was your goal to contact me. Wait, I can do it for you: "because I'm so great that I needed to apologize to you because you are so pathetic and I worry about you and wanted to help by explaining how much you suck". Move on, bud, you are pathetic. Whatever you are looking for, you will never get it. Cut your losses and stop obsessing over me.

> The good old Cauchenator needs somewhere he can release his anger.

And yet you are the one who had the need to talk to me.

> Someone who has even the slightest desire of winning doesn't apologize bubs.

Someone who has even the slightest desire of not looking like an idiot does not pretend that the person he practices an "unsolicited following" over is the one who "cannot let go". Idiots don't always do things that align with their goal.

But, yeah, you know what, if you want to convince me that you did not contact me because I got under your skin in the previous conversation and you are still upset about it, you know what you can do: tell me what is your goal for talking to me.

> If we ever run into each other, that'll be in an interesting discussion. We're not that far from each other.

You would love that, wouldn't you? Obsessing over me much?