🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29 Apr 2007 07:08:41 -0700, sdr <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote:

>On Apr 29, 7:34 am, HMSBeagle <jsb...@andromeda.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>God, I hope it never crosses your mind
>to unabomb anything.
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah! You really ought to be a researcher! O what
>a marvelous researcher you would be: "There are
>50 ways to get cold fusion, so I won't bother
>explaining all 50 of them..."

Thanks for telling me who was talking to who there.  
Anyways ...


>> 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.
>
>Sir, take it from me: You are mentally unbalanced.
>(Either that, or you just don't realize that getting
>your equation properly balanced is the same as
>not having it turn up queer results [not make sense]
>as you mention above!) Which is really the same...
>So I suggest a good doctor (sir, this means NOT a
>poor one, you understand).


Oh how nice. A newsgroup troll!  Hi, newsgroup troll.


>As for sane folks... and string theory: The rule
>(against it) is self-evidently inviolable (so there
>really is no reason to go beyond here):
>
>     If there is a fundamental particle
>     it requires God to have created it.
>
>In conventional religion the universe itself is
>that fundamental particle, therefore God creates
>the universe (actually, the originators of these
>religions didn't even know about the existence of
>the universe so they have their gods laboring for
>days on planet Earth to the neglect of "the rest
>of the stuff out there"). In string theory it is the
>"strings" themselves which are fundamental...
>and that makes string theory fantasy, not science.
>String theory "science" requires taking the string
>apart. And we're not there yet.
>
>In this arena, science is about the ongoing quest
>to discover what our most fundamental particles
>are made of (how they are put together). And NOT
>(never) about setting any of them up as ultimately
>fundamental. This is why modern physics is said
>to have begun with the idea that it was possible
>to split the atom (the last fundamental particle ever
>proposed by true/real science).

"The atom is the last fundamental particle of ever proposed by
true/real science".  
 You heard it here first, kids.