Theory of Everything - View Single Post

Guille · 06-11-2005, 11:04 PM

SuBvErSiOn,

I am sending a PM to Robert because I went to edit but nothing about this appears.

I started to thread to see the opinions of others. Something I learn since I was small is that I will learn more hearing than speaking in a conversation. Especially in a conversation where I am probably the youngest and probably the rest of the conversationalists have my age multiplied by 2, 3, 4...

Still: I used to be convinced (from reading The Elegant Universe) that string theory was correct, and although not verifyable yet, I believed that what they said was mostly true. This was caused because Greene is very smart and takes the reader by his explanations, etz, and assures you that everything is going very well, that there is agreement of what the theory is, and most importantly, that soon string theory will be verifiable.

All these are wrong and untrue. string, or M-theory (who knows if they allready have another name....like Mring theory (lol)) has not been proven empirically and can't and will be impossible to do that for a several years (the LHC at CERN won't have enough tevs to see particles as strings).

Now, I know about Heim theory, which is provable, proved, more predictiv, more effective, more logical, less inventional, less free.....And what is, I think, and that nobody here can disagree, the most important difference between Heim theory and M-theory, which is, that the creators of the first one, were, although strictly probably more inteligent, much more modest about the limitations of the theory. M-theory is going to see the "CLOSE" singal on the door of scientists' labs, investigation centers, etz... It's just a question of.... TIME.

May the force be with you Sub.

	(#7 (permalink))
Guille The Thinker Status: Offline Posts: 3,278 Thanks Given: 14 Thanked 9x in 9 Posts Join Date: Mar 2005 Rep Power: 47	06-11-2005, 11:04 PM SuBvErSiOn, I am sending a PM to Robert because I went to edit but nothing about this appears. I started to thread to see the opinions of others. Something I learn since I was small is that I will learn more hearing than speaking in a conversation. Especially in a conversation where I am probably the youngest and probably the rest of the conversationalists have my age multiplied by 2, 3, 4... Still: I used to be convinced (from reading The Elegant Universe) that string theory was correct, and although not verifyable yet, I believed that what they said was mostly true. This was caused because Greene is very smart and takes the reader by his explanations, etz, and assures you that everything is going very well, that there is agreement of what the theory is, and most importantly, that soon string theory will be verifiable. All these are wrong and untrue. string, or M-theory (who knows if they allready have another name....like Mring theory (lol)) has not been proven empirically and can't and will be impossible to do that for a several years (the LHC at CERN won't have enough tevs to see particles as strings). Now, I know about Heim theory, which is provable, proved, more predictiv, more effective, more logical, less inventional, less free.....And what is, I think, and that nobody here can disagree, the most important difference between Heim theory and M-theory, which is, that the creators of the first one, were, although strictly probably more inteligent, much more modest about the limitations of the theory. M-theory is going to see the "CLOSE" singal on the door of scientists' labs, investigation centers, etz... It's just a question of.... TIME. May the force be with you Sub.