Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty?

Such an absolute statement! ]

It was a question not a statement.

Was it?

Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:

"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use so-called "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):

Then linear programming and operations
research are out and those that make
a living from it selling their expertise are
fooling themselves and their
clients.

If they are using "math shorthand" to expedite
their work they're worth the money. If they are
telling their clients the universe is rules by
supersymmetry or some other such nonsense
then they are thieves... and/or crackers.

And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space
which has - wonder
of wonders - an infinite number of dimensions.

As long as there's an infinite number of them
it's hardly likely to be limited to any number of them
is it! You should really use your noodle, ole boy.

You are obviously ignorant of very basic stuff.

This is true: I've never fried a steak yet that turned out
the way I would have had it turned out!

Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).

"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality,

Your proof that our reality (whatever that is)

I thought you wouldn't know what that is!

is 3d and, for example, extra
dimensions are not curled up on a scale
too small to directly perceive is
eagerly awaited. Bill

I'm going to take your word that you tried
to write a cohesive paragraph there, Bill. Let's see
if I can straighten it out properly: You tried to say
that ... no, it's totally irrational ... maybe your dog
bit you while you were typing it out...

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


? there is no
need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:

There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.

Therefore it's nonsense to try to speak of
anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
the sequence becoming more and more absurd
as it goes on.

Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
the first to grasp the simplest things.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
...
Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty?

Such an absolute statement! ]

It was a question not a statement.

Was it?

Kindergarten English: '?' means question.


Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:

"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use so-called "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):

Then linear programming and operations
research are out and those that make
a living from it selling their expertise are
fooling themselves and their
clients.

If they are using "math shorthand" to expedite
their work they're worth the money. If they are
telling their clients the universe is rules by
supersymmetry or some other such nonsense
then they are thieves... and/or crackers.

If you can't see both are models then - well take up finger-painting -
science is not for you.


And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space
which has - wonder
of wonders - an infinite number of dimensions.

As long as there's an infinite number of them
it's hardly likely to be limited to any number of them
is it! You should really use your noodle, ole boy.

You are obviously ignorant of very basic stuff.

This is true: I've never fried a steak yet that turned out
the way I would have had it turned out!

Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).

"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality,

Your proof that our reality (whatever that is)

I thought you wouldn't know what that is!

Sure - I readily admit it and also believe since those that closely study
what it is (philosphers of a certain persuasion) can not agree on it then it
is obvious you don't either.


is 3d and, for example, extra
dimensions are not curled up on a scale
too small to directly perceive is
eagerly awaited. Bill

I'm going to take your word that you tried
to write a cohesive paragraph there, Bill.

I did. But since you obviously have trouble determining what a '?' means
your comment is no surprise.

Bill

Let's see
if I can straighten it out properly: You tried to say
that ... no, it's totally irrational ... maybe your dog
bit you while you were typing it out...

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


? there is no
need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:

There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.

Therefore it's nonsense to try to speak of
anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
the sequence becoming more and more absurd
as it goes on.

Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
the first to grasp the simplest things.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com