Recommended Posts

The world is a physcial entity.  The things you mention are possible mathematical models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

is the world a graphic function in 3 dimensional  cordinate system

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

String theory needs 10 or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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.

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

3 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

+and ST have issuse ...

its like ephir theory from 1900

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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''

If that is a quotation, please provide the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i  just googled ST isuses and copy then 

Science at its best! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i  just googled ST isuses and copy then 

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?

1 hour ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i  just googled ST isuses and copy then 

As you are not willing to provide the source, I will just point out that these (largely incomprehensible) comments were made by a consultant at an insurance company. I don't know why we should put any faith in their opinions. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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

Does it? How do we know that? 

1 hour ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

its not dishonest i copy the facts not opinion.

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

1 hour ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i want to develop the subject :  the nature of space dimension. 

Go on then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 .

Edited by mathematicalproiectionofme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

1.yes it does ST is just part of MT that should explain the origin of matter but you cant experementaly prove it 

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

Science works by disproving theories.

13 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

2.i dont care about honor or credit  only information realy maters.

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.)

15 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

3. i think number of spacial dimension is determinated by a formula 

What formula?

16 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i want to know if that formul exist  or NoSD is determined random .

This is the only thing I know of:

500px-Spacetime_dimensionality.svg.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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:

500px-Spacetime_dimensionality.svg.png

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)

Edited by mathematicalproiectionofme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

2.i dont care about honor or credit  only information realy maters.

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.2: Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not. Furthermore, changing what others have written for the purpose of misquotation is equally unacceptable.

 
!

Moderator Note

This was pointed out to you, so you had a chance to avoid the warning point I'm giving you now. We don't copy anyone else's work here without giving a citation for the work THEY did. You should care about ethics, since it guides how information is used (which is what really matters). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

1.yes you can and science works like that

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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

What? 

No, I am just asking you to provide some support for your claim that science can prove things. 

I'll give you a hand. One of the leading philosophers of science(*), Karl Popper, said: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

(*) Note that this is nothing to do with "his diploma", just the fact that he is an expert in the field who spent very many years studying the subject.

3 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

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

It is relevant, because if you don't understand how science works, then how can you evaluate any theories about spacetime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now