[dleviwing]

Hi Profpat;
I too have been accused of such but I usually reply that I performed a flush many years ago; I no longer have an open mind that allows people to perform such dumping into it. Most who have shit-for-brains need to get their head out of their math and view reality.

I still believe that for anything to exist it must have volume (3 dimensional) even if it is less than the Planck length and beyond our ability to measure; this includes illusionary strings. To define motion the additional dimension of time is required. To define and predict the state of any autonomous particle that spins, vibrates, and interacts, as it moves through space requires at least 9 dimensions (measurements). 27 dimensions can describe and predict any state of physical substance currently known; none of which are outside our realm of existence.

F-theory? Have you asked what the “F” stands for.

[Profpat]

Hi David:

I’m not sure what the F in F theory stands for. Maybe Final or Fun or Fart. I’m not sure what the M in M theory stands for either. I don’t get Shit for Brains from math, we accountants leave math for the mathematicians and physicists. We keep to arithmetic, a lot simpler. I get SfB from women. I’m not sure why they have such power over me, but they do. I believe you or I could come up with a TOE and women would still remain a mystery. Maybe that’s good.

I believe anything to have a form in reality needs 3 dimensions, ( i.e. protons, neutrons, the particle aspect of photons, and very likely electrons ), but I still believe they are constructed of 1 and 2 dimensional entities like the strings and quarks.

Another concept of strings that I like is that it could solve the old something from nothing paradox. Something I am able to accept being a theist, but not very scientific.

String theory holds that if the universe gets compacted to the Planck length, out jumps strings. In other words you can’t shrink the universe to something smaller than Plank length. This means we get something from something and further you can’t take something and make it nothing.

Additionally, if you accept a cyclic theory of the universe, which goes from expansion to contraction, you have a model which would state that the universe is eternal and yet created. I know you don’t the something from nothing philosophy and yet there is strong evidence for a “ Big Bang “ or as you put it I believe a big swell. I think this model reconciles both . The universe is viewed as Eternal just not a steady state.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

Best to you,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Pat;
The “head out of their math” statement was not directed to you but to those who believe Lord Kelvin’s philosophy: “Until you can express it mathematically you can’t know what you are talking about”. I have a better one: “Until you can explain it to a 10 year old, you can’t know what you are talking about.”

[Profpat]

I like yours a whole lot better David.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

So Prof, for internal vibrations inside the 3D space, do we require extra dimensions? Isnt the 3 spatial and the 4th Time dimension enough? By the way your explanation of Time as the fourth dimension was very good..

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; I know what you mean by dimensional confusion. I always had problem viewing time as a dimension. The way I look at it is that you have your normal 3 dimensional space of L.W,H. We'll say that this is a cube or a sphere. That is the 3 dimensional space. But you have a dimension outside of that space, namely time which allows for movement. If we didn't have that our sphere would be static, it would just sit there. So we have the space/time continuum, which allows our sphere to become dynamic. You also have dimensions inside that space, the octants which gives our 3 dimensional space 8 internal dimensions. I believe those octants inside our space are vibrating and create color and sound. And so we have space, outer space and inner space, each with there own dimensional reality but all tied together. Best to you, Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

I'm not sure if they are required or not, but I do believe they are there. The standard model has 3 quarks and 8 different gluons vibrating and moving inside the proton/neutron. Instead of 8 different gluons I have 8 different areas, which I identified as dimensions.

I also like the something from something, that string theory allows. I think it will be the basis of reconciling gravity with the electro/magnetic force.

Best to you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Gluons I believe are gravity particles. If you replace Gluons by dimensions, how would it work?

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; I'm not sure if they are required or not, but I do believe they are there. The standard model has 3 quarks and 8 different gluons vibrating and moving inside the proton/neutron. Instead of 8 different gluons I have 8 different areas, which I identified as dimensions. I also like the something from something, that string theory allows. I think it will be the basis of reconciling gravity with the electro/magnetic force. Best to you, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Gluons I believe are gravity particles. If you replace Gluons by dimensions, how would it work?

Hi Dipayankar;

I think you are confusing a graviton with a gluon. The gluon is a theoritical exchange particle which binds the quarks and accounts for color force. They are also used to described the strong nuclear force. I believe the theory states they would be massless or very little mass. The quarks account for the mass of the proton.

I eliminated the need for gluons by binding the quarks directly together by superposing and interweaving them and giving them the color force directly. Also I believe the strong nuclear force is accomplished by the electro/magnetic force.




Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Ooops big mistake mate. Sorry. I agree with you here..

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; I think you are confusing a graviton with a gluon. The gluon is a theoritical exchange particle which binds the quarks and accounts for color force. They are also used to described the strong nuclear force. I believe the theory states they would be massless or very little mass. The quarks account for the mass of the proton. I eliminated the need for gluons by binding the quarks directly together by superposing and interweaving them and giving them the color force directly. Also I believe the strong nuclear force is accomplished by the electro/magnetic force. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Ooops big mistake mate. Sorry. I agree with you here..

Completely understandable Dipayankar. With photons, protons, neutrons, electrons, leptons, bosons, gluons, gravitons, on and on, it's easy at times to get confused. I thought I would post the 1st part of my Idea here. My Idea can be reviewed at post # 40.


Best to you my friend,

Pat