Nah, it wasn't.

No, it wasn't.

 

Apparently blank quotes don't get parsed.

 

Fixed.

So in light of the above quote, is the word, idea, concept(whatever) of Infinite[/b'] IS or IS NOT meaningless in Physics?

 

Infinite values are annoying, and quite a lot of effort is spent in their removal.

 

One of an infinite number of possibilities isn't annoying.

 

See the difference?

according to theory, there is only one kind that the dimensions are curled into. they have yet to pick one. calibi-yau shapes have been in mathematics for ages. there are infinite calibi-yau shapes, therefore an infinite number of posibilities. they just haven't picke one yet

according to postulate

 

Fixed.

what do you mean fixed?

what do you mean fixed?

 

I fixed it. It's not a theory, it's a postulate. There is a significant difference, as I explained before.

 

And for someone who has been shown to attempt to make argument on the basis of the definitions of words, you're not doing a very good job at using the right words in your posts.

no, its a theory. it is string THEORY.

no, its a theory. it is string THEORY.

 

No, it's a postulate. It's just referred to as a theory because Pop Science doesn't really go for the proper words. Plus people don't like saying 'postulate' every five minutes.

 

Although strictly speaking, it's not even a postulate given it doesn't predict anything and doesn't explain much that we do know.

how doesn't it explain much? it tells y there r three families of elementary particles. it explains what really happens in particle accelerators. it explains where the properties of said elementary particles come from. it even combines quantum mechanics and relativity.

how doesn't it explain much? it tells y there r three families of elementary particles. it explains what really happens in particle accelerators. it explains where the properties of said elementary particles come from. it even combines quantum mechanics and relativity.

 

You appear to be grossly overestimating the amount M-theory can actually do. It currently can do... pretty much nothing. If it could do everything you said, or even looked likely to, there wouldn't be the controversy in the scientific community over the amount of funding its getting.

read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

 

it tells how it does all of that and more. it even has a history of strin/m-theory.

Uhm, I think that since JaKiri does have a Ph.D in Physics and is an active researcher/teacher, he may not need to read that book, but that's just my wild speculation.

 

Although I need to get it myself.

Appearently he does. If he is a researcher/teacher, then maybe he could talk to Witten or Greene himself.

read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

 

I have.

 

Note, however, that

 

a. popscience books do NOT take precedence over proper scientists.

 

b. it overstates it somewhat.

 

However, I do remember that he tended to word it in terms of potential, so you may be misinterpreting somewhat.

Uhm' date=' I think that since JaKiri does have a Ph.D in Physics and is an active researcher/teacher, he may not need to read that book, but that's just my wild speculation.

 

Although I need to get it myself.[/quote']

 

Woah, don't overestimate me. I've not even started my PhD yet, and the only teaching I do is in mathematics, which is pretty irrelevent.

well, u could talk to them anyway. and by that thinking, I have a bachelor's degree in Astronautical Engineering and I teach Physics and Algebra.

 

try Fabric of The Cosmos, it came out this year

Astronautical Engineering is pretty irrelevent.

Most of the courses for astronautical engineering major are physics, so I'd have to disagree with you there

Most of the courses for astronautical engineering major are physics, so I'd have to disagree with you there

 

I've never heard of the conflict between GR and QM coming up in ANY engineering course.

as you quoted most of the courses aren't engineering, they are physics

as you quoted most of the courses aren't engineering, they are physics

 

I'd presume 'Astronautical Engineering' would be an engineering course. Forgive me if I'm jumping to unreasonable conclusions.

astronautical engineering is the major not a course

 

do you even know what astronautical engineering is? the designing and building of spacecraft. 1 engineering course 6 physics

astronautical engineering is the major not a course

 

It's not my fault you americans use the words incorrectly, with your stupid major/minor system.

 

do you even know what astronautical engineering is?

 

Given I have a reasonable knowledge of latin, yes.

Quite a little battle going on here.

 

I'm going with the best answer, and that is "don't know".

what's wrong with the major/minor system?