Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2006

> <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> news:1152073626.890445.244790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Bill Hobba wroteth:
> >> "S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> >> news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
> >> > 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").
> >>
> >> So models have no connection to realty?
> >
> > Such an absolute statement! ]
>
> It was a question not a statement.

> >Since you are a person
> > obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
> > categorical still, for your sake:
> >
> > "Some models do have a connection to reality, but
> > not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
> > those models which use so-called "dimensions."
> > Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
> > connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
> > connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
> > is a mention):
>
> Then linear programming and operations
> research are out and those that make
> a living from it selling their expertise are
> fooling themselves and their
> clients.

> And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space
> which has - wonder
> of wonders - an infinite number of dimensions.

> You are obviously ignorant of very basic stuff.

> > Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
> > "conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
> > that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
> > our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
> > having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).
> >
> > "Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
> > artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
> > common confusion that arises when we speak of our
> > reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,
> >
> > HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality,
>
> Your proof that our reality (whatever that is)

> is 3d and, for example, extra
> dimensions are not curled up on a scale
> too small to directly perceive is
> eagerly awaited. Bill

> >? there is no
> > need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
> > to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
> > nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:
> >
> >     There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.
> >
> >     Therefore it's nonsense to try to speak of
> >     anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
> >     even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
> >     dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
> >     the sequence becoming more and more absurd
> >     as it goes on.
> >
> > Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
> > experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
> > the first to grasp the simplest things.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> > http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> > http://music.sdrodrian.com
> > http://mp3.sdrodrian.com