> > >I am working on a science fiction story, and as part of the story I
> > >need some technobabble related to superstrings. The fantasy technology
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
> the fifth dimension.
What Klein doesn't mention about superstrings, of course,
is that every mathematician since Descarte discovered gravity.
Which is really why Gauss told the idgits that
"fools are afield, although idiots group",
And so led to the discovery of set theory and fractals.
> Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
> carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> chan
[cut]
>Louis,
>
>Do you know why Superstrings is so beloved by so many scientists.
Yeah. It's because it's a perfect way for a bunch of grownup nerds to
show off and feel important. It gives them a boner.
>It's because of its sheer elegance.
Sheer elegance your a.s. It's ugly as sin. ahaha...
> It has to do with the Kaluza Klein
>concept. While tickering with Einstein's equations
That's exactly what's wrong with it. Tickering with equations = nerd
crap. No physical foundation.
> in which
>gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
>four-dimensional continuum of spacetime, Kaluza had wondered,
>as mathematicians do, how the equations would look if written
>down to represent five dimensions.
Since spacetime is a fictitious pile of crap (nothing can move in
spacetime), I fail to see how gravity can be explained by the
curvature of something that does not exist. I suggest you go to the
corner meat market and get yourself a couple of neurons to replace the
ones between your ears. The've atrophied for lack of use. ahahaha....
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
> He found that this five-dimensional
>version of General Relativity included gravity, as before, but also
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Electromagnetism seemed to be simply gravity operating in
>the fifth dimension.
f.ck Kaluza and the f.cking mule he was sleeping with! He should have
packed his fifth dimension up his a.s, IMO. That would surely add a
much needed empirical and logical dimension to the theory. ahahaha...
>Superstrings as you know add more forces, fields and their
>carriers and the dimensions are increased from the fifth to
>the eleventh that can accomodate everything.
AFAIC, superstrings theorists might as well be sucking the hind tit of
a f.cking mule.
>Now I'd like to ask you about the Kaluza Klein concept. Can you
>give an argument or explain the tricks involved of how when
>General Relativity is written in 5 dimensions, Maxwells
>Equations come up spontaneously?? This is what drives
>superstrings physicists wild.
Yeah. I know. Nothing gives a nerd a boner like a bunch of math
puzzles.
Kidding aside, you don't create a theory of everything by postulating
vibrating crap at the fundamental level. At the fundamental level, you
first need to explain motion and the composition of your fundamental
crap before you can even begin to talk about vibration. When string
theorists come up with a good explanation for why bodies move, then
I'll listen, although I doubt it. In the meantime they're all a bunch
of crackpots in my book. And you are just an a.s kisser for admiring a
bunch of lonely grownup nerds who need to get a f.cking life and get
laid. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
chantal - 15 Jan 2006 01:58 GMT
> [cut]
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> That's exactly what's wrong with it. Tickering with equations = nerd
> crap. No physical foundation.
But tickering with equations can produce predictions. For example.
Weinberg and company used 1800s mathematics called Group
Theory developed by Sophus Lie to unify electromagnetism and
the weak force. What's impressive is that not only did they predict
the there are Ws and Z particles, they mentioned their masses
as well which a decade later the CERN accelerators were able
to confirm down to the right GeV. So tickering with equations is
not nerd crap. Similarly. Gell-Mann predicted there are 3 quarks
which can explain all the interactions. Then the accelerators
using higher momentum and smaller wavelength probe
peek in the proton and indeed detected there are many pieces inside
the protons as a result of different scattering output (rationale
being that it would produce one output if there is just one
piece inside but it produces more). Then when 3 gluon vertex
shows up. The physicsts jumped with joy. And from that days onwards.
Superstrings Theory which accomodate all of them is born and
the official candidate of TOE.
Of course I didn't say I believe in Superstrings. I mean. Next year
we'll know if the Large Hadron Collider can detect Supersymmetic
particles.. which is a requirement in strings theory. It's just that
Superstrings is built on all the foundations and that's why it's
pretty impressive. You are talking about billions of dollars of
experimental support versus your mere $10 Traveller data (or
bus tickets).
What I'm wondering now is supposed the Higgs are not found.
What to make of the Electroweak Unification. Could it all be some
darn coincidences again like how they detect the Ws and Z which
tally with predictions made a decade earlier? But it's unlikely.
About your statement that you'd only believe in superstrings if
it can explain how objects can move in space. I don't get you
dude. You are a Traveller. You know you move because you
use feet to walk or run. I don't know what you are complaining
but I'd look into your previous messages to see what "model"
you have that you are supporting so strongly and resisting any
that doesn't tally with it.
chan
> > in which
> >gravitational force is explained in terms of the curvature of a
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Autymn D. C. - 16 Jan 2006 14:35 GMT
> Since spacetime is a fictitious pile of crap (nothing can move in
> spacetime), I fail to see how gravity can be explained by the
I already disproved you, retard.
> crap before you can even begin to talk about vibration. When string
> theorists come up with a good explanation for why bodies move, then
> I'll listen, although I doubt it. In the meantime they're all a bunch
Bodies shift (move) because they bode (exist). If they shiftn't, they
boden't. Any body that shiftsn't with its others, is in equilibrium
with them, and as such cannot participate in any happenings.
> of crackpots in my book. And you are just an a.s kisser for admiring a
> bunch of lonely grownup nerds who need to get a f.cking life and get
> laid. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
No one wants your book.
-Aut