cyberdude
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:48 pm
Post subject: Can the following be written better? |
|
|
Hi,
I am going to post something on my class's webpage. Here it comes:
I have two favourite blogs about string theory: <a
href="http://motls.blogspot.com/">Lubos Motl </a>and <a
href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/">Not Even Wrong</a>.
They represent two opposing camps on string theory, and you can feel
the antagonism in their discussions. <strong>Not Even Wrong</strong>
always criticizes that string theory does not predict anything, and is
not testable because the dimension they talk about is as small as the
Planck scale. We would need a huge amount of energy to bombard the
atoms so that strings will emerge at the Plankc scale, if string theory
is really correct. The collider will be as big as the solar system by
some estimation. Another thing that <strong>Not Even Wrong</strong>
speaks against string theory is that the cosmological constant is
measured to be orders of magnitude different from that calculated in
string theory. The camp that favours string theory, members of which
include <strong>Edward Witten</strong>, a Fields medalist, and
<strong>David Gross</strong>, a Nobel prize winner, says string theory
is on the right track as it gives the insight, and useful and important
information about black hole physics.
Are there grammatical errors or can it be written better?
Thanks.
David |
|
Troy Steadman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Can the following be written better? |
|
|
cyberdude wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
I am going to post something on my class's webpage. Here it comes:
I have two favourite blogs about string theory: <a
href="http://motls.blogspot.com/">Lubos Motl </a>and <a
href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/">Not Even Wrong</a>.
They represent two opposing camps on string theory, and you can feel
the antagonism in their discussions. <strong>Not Even Wrong</strong
always criticizes that string theory does not predict anything, and is
not testable because the dimension they talk about is as small as the
Planck scale. We would need a huge amount of energy to bombard the
atoms so that strings will emerge at the Plankc scale, if string theory
is really correct. The collider will be as big as the solar system by
some estimation. Another thing that <strong>Not Even Wrong</strong
speaks against string theory is that the cosmological constant is
measured to be orders of magnitude different from that calculated in
string theory. The camp that favours string theory, members of which
include <strong>Edward Witten</strong>, a Fields medalist, and
strong>David Gross</strong>, a Nobel prize winner, says string theory
is on the right track as it gives the insight, and useful and important
information about black hole physics.
Are there grammatical errors or can it be written better?
Thanks.
David
|
"always criticizes that" is wrong, you have "speaks against" later
which is a bit pompous but at least is good English.
The first thing to do with this is break it down into paragraphs. A
mountain of writing is daunting and people lose track of where they
are. Then talk it through with yourself, make sure you don't run out of
breath in mid-sentence, make sure the rythmm is pleasant.
| Quote: | ...as it gives the insight, and useful and important
information about black hole physics.
|
....lacks rythm and logic. You either need no commas or a pair...
as it gives the insight, and useful and important
information, about black hole physics.
....but you don't have "insight about" you have "insight into"...
as it gives an insight into, and useful and important
information about, black hole physics. |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in