String Theory's Mathematical Fright of the 4-D Bumble Bee

[Profpat]

Dear Rascal ..... Everything you have posted is just Hype. You are not addressing the theory itself .... its just a piece of negative journalism that does not address the theory but lambasts, as you see it, the perpertrators. Isn't this just the sort of propaganda that you decry in many of your other threads.

Shouldn't you show that at least you have a basic understanding of it first ??

If you don't understand it how can you judge it ??

CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

Thanks for the link Greg

[Profpat]

Dear Greg:
No. I am not going to invest another decade 'learning what String 'theory' is.'

What I already know is that the singular dimension string 'theory' imparts a 'loop' in, contradicts geometric law - there is no dimension for a one dimensional entity to 'curve' into.It could curve into the void, thus turning the void into curved space/time.

Moreover, even allotting it with two dimensions, it still doesn't exist and is therefore unable to effect physical reality. That's it.Who says I believe dark matter and neutrinos to be 2 dimensional entities with a little mass. Additionally the electro/magnetic radiation which is massless is 2 dimensional.

I don't often make predictions, whereas, I predict that 'string theory' is destined to go the way of the - so called - 'New Math', and fall on its little red caboose, along with its industriously employed propaganda machine (and all of its armada of stormy Public Relations investors who are infiltrating high schools and colleges, like military recruiters use to), in due time.

- Kewel Kukumbers,
- RP

Best to you RP

Pat

[RascalPuff]

What I already know is that the singular dimension string 'theory' imparts a 'loop' in, contradicts geometric law - there is no dimension for a one dimensional entity to 'curve' into.
It could curve into the void, thus turning the void into curved space/time.

'Void'?
"There is no space empty of field". - Einstein

Moreover, even allotting it with two dimensions, it still doesn't exist and is therefore unable to effect physical reality. That's it.
Who says I believe dark matter and neutrinos to be 2 dimensional entities with a little mass. Additionally the electro/magnetic radiation which is massless is 2 dimensional.

Dear Prof:
Please refer to post #s 8 & 9. (Perhaps we are talking mangos <strings> and dirigibles <waves> here?)

Best regards to you also, sir,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Dear Greg:
Your response to the commencement of this thread does not acknowledge - at all - that there is in fact a considerable amount of correct and revealing information about string theory.

Have you a difference with this reconsideration, and, if so, how and why do you not acknowledge anything but 'hype'? Which is indeed what I find boiling in the turbulent teapots of the cited school of string theorists; who would oblige everyone to become a V-2 scientist, in order to understand what they're talking about.

I perused Witten's blog. It is not without mathematics.

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

'Void'?
"There is no space empty of field". - Einstein

I agree with Einstein there is no SPACE empty of field. Void is not space, it is nothing. Once a string or anything penetrates the void, the void then becomes space complete with its fields.

[RascalPuff]

'Void'?
"There is no space empty of field". - Einstein

I agree with Einstein there is no SPACE empty of field. Void is not space, it is nothing. Once a string or anything penetrates the void, the void then becomes space complete with its fields.

Is it to be understood that there is a condition of 'nothing'? You understand of course that 'Nature abhors a vacuum'. Correct me if I'm misguided here, sir, while it is my considered understanding that the alleged 'string' at point here 'occurs' in the extreme microcosms, where the accompanying factors of density make it all the more difficult for me to accommodate any idea of an unoccupied volume of space - bereft of field - constituting 'nothing'. Although Locke and Hume were mere philosophers, each (independently) stated: 'Nothing, begets nothing'. You say, 'Once a string or anything penetrates the void, the void then becomes space complete with its fields'. From what source of reference did you acquire this information? I have no doubt that you drew this conclusion from an established authority, I simply wish to know for my own amateur edification.

[Profpat]

That is my idea RP, I wasn't aware that it is a unique philosophy. I think it is rather logical and my An Idea begins with the void.

But there is two RP something (our Universe) and nothing (the Void). Both eternal and defining each other. The universe expands into nothing (the Void). "What is beyond our universe?" Answer nothing, correct (Void).

The void is mathematically defined as a undefined dimension.

Best,

Pat

P.S. I agree with Locke and Hume "nothing begets nothing" The Void begets the Void.
Again nothing didn't beget something, something is eternal and wasn't begotten.

[Graybeard]

I've begotten lost ... ??? ....... rotflmao

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Dear Greg:
Your response to the commencement of this thread does not acknowledge - at all - that there is in fact a considerable amount of correct and revealing information about string theory.

Have you a difference with this reconsideration, and, if so, how and why do you not acknowledge anything but 'hype'? Which is indeed what I find boiling in the turbulent teapots of the cited school of string theorists; who would oblige everyone to become a V-2 scientist, in order to understand what they're talking about.

I perused Witten's blog. It is not without mathematics.

Best regards,
- RP

I have my own ideas on String Theory ... I don't claim to understand it fully ..... However I have made considerable efforts ...... But I am not clear enough to argue about it.

The reason I don't discard it is:

1.. It does answer a lot of the problems that QM and Classic can't. It appears to answer them all.

2.. Its main problem is that it is beyond us to test it experimentally .... This places it in the class of religion ... for that reason only, that it can't be tested .... but any one can see it is not a religion ....

3.. Ed Witten is no fool !! A Long Long way from being one ... I don't know what he perceives with his eyes .... But if and when he changes his mind, thats when I'll change mine.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And everyone rides the 'Merry-go round' until everyone realizes, there's no void... It's field everywhere, to eternal infinity... No logic can entertain eternity without infinity, or your logic is bogus... Science requires no regress, thus requires eternity, which in turn requires infinity__Just the simple logical facts of mathematical logic...

Iff not eternal, then regress. Iff eternal, then infinite__Time/distance demands it to be so...

Einstein's dichotomy__"Field is everywhere..."

There can be no possible void in real space__Non-Einstein, Newtonian Absolute Infinite Space and Eternal Time...

That is my idea RP, I wasn't aware that it is a unique philosophy. I think it is rather logical and my An Idea begins with the void.

But there is two RP something (our Universe) and nothing (the Void). Both eternal and defining each other. The universe expands into nothing (the Void). "What is beyond our universe?" Answer nothing, correct (Void).

The void is mathematically defined as a undefined dimension.

Best,

Pat

P.S. I agree with Locke and Hume "nothing begets nothing" The Void begets the Void.
Again nothing didn't beget something, something is eternal and wasn't begotten.