mathematicalproiectionofme

Just now, Phi for All said:

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

good point 

^

every human have their perspective about science it pointless to force someone to accept your perspetive 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Citation needed. Preferably from a reputable authority on the philosophy of science (and not from someone who work in a coffee bar).

so you judge people by their diploma not by their brains.

this topic is about space dimension and their structures not  about pointless talk.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

But, one possible explanation is that "dark energy" (is that what you mean) can be explained by the intrinsic energy of space. That sounds a little bit like what you are trying to say. (There are problems with this, of course.)

In general relativity, space and time are not energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

1.yes that hypothesis is based on gravity carier of interaction,GToR,QM, and i think its key to ToE.

2.i think its only our perspective of view about space time.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't prove ANY scientific theory. That is not how science works.

Science works by disproving theories.

Wow. Most people would apologise after it has been pointed out that they have plagiarised someone else's work and committed the crime of copyright infringement.

(The information value was close to zero. Most of the comments by that insurance clerk were meaningless and not based on anything to do with string theory.)

What formula?

This is the only thing I know of:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

1.yes you can and science works like that

2.-

3.that my question .

4.good example but i wonder how apeard that structure named space-time and how that model influence universe laws? (from image)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space.

The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing?

 

That doesn't fit any scientific theory I am aware of. Do you have any evidence for that?

if my gypothese its right then space itself it black enegry and i dont see any experiment that contradicted that .

can you give example of  some "scientific theory".

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Does it? How do we know that? 

It is dishonest to copy without giving to credit the author.

Go on then.

1.yes it does ST is just part of MT that should explain the origin of matter but you cant experementaly prove it  that the ISSUSES .(+ST is not finished) 

2.i dont care about honor or credit  only information realy maters.
3. i think number of spacial dimension is determinated by a formula  i want to know if that formul exist  or NoSD is determined random .

i think space is a energy form like matter or black holes ,

if black holes are colosal concentration of energy space is oposite.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you are not even pretending to actually understand any of it? Just copying someone else's opinions. And without any credit - that is very dishonest.

Is there any point to this thread staying open? Do you have anything useful to contribute?

i copy them because that quote fits perfectly the ST isuses. 

 its not dishonest i copy the facts not opinion.

and you should not close the topic because i want to develop the subject :  the nature of space dimension. 

On 7/7/2019 at 1:54 AM, Strange said:

If that is a quotation, please provide the source.

i  just googled ST isuses and copy then 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That is not how science works.

Aether theory was rejected because it was contradicted by evidence. String theory will be rejected if it is contradicted by evidence. Until then, it is a useful model.

ST is using to explain nature of fundamental particles and multivers is the uselful as hedgehog in condom factory

''1)The biggest drawback of string theory is that even it cannot specify the exact reason for the bashing of strings or even membranes for that matter.
2)also you cannot test string theory.
3) you cannot explain dark matter or dark energy using string theory
4)When the strings dont intertwine our universe holds good but this gives no space for pocket dimensions like general relativity (electrons go missing while jumping energy levels giving a theory of pocket dimensions), if the pocket dimensions do exist then the universe implodes which doesnt happen.
5) Is reformulated a lot of times based on new theories and concepts and will still be reformulated.
6) a huge fight on the number dimensional elements have been going on between 10 and 11 and still not given a solution''

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not a very good analogy. Because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

The aether theory was disproved by evidence (because science). String theory has not been disproved.

you dont get the point

like AT  ST  explains the world structure very good but dosent have evidence  they are basically the same 

there more way to explain universe but we should base one the way he stud

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

why is it absurd? Can you show errors in the mathematics?

no, but i can give you a analogy 

2+2=1000-996=-8+12=...4

its mathematical corect but not result is important but the way of result.

+and ST have issuse ...

its like ephir theory from 1900

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you want to use GR to model the world, you need 4 dimensions. 

String theory needs 10 or more.

i agree with GR but string theory its a absurd attempt to get ToE

is the world a graphic function in 3 dimensional  cordinate system or a infinite convergent series ?