Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived. How
could this be?

Give me the budget, the special effects staff, and the air time, and I'd
have you really glued to the seat, not because of fantastic claims such
as those propounded by those such as string theory crackpots, but
because of the obvious truth of claims of the absolutely ordinary. Truly
"there are physicists, and then there are string theorists."

When people hear the subtle truth it strikes a chord deep within them,
and they think "How could I have lived as long as I have without ever
seeing this, its so obvious? What is it about human nature that causes
us to ignore the bare facts? How could I have believed something that
was so obviously a contrived ad hoc conjecture?" Maybe it was on
account of the same pixies that had the author deluded. The Jonestown
Commune comes to mind. The only impediment to theoretical integrity is
human nature, thus it isn't going to happen, unless of course those with
the correct answers pose as a preachers, spouting lengthy passages of
jargon designed to bemuse rather than to educate, but doing so
authoritatively, flashing plaques and certificates in punctuated
intervals. Er, like I said, it isn't going to happen, true prophets of
wisdom have higher standards:/

Richard Perry

The show gave me no greater understanding of what string theory itself is,
or gave any proof as to why it would be accurate. What it did do was
provoke thought which a few hours later gave me a firm grasp on the
existence of many physical dimensions. In turn, I realize that our attempt
to understand the universe from our 3 dimensional plane of existence is akin
to trying to describe the outside of a box from within.

Question: Given that all of the matter that we know exists in 3 dimensions
(x,y,z and all of the others are at the axis Pn=0), is there any way to
propel matter into say the 4'th dimension. It seems that the only way we
know to apply momentum is through collision, and anything we could use to
collide has no velocity in the 4'th dimension. I keep using the analogy of
the 2 dimensional being... How could such a being apply a z force in an xy
universe?



"Richard" wrote in message
...

Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived. How
could this be?

Give me the budget, the special effects staff, and the air time, and I'd
have you really glued to the seat, not because of fantastic claims such
as those propounded by those such as string theory crackpots, but
because of the obvious truth of claims of the absolutely ordinary. Truly
"there are physicists, and then there are string theorists."

When people hear the subtle truth it strikes a chord deep within them,
and they think "How could I have lived as long as I have without ever
seeing this, its so obvious? What is it about human nature that causes
us to ignore the bare facts? How could I have believed something that
was so obviously a contrived ad hoc conjecture?" Maybe it was on
account of the same pixies that had the author deluded. The Jonestown
Commune comes to mind. The only impediment to theoretical integrity is
human nature, thus it isn't going to happen, unless of course those with
the correct answers pose as a preachers, spouting lengthy passages of
jargon designed to bemuse rather than to educate, but doing so
authoritatively, flashing plaques and certificates in punctuated
intervals. Er, like I said, it isn't going to happen, true prophets of
wisdom have higher standards:/

Richard Perry

SJP wrote:

The show gave me no greater understanding of what string theory itself is,
or gave any proof as to why it would be accurate. What it did do was
provoke thought which a few hours later gave me a firm grasp on the
existence of many physical dimensions. In turn, I realize that our attempt
to understand the universe from our 3 dimensional plane of existence is akin
to trying to describe the outside of a box from within.

Question: Given that all of the matter that we know exists in 3 dimensions
(x,y,z and all of the others are at the axis Pn=0), is there any way to
propel matter into say the 4'th dimension. It seems that the only way we
know to apply momentum is through collision, and anything we could use to
collide has no velocity in the 4'th dimension. I keep using the analogy of
the 2 dimensional being... How could such a being apply a z force in an xy
universe?

The pixies have almost got you. Let me clarify as plainly as I can: The
3 spatial dimensions that you are used to are nothing more than
'abstractions', i.e. they are logic 'tools'. If you need more dimensions
to tool a sculpture then that's fine, just don't argue with me when I've
already finished my piece while you're still digging through your tool
bag for dimension 9. Are you aware that something as seemingly unrelated
as the "color block", can be constructed using the Euclidean formalism
of 3 perpendicular axes, each tint and hue describable using three
coordinates? Check out the advanced video settings on your own computer,
each color is described by three numbers. A dimension in the
relativistic sense is just a differentia, of which for any quanta of
charge there are more than 4, simply because the charge is either
positive or negative to some degree, thus there are at least 5
dimensions required to define the quanta. Add to this the velocity of
the quanta and you now need 9 dimensions to define it, add in the mass
and now you have 10. So, no, it isn't difficult to imaging 10
dimensions, so long as you have a grasp on what a dimension truly is.

Richard Perry





"Richard" wrote in message
...

Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived. How
could this be?

Give me the budget, the special effects staff, and the air time, and I'd
have you really glued to the seat, not because of fantastic claims such
as those propounded by those such as string theory crackpots, but
because of the obvious truth of claims of the absolutely ordinary. Truly
"there are physicists, and then there are string theorists."

When people hear the subtle truth it strikes a chord deep within them,
and they think "How could I have lived as long as I have without ever
seeing this, its so obvious? What is it about human nature that causes
us to ignore the bare facts? How could I have believed something that
was so obviously a contrived ad hoc conjecture?" Maybe it was on
account of the same pixies that had the author deluded. The Jonestown
Commune comes to mind. The only impediment to theoretical integrity is
human nature, thus it isn't going to happen, unless of course those with
the correct answers pose as a preachers, spouting lengthy passages of
jargon designed to bemuse rather than to educate, but doing so
authoritatively, flashing plaques and certificates in punctuated
intervals. Er, like I said, it isn't going to happen, true prophets of
wisdom have higher standards:/

Richard Perry

9, 10, 11 or infinite... There's no limit to spatial dimensions. There's
only what our minds can perceive because we only have velocity in 3 of them.
You're talking about defining different quantities - such as time- as
dimensions in the same coordinate system, which is an acceptable model (but
not what I'm talking about)

Matter tends towards the least amount of dimensions possible. You can see
it in the shape of aging galaxies and in the theoretical 1-dimensional
ending of the universe.

There is a lot of matter that has 4'th and greater dimensional velocity that
we don't see. I believe that we call it dark matter. It yields a
gravitational tug, yet we can't see it. Most matter that we can see
actually oscillates within our 3-dimesnsional plane. We explain this using
quantum mechanics - "It might be there and it might not". I theorize that
high speed particle collisions, such as those we create in our colliders,
catch particles in various phases of 4'th dimensional oscillation and can
send them flying off to what appears to us to be oblivion.




"Richard" wrote in message
...


SJP wrote:

The show gave me no greater understanding of what string theory itself
is,
or gave any proof as to why it would be accurate. What it did do was
provoke thought which a few hours later gave me a firm grasp on the
existence of many physical dimensions. In turn, I realize that our
attempt
to understand the universe from our 3 dimensional plane of existence is
akin
to trying to describe the outside of a box from within.

Question: Given that all of the matter that we know exists in 3
dimensions
(x,y,z and all of the others are at the axis Pn=0), is there any way to
propel matter into say the 4'th dimension. It seems that the only way
we
know to apply momentum is through collision, and anything we could use
to
collide has no velocity in the 4'th dimension. I keep using the analogy
of
the 2 dimensional being... How could such a being apply a z force in an
xy
universe?

The pixies have almost got you. Let me clarify as plainly as I can: The
3 spatial dimensions that you are used to are nothing more than
'abstractions', i.e. they are logic 'tools'. If you need more dimensions
to tool a sculpture then that's fine, just don't argue with me when I've
already finished my piece while you're still digging through your tool
bag for dimension 9. Are you aware that something as seemingly unrelated
as the "color block", can be constructed using the Euclidean formalism
of 3 perpendicular axes, each tint and hue describable using three
coordinates? Check out the advanced video settings on your own computer,
each color is described by three numbers. A dimension in the
relativistic sense is just a differentia, of which for any quanta of
charge there are more than 4, simply because the charge is either
positive or negative to some degree, thus there are at least 5
dimensions required to define the quanta. Add to this the velocity of
the quanta and you now need 9 dimensions to define it, add in the mass
and now you have 10. So, no, it isn't difficult to imaging 10
dimensions, so long as you have a grasp on what a dimension truly is.

Richard Perry





"Richard" wrote in message
...

Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the
following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that
any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived.
How
could this be?

Give me the budget, the special effects staff, and the air time, and
I'd
have you really glued to the seat, not because of fantastic claims
such
as those propounded by those such as string theory crackpots, but
because of the obvious truth of claims of the absolutely ordinary.
Truly
"there are physicists, and then there are string theorists."

When people hear the subtle truth it strikes a chord deep within them,
and they think "How could I have lived as long as I have without ever
seeing this, its so obvious? What is it about human nature that causes
us to ignore the bare facts? How could I have believed something that
was so obviously a contrived ad hoc conjecture?" Maybe it was on
account of the same pixies that had the author deluded. The Jonestown
Commune comes to mind. The only impediment to theoretical integrity is
human nature, thus it isn't going to happen, unless of course those
with
the correct answers pose as a preachers, spouting lengthy passages of
jargon designed to bemuse rather than to educate, but doing so
authoritatively, flashing plaques and certificates in punctuated
intervals. Er, like I said, it isn't going to happen, true prophets of
wisdom have higher standards:/

Richard Perry

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:35:04 GMT, "SJP" wrote:

The show gave me no greater understanding of what string theory itself is,
or gave any proof as to why it would be accurate. What it did do was
provoke thought which a few hours later gave me a firm grasp on the
existence of many physical dimensions. In turn, I realize that our attempt
to understand the universe from our 3 dimensional plane of existence is akin
to trying to describe the outside of a box from within.

Question: Given that all of the matter that we know exists in 3 dimensions
(x,y,z and all of the others are at the axis Pn=0), is there any way to
propel matter into say the 4'th dimension. It seems that the only way we
know to apply momentum is through collision, and anything we could use to
collide has no velocity in the 4'th dimension. I keep using the analogy of
the 2 dimensional being... How could such a being apply a z force in an xy
universe?

Depends on whether that force was vector or bi-vector in nature. If
it were vector, the answer is no. For bi-vector, it would interpreted
as a psuedo-scalar in the strictly two dimensional world and would be
observed.

SJP wrote:

9, 10, 11 or infinite... There's no limit to spatial dimensions. There's
only what our minds can perceive because we only have velocity in 3 of them.
You're talking about defining different quantities - such as time- as
dimensions in the same coordinate system, which is an acceptable model (but
not what I'm talking about)

Matter tends towards the least amount of dimensions possible. You can see
it in the shape of aging galaxies and in the theoretical 1-dimensional
ending of the universe.

There is a lot of matter that has 4'th and greater dimensional velocity that
we don't see. I believe that we call it dark matter. It yields a
gravitational tug, yet we can't see it. Most matter that we can see
actually oscillates within our 3-dimesnsional plane. We explain this using
quantum mechanics - "It might be there and it might not". I theorize that
high speed particle collisions, such as those we create in our colliders,
catch particles in various phases of 4'th dimensional oscillation and can
send them flying off to what appears to us to be oblivion.

LOL. And monkeys might fly out of your ass at any moment. Did it ever
occur to you that 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are just symptoms of
incorrect theory?
A dimension is just a differentia, and there is no difference between
the 6 additional dimensions that I listed and the 3 spatial differentia,
other than semantic interpretation. There is no 'space', there is only
matter/field superposed into what we interpret as space. When you reduce
the dimensions to numbers then semantic delusions dissolve. The entire
universe could theoretically be coded on a computer, in which case the 3
spatial dimensions, though serving identical roles within the
simulation, are just numbers, and differentia, just like the others that
I listed, they will all be simply binary codes combined and related
according to predetermined rules.

It is difficult to remove oneself from the bias provided by everyday
experience, or habit, but it can be done, but not necessarily by
everyone, or so it would seem.

Richard Perry




"Richard" wrote in message
...


SJP wrote:

The show gave me no greater understanding of what string theory itself
is,
or gave any proof as to why it would be accurate. What it did do was
provoke thought which a few hours later gave me a firm grasp on the
existence of many physical dimensions. In turn, I realize that our
attempt
to understand the universe from our 3 dimensional plane of existence is
akin
to trying to describe the outside of a box from within.

Question: Given that all of the matter that we know exists in 3
dimensions
(x,y,z and all of the others are at the axis Pn=0), is there any way to
propel matter into say the 4'th dimension. It seems that the only way
we
know to apply momentum is through collision, and anything we could use
to
collide has no velocity in the 4'th dimension. I keep using the analogy
of
the 2 dimensional being... How could such a being apply a z force in an
xy
universe?

The pixies have almost got you. Let me clarify as plainly as I can: The
3 spatial dimensions that you are used to are nothing more than
'abstractions', i.e. they are logic 'tools'. If you need more dimensions
to tool a sculpture then that's fine, just don't argue with me when I've
already finished my piece while you're still digging through your tool
bag for dimension 9. Are you aware that something as seemingly unrelated
as the "color block", can be constructed using the Euclidean formalism
of 3 perpendicular axes, each tint and hue describable using three
coordinates? Check out the advanced video settings on your own computer,
each color is described by three numbers. A dimension in the
relativistic sense is just a differentia, of which for any quanta of
charge there are more than 4, simply because the charge is either
positive or negative to some degree, thus there are at least 5
dimensions required to define the quanta. Add to this the velocity of
the quanta and you now need 9 dimensions to define it, add in the mass
and now you have 10. So, no, it isn't difficult to imaging 10
dimensions, so long as you have a grasp on what a dimension truly is.

Richard Perry





"Richard" wrote in message
...

Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the
following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that
any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived.
How
could this be?

Give me the budget, the special effects staff, and the air time, and
I'd
have you really glued to the seat, not because of fantastic claims
such
as those propounded by those such as string theory crackpots, but
because of the obvious truth of claims of the absolutely ordinary.
Truly
"there are physicists, and then there are string theorists."

When people hear the subtle truth it strikes a chord deep within them,
and they think "How could I have lived as long as I have without ever
seeing this, its so obvious? What is it about human nature that causes
us to ignore the bare facts? How could I have believed something that
was so obviously a contrived ad hoc conjecture?" Maybe it was on
account of the same pixies that had the author deluded. The Jonestown
Commune comes to mind. The only impediment to theoretical integrity is
human nature, thus it isn't going to happen, unless of course those
with
the correct answers pose as a preachers, spouting lengthy passages of
jargon designed to bemuse rather than to educate, but doing so
authoritatively, flashing plaques and certificates in punctuated
intervals. Er, like I said, it isn't going to happen, true prophets of
wisdom have higher standards:/

Richard Perry

Richard wrote:

Having just watched my videotaped copy of the first installment of the
NOVA miniseries, using the method of best fit I've derived the following
as a new postulate: Physics is not in good hands.

It certainly doesn't have good illustrators. Spikey things on a
resonating ring are forbidden. Each apex is a mathematical
singularity - no slope at the tip, for instance.

I'm even less impressed with string theory than I was after reading
Machio Kaku's crap (you may recall my review). In fact I doubt that any
crackpot theory ever posted here was half as stooopid or contrived. How
could this be?

String theory is mathematically elegant and philosophically apt - it
predicts everything possible or not, it is untestable, and it supports
a vast publishing industry. It isn't science, of course, but you
can't fault perfection for evincing one arbitrary imposed flaw.
Wouldn't you like to be the software house whose products write all
those equations?

The problem as such is different. There is a vast bulk of faculty
committed to string/brane/whatever theory. What do they do when their
phlogiston and epicycles are finally called out? They are certainly
skilled and motivated, but they placed their bets on the wrong horse
like Einstein ignoring quantum theory and still seeking unification.
What do they do (where does grant funding originate) for the next 30
years of their careers?

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!