The universe is, indeed, far more complex than we can grasp, or even, perhaps, ever begin to understand, however, when science is concerned we must
work backwards from observation...
Unfortunately, this closer will not be as elegant as the universe, itself, for I have to re-address issues that I have already, by my argument,
handled above... But, as JB1 seems to want a definitive defeat of all his points, let me indulge him...
String Theory has no direct evidence to support it, but, even if it did, it would NOT support JB1's argument, as it hinges upon the idea that all
things, at an ultra-microscopic level, within the universe, are MADE from curled bits of extra dimensions.. Not that they can GO INTO these
dimensions, particle or not. You see, under String theory, that particle is made from the dimensions JB1 says it is flying into... a transit that is
inherently impossible, as an object cannot be consumed by its parts... no less that a man can be eaten by his own mouth.
You see, even if extra dimensions did exist, the objects that we know of, either airplane or particle, would either already exist within these
dimensions, with us being unaware of them, or they would (as in String theory) be made, at a primordial level, from them, and so could not 'enter'
into the absolute, and constricting, parameters of their realm. So, as dimensions, by either a conservative viewpoint or a theoretical one, are the
constraints from which all matter is percieved and can be manifested in terms of factors of distinction and, perhaps, pure existence, it follows that
they cannot be exclusively transgressed by the objects that they 'measure' and, in the case of String theory, compose.
As for those particle experiments, which, by the way, JB1 has not given us a background or link to learn more about... I will use JB1's own logic to
deflate his idea that they are moving 'between dimensions' (well, he said 'between planes of existence'... But, in our first posts, didn't he,
himself, admit that discussing other planes or worlds of existence that an object could enter and, within which, continue to exist was a silly notion,
without any logical validity), as, if you can remember, JB1 chose to deny the results of tests that disproved String theory by saying that, at the
Quantum level, you couldn't believe your eyes when observing something, and that observation affected results. So, my answer to JB1's challenge is
basically to just say that thos particles may very well have not dissapeared, or they may just have existed in the form of a vague field within which
no material pinpoints can be made (as in an electron shell... keep in mind that an electron is a particle), but they most certainly could not have
'gone into' their own measurements, or, in the string theory world, their own composites!
And, as for JB1's sudden mentioning of 'alternate planes' (you know, the 'alternate realms' he was denying the debate was about, many posts ago),
I see no reason to defeat an argument JB1 has yet to make, yet expects me to respond to. This is not a debate about alternate universes, it is a
debate about about the possibility of dimensional portals. 'Dimensions' and 'universes' are two different things, just as a car's length is
different than the car, itself, or just another place, besides its normal garage, where it can be parked. So, to this end, I will not bother to
debate the idea that alternate universe exist... they may very well, but that has no bearing upon this debate, which hinges, by definition itself, on
whether or not an object acn move into a measurement... whether it is, bizarrely, made from those dimensions or just merely measured by them.
And, to answer point B, specifically, JB1 has specifically NOT addressed whether or not subatomic components can move between 'realities' or
'planes'... If, anything, he pointedly said that he was not making such an argument in his first post to me. In fact, he stated that subatomic
particles could move into DIMENSIONS, not other realities. Again, there is a fundamental error in terms, here, in this new argument. And, even if we
were debating other realities instead of other dimensions, he never once explained, or opined, on how such Inter-Plane movement occured, nor did he
cite the scientific papers and experts who have made such claims. Even his claims of vanishing particles are uncited... and thus uncredible and
unbearing upon this debate.
Now that I have replied to all of JB1's repetitive challenges, let me finally get down to my true closer---
To believe the argument JB1 has made through MOST of this debate, which says that objects can slip into the dimensions that they are measured by (or
composed of, in the misused case of string theory), one would have to reject all logic and the idea that elements of language can, on a consistent
basis, be associated and used for abstract concepts in such a way that allows humans to communicate in any way that involves mutually understood
ideas. You must reject the idea that humans can construct self-aware analects based upon awareness.
Now, Why is that? Because the argument JB1 is using says that the definitions from which an argument must be constructed can be ignored and have, on
their own, no conditions that can be used to formulate complex ideas.
Now, maybe, in the ultimate and revelatory sense, he is right... maybe there can be no abstract meanings... maybe a car can go into its MPH rating, a
man can eat himself, a daughter can conceive her mother, and a particle can go into a dimension (whether 'extra' or not)... But, in such a case,
then JB1 has made an argument based upon non-logical revelation, not upon deductive reasoning, and, as the rules for this debate clearly say that the
victorious argument is the one that is 'reasoned' best, not channelled in the most poetic style, it is self-evident that an argument, such as mine,
which has continously relied upon using definitions to deduce arguments is the stronger one, and the one most deserving of your vote...