🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Apr 2007 06:23:09 -0700, sdr <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote:

>On Apr 28, 2:47 am, HMSBeagle <jsb...@andromeda.org> wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2007 09:57:05 -0700, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
>> >not only many but growing almost at every step
>> >taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
>> >one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
>> >contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
>> >process in many ways very little different from
>> >that which produces a black hole (only more so).
>> >Which proposal is probably best espoused at:
>>
>> >      http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> The above link eventually has this paragraph:
>>
>> {begin quote}
>> "Since I am not here going to give merely one more
>> description of the visible universe but am actually
>> going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
>> there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
>> interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
>> of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
>> (the mere reduction of manifest observations to
>> exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
>> actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled."
>> {end quote}
>>
>> Can Mr.Rodrian provide specific examples
>> of "usual mathematical obfuscations"?
>> Can he demonstrate how those examples habitually
>> veil "basic knowledge"?
>
>Any child could. I'd be a poor adult if I couldn't!
>And I have done this exercise many, many times:
>
>... In the following example, a most innocuous
>"mathematical obfuscation" (the superstition
>that our reality consists of a specific "number"
>of "dimensions") has driven mathematicians to
>work out complex purely-mathematical systems
>based on that "mathematical obfuscation" which
>have then thwarted what would have been (might
>easily have been) an examination of reality that
>could have/might have then produced the true
>understanding of it (of reality/of the universe).

The idea of extra dimensions from quantum field theory only arrises
secondarily from that theory.  It is not the case that physicists
religiously assumed  that there are more dimensions and that they then
painted themselves into a mathematical corner and are now "driven", as
you say, to work out complex mathematics.

As for the rest of this post, I don't know who is addressing who and
it seems like several posts all appended togethor in a chain.  There
are so many things stated below that are simply factually false or
otherwise bad analogies.  There are too many for me to spend over an
hour picking them apart for you.

Just to point out a falsehood at random --,
The extra dimensions are NOT used to "balance an equation". This is a
fundamental misunderstanding of string theory.  Take for example,
bosonic strings.  Their equations have to be stated in 26 (twenty six)
dimensions.  If you don't use 26 dimensions, you get infinities under
certain conditions or other oddities such as zero divided by zero.
Point being that it's not a matter of "balancing an equation",  rather
it is a matter of having the theory even make sense at all.


>BEGIN QUOTE:
>
>EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> >    sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>
> > Could I be more specific about what I mean?
> > Let's try:
> >             NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
> >            "ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
>
>Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
>dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:
>
>          YOU CAN  NOT  HAVE MORE
>        DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.
>
>Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
>ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.
>
>Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
>mathematics need not have ANY connections with
>anything other than itself (its equations balance
>themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
>of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).
>
> > If one abstracts the least single dimension from
> > ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
> > reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
> > fiction).
>
>This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
>(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).
>
>And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
>assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
>dimension(s).
>
>... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
>possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
>and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
>manifold, however complex, which is not already
>part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
>term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
>merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
>makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
>it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts
>to describe the universe in terms of mathematical
>gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
>high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.
>
>In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
>gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
>in their "equations" while understanding that while it
>may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
>REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
>And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
>"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."
>
>    The trick is not being led to believe that
>   "mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.
>
>If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
>time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
>kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
>must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
>lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.
>
>Trying to advance the process,
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://music.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
>RE:
>
> >  Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
> > "dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
> > "dimension(s)."
> >
> >   PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!
>
>"
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/207d22acd7b50bab/9004a8405b2b8dd7?q=rodrian+%22The+Achilles+Heel+of+String+Theory%22&hl=en&rnum=1&lnk=ol
>
>from "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").
>
>I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
>mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
>the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
>purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
>My objection is when either mathematics or science-
>fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
>reality THAN does reality.
>
>One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
>but that does not remove such a sphere from our
>reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
>("a topological space in which every point has a
>neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
>sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
>dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.
>
>The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
>mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
>being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
>three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
>reality."
>
>It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
>animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
>of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
>proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
>dimensional" painting. The fact is that even theoretically
>it would be hard to conceive of anything being even
>one-dimensional:
>
>Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would
>one even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
>looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
>than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
>to look at it from a little to the side).
>
>  Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
>  Your floating arm is describing an impossible
>  journey through an infinite number of (certainly
>  more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
>  circumference such as the earth's...
>
>And because all it would take would be a very tiny
>"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
>we are talking strictly theoretically here.)
>
>The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
>tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
>Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
>lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
>Length, although I do not know of any objection to
>that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
>Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
>Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
>because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
>any side it would have to look at it from a second,
>third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
>much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
>believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
>drawing... even though we know that no true purely
>two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]
>
>   HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
>   the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
>   graphic is two-dimensional.
>
>And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
>three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
>then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
>dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
>our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
>really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
>(and not even though you be even as clever as a
>checkers-playing computer).
>
>The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
>in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
>changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
>or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
>to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
>through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
>universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
>possible at this point in human history to point to
>anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
>the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
>each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
>sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
>own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
>item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
>at the same time and most of them are all likely to
>stop spinning at the same time, all things being
>equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
>since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
>the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]
>
>  Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
>  created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
>  therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
>  between the objects/items of the universe, neither
>  going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
>  they also being forced to give up the notion of
>  "time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
>  in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
>  to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
>  suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]
>
>This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
>the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
>matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
>reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
>furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
>the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
>(and even death) back to youth!
>
>In any case, our description of time is always quite
>superficial. And we usually limit such a description
>to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
>the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
>conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
>the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
>child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
>overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
>own time" as well, just in some other form than either
>child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
>is still here with us.
>"
>
> > String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
> > part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
> > then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
> > since string theory can only balance its equations
> > by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
> > "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."
>
> > > I am assuming that the possibility exists that
> > > there are more than 3 spatial dimension.
> >
> > And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
> > made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
> > a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
> > reality.
> >
> >  IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
> >  DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
> >  (And if something exists in one or more dimension
> >  than those of our reality... then those so-called
> > other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)
> >
> > String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
> > Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
> > life trying to figure out how string theory governs
> > life!
>
>see:   http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>from "If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It
>         Be Disproved? Yes!"
>
>It's very simple: "If anywhere in your equations
>Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly
>divorced from reality."
>
>Well, the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory
>and Ed Wood's--I mean Ed Witten's supersymmetry
>nonsense--and thereby potentially bestows incalculably
>monumental savings to the physics establishment by
>keeping it from chasing rainbows with no pots of gold)
>... the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory because
>all string theory equations require the utterly embarrassing
>notion of "dimensions" (a truly goofy Abbot &
>Costello confusion which arises innocently enough
>from the innocuous historical tradition of referring
>to our reality as "three" -dimensional).
>
>Follow such time-wasting nonsense to its logical
>conclusion and you're likely to end up lost in a
>Star Trek script world full of time-travel, worm
>holes, and dark matter/dark energy clouds teeming
>with intelligent non-corporeal beings, Mister Spok.
>It's rather all so simple that it pains me to have to
>point it out (and why I had to come up with the Santa
>Claus Law for theoretical physics, in the first place):
>
>In the "real" world there "is" no such a thing as
>"dimensions" of any kind, sort, or flavor (be it the
>eleven dimensions of string theory, or 11,000
>dimensions, or the singularities of legend & lore):
>
>The very idea that the world is somehow restricted to
>three-dimensions is a purely mathematical fiction (a
>mental convenience, mathematical shorthand) which
>SEEING any object with more than six sides instantly
>disproves (if such proof be needed). Hell, if we
>lived in a universe in which only six-sided blocks
>existed I might forgive some "mental deficient"
>believing that such a universe was three-dimensional,
>but purely six-sided blocks are rare natural objects
>(just a few crystals), and therefore I can only look
>with contempt upon those who still cannot separate
>[the mathematical shorthand of calling ours a
>"three-dimensional reality (universe)"] from [the
>"real" universe]. Embarrassing to even be in the same
>species as these theoreticians, for Heaven's sakes.
>
>For purely illustrative and needless additional
>elaboration: Once you assign an arbitrary number (as
>is the "3" dimensions in the infamous historical
>mathematical shorthand) you can use that number in
>calculations/equations/theories to construct all
>sorts of math; but this does not mean that that
>particular number has any reality outside our minds
>(and the purely mental, detached from all reality,
>equations that can live in the brain exclusively
>quite "elegantly"): Our reality should be better
>described as something like "infinitely dimensional,"
>since there is no practical means of limiting the
>number of ways you can slice a sphere. All manifolds,
>of whatever design, are impossible to separate from
>our "spherical reality" and are merely "combinations
>of perverse slices" of the "sphere."
>
>The M�bius strip, for example, is perhaps the
>easiest and most self-evident misinterpretation of
>reality (the suspension of its reality from the rest
>of reality): Take a strip of paper and just before
>gluing its two ends together twist one of the ends,
>now you can run a pencil down one side of the strip
>and discover that without having lifted the pencil
>from that one side... the unbroken line you've drawn
>runs down BOTH sides of the strip: Does this mean
>you've created a piece of paper with only one side
>(something akin to one-dimensionality)? No, of course
>not. Or, more aptly: ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
>
>Another optical illusion is the "two-dimensional"
>film screen. In it you can "see" two-dimensional
>objects "existing." And I have actually heard
>otherwise very respected physicists (apparently the
>modern day equivalents of metaphysicists or your
>everyday lunatics, can't tell which) going on and on
>about the existence of these "two-dimensional
>objects," when describing what we "witness" on film
>screens! But, as all first year art students know,
>the purely merely "optical illusion" we're seeing is
>achieved with different shades/colors and the art of
>perspective: In reality, in the reality in which we
>actually live, there is not even the remotest
>anything related to "two-dimensionality" about
>anything ever "seen" on any movie screen or a
>Renaissance painting.
>
>... The same thing with the silly notion of a
>"singularity" (or, a one-dimensional object), which,
>like all things impossible, are/is "hidden" by their
>magician theorizers by conveniently reducing it/them
>"out of sight" and into a physically impossible small
>size ("absolute" size... something which ought to be
>an instant tip-off for even silly inflation aficionados
>of entire universes growing out of jelly beans and
>other flyspecks) in flagrant violation of all the laws
>of physics.
>
>Therefore: ANY and ALL mathematical models claiming
>a connection with/to reality... which employ ANY
>(always necessarily arbitrary) number [of dimensions?]
>to balance their equations are and ever will be "ultimately"
>divorced from reality (agreeing with reality ONLY when
>forced into it, and only inside the human mind). In
>special relativity, for example, the number "3" is
>restricted to the construction of a three-dimensional
>grid whose purpose extends ONLY to the orientations
>of the required map (which is the principal purpose
>of having devised/assigned the number "3" to the
>"dimensions" of reality in the first place--That is,
>so that such a map could be drawn up). And so:
>
>        S D Rodrian's Santa Claus Law:
>
>    "If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is
>    required: your equations are utterly divorced
>    from reality."
>
>END QUOTE
>
>The examples are endless. From the most basic one
>(above) "that Einstein did not know what Gravity was
>(in reality)" so instead of trying to find out "what it
>was" he produced "a geometrical description of what
>he saw Gravity doing." And from this "mathematical
>obfuscation" to "veil his utter lack of basic knowledge"
>(which has thwarted basic research into exactly WHAT
>Gravity really IS, rather than just what it's "doing")
>we've gotten mired in utter insanities such as "warped
>space" , "worm-holes" , "time-travel" and so many,
>many more it's a wonder we don't all believe Star Trek
>is real---instead of just most of "us"). Every one of which
>"mathematical obfuscation" is and remains one more
>confusion we will have to dispense with before we can
>finally get at "basic knowledge" of still veiled Reality.
>
>The very concept of "time" as something other than
>(more than) just "the timing of one arbitrary motion
>against another arbitrary motion" (the science fiction
>that "the Future" and "the Past" actually "exist") is
>yet another insanity for which we can thank Einstein's
>"mathematical obfuscations" (where it simply used to
>be just a beautiful fantasy in the imagination). The list,
>as I said, is endless. And when we shall bring an end
>to it all is anybody's guess (because the careers/prestiges/
>monies of most of the world's thinkers/physicists/teachers/
>mathematicians are all wrapped up now in the perpetuation
>of nonsense rather than in the pursuit of "basic knowledge").
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>