Geometry of String Theory and Dark Energy

Originally posted by grimreaper797
You said what exists before and after. You then said "nothing, and it still does". This is untrue.

It's not a matter of truth, it's existence. Nothing existed before, nothing existed after, and nothing exists now.

It does not exist, and it never has. Something exists before and after, you and I just can't figure out what it is yet.

You just said it was some thing. I agree, it was some thing and nothing. Nothing is immeasurable, the universe is immeasurable, therefore the universe is nothing.

Why does something have to exist? Because nothing doesn't exist, therefor it has to be something.

Nothing does exist and if it only didn't you wouldn't know what it was. It exists as an expression so that you may have this pleasant discussion with me about some thingness. This expression exists because the universe is the immeasurable nothingness. Nothing is immeasurable, some thing is measurable. From the immeasurable and interconnected nothingness we measure things. Since 'nothing does not exist', then there is never a space of nothingness to separate any thing, therefore when we measure from the interconnected nothingness, we create the illusional perception of things.

Before and after would not exist then, but they do because before and after are measurements, and measurements exist.

Does and does not. There is no before and there is no after when it comes to the universe, it is immeasurable in space and time, yet we are allowed to make measurements. Making up the infinite is the illusional finite. The measurements only exist because of the choice to measure them, and thus ignoring the eternal interconnectedness of existence. We know it is eternally interconnected because there is not a space of 'nothingness' existing to separate any thing.

You may like to say the future and the past do not exist. That is on your own time to prove. Something that can only be proved with what you refuse to acknowledge as usable.

They do and they do not. We are the eternal experiencing the temporary, and the temporary uncovering the eternal. I do not refuse any thing, not even refusal.

The future is the past unknown, and the past is the future perceived. The future is the past in regress and the past is the future in progress. The present is all of these at once and that is where we always are even when we are thinking about the future and the past.

Every thing that is done in the past will reveal and be cause of what the future brings, every thing that is done in the future will reveal and be cause of what the past was.

The world needed it... and so it needed the world

Nothing is the reason string theory, big bang, M theory, extra dimensions, 1 dimensional, and 2 dimenionsal theories are invalid, ironic, eh?

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

No place to discuss physics

This thread is further proof, if any were needed, that the Science & Technology Forum on ATS is no longer a place where scientifically literate conversations can take place. This is particularly the case when the subject is modern physics.

Any attempt to talk real physics is disrupted by people who skimmed through The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters a few years ago and think they now understand relativity, quantum theory and the rest, when in fact all they have is a mishmash of false analogical mappings from physics into cut-rate epistemology and ontology.

Worse, it's always the same people: the usual suspects.

What a comedown. Luckily, there are lots of other places on the Web where one can go if one wants to discuss physics without the Yahoos butting in.

Poor old ATS.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Any attempt to talk real physics is disrupted by people who skimmed through The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters a few years ago and think they now understand relativity,

I assume you are making reference to me, excuse me if I am miss taken. No, I have never read those books and the comprehension of relativity is relative. If those accusations were aimed towards me then I am to inform you that they are false.

quantum theory and the rest, when in fact all they have is a mishmash of false analogical mappings from physics into cut-rate epistemology and ontology.

If you'd like to discuss then let's discuss. I am essentially discussing the physics of these theories and in no way have I made any false anological mappings. If you want to prove or diss prove a position then do so with out indirect insults on the intellect of others.

What a comedown. Luckily, there are lots of other places on the Web where one can go if one wants to discuss physics without the Yahoos butting in.

Poor old ATS.

You imply to know much and be let down by my ignorance (I suppose you mean me). You are yet to engage in conversation, rather to take cheap shots. I am open for interlocution

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

If the cap fits...

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by Astyanax
Any attempt to talk real physics is disrupted by people who skimmed through The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters a few years ago and think they now understand relativity

I assume you are making reference to me...

Your eagerness to accept the blame for the lamentable condition of the Science & Technology Forum does you some credit.

However, I find I have nothing to say to you on the subject. Or, indeed, on any other subject.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your eagerness to accept the blame for the lamentable condition of the Science & Technology Forum does you some credit.

However, I find I have nothing to say to you on the subject. Or, indeed, on any other subject.

screw it back on the aperture

No eagerness, sir/ma'am, only trying to figure out who you are speaking to since the statement was vaguely generalized.

If there is no substance to infer in to the sharing of knowledge other than unintelligible and deconstructive criticism, then in no way is the scientific&technology forum being helped.

I respect your findings. I suppose we will not be seeing each other around, but in civility and Humanity, cya around and thanks for droppin' by

What is here is the convergence of epistemics, epistemology, mathematics and physics. We must look to the future to know the mysteries of the present, and the future would tell us that every thing is interconnected and to stop separating research.

You will find this type of research and aggregation no where else. On ATS is where the evolution of 'science' will occur and is occuring

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by junglelord
This post is again an attempt to encourage everyone to study Geometry of folded dimensions and String Theory as it is the key to the UFO puzzle.
The following PNU report is a good example that the answers to many field questions and the manipulations of those fields via amplification and technology is always based in geometry.



[edit on 29-5-2007 by Azador]

See above quote^^ I agree with Astyanax this has been hijacked by Lastoutfinblahblah and others when all junglelord was trying to do was get people who might be interested in this area to research and read the relevant material and discuss the topic specifically.I love reading about String Theory and the like but know next to nothing about any kind of physics and advanced maths.But to have people come in and muddy the topic and loose the original purpose of it makes it a waste of time for the OP and the people who might be interested in what he/she has to say.I dont agree or even understand alot of what junglelord posts but i still like reading threads like this but become uninterested when it goes off on a tangent.

It never went off, now it did. We were discussing dimensions and the theories and why they are wrong.

Geometrical shapes that should be looked at for universal communication are tetrahedrons and circles, they are the most basic, simplest, and primitive forms of the universe when it comes to shape. The first enclosed 3d shape consisting of the least amount of lines with points and angles is a tetrahedron. A circle/sphere is also very simple. From these angles we always have an additive digital root sum of 9. Why? 360 degrees. 3+6+0=9. Triangle, 180 degrees. 1+8+0=9. This would be known universally or at least some type of consistency there of to communicate intelligently with when it comes to technology. We could at least have a start here. Why do all enclosed (3d) shapes have an additive digital root sum of 9?

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

unfortunately, this thread has degenerated into much mumbo-jumbo and miscommunication.

i agree with LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal that both 1 and 0 represent UNITY, and that all of existence is derived from that. but to ignore the remaining numbers altogether, particularly in reference to dimension, is just plain nonsense....UNITY may exist, but only in theory. Neo (in the matrix) is a true concept, but he represents a statistical anomaly.

i particularly like where we started at on this thread, and would like to comment on that...

Originally posted by NGC2736
Third, you further estrange yourself from understanding the subject of string theory, and quantum mechanics in general, by insisting that this branch of science is an attempt to reduce everything to a basis of matter. In actualy, this science does almost exactly the opposite.

the above statement contradicts itself. NGC2736 states that "quantum mechanics" does the opposite of reducing everything to a basis of matter. in other words, in his mind, it is an attempt at understanding "fluffy pillow-talk" using mechanical methods. the "fluffy pillow" has been translated to statistical probability, which may be elegant, but is not a satisfactory explanation.

by taking something that happens beyond explanation, "why", and attempting to reduce it to a mechanical process, "how", you are in fact reducing it to a basis of matter. only matter follows mechanical patterns. "quantum mechanics" is an oxy-moron. mechanics tells me "how" but not "why".

i would not like to be discredited as scientifically illiterate, but i would like to suggest that the future of physical science is "quantum fluffy pillow talk", vice "quantum mechanics".

new ideas ARE possible, you know.


dkp

Trying to somehow smooth the difference between relativity and quantum mehanics - I am wondering is this TOE ( theory of everything) bit pushing in a wrong direction.

Can we explain everything from one “master“ theory? Specially trying it to explain through “other“ universes!?

String theory is wildly changing - maybe it does not work? Not to mention that there is no provable experiment what so ever.

Way would string theorist try now to explain dark energy - how come that they miss to find out that expansion of our universe is accelerating ?

Such claims dismay Krauss, a leading expert on cosmic dark matter and dark energy who is popularly known as author of a best-seller, "The Physics of Star Trek." In his book "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions," to be published by Viking in September, Krauss argues that string theorists have produced no satisfactory explanations for anything.......... "has probably been the least successful 'great' idea in physics"

Even so, "it's my impression that more and more physicists are starting to join Krauss as 'skeptical agnostics' about string theory," said mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia............"A theory that can't predict anything is not a scientific theory," Woit says.

"I agree entirely with Larry Krauss," says Nobel Prize-winning physicist Philip Anderson of Princeton University. In academia, "we from outside the (string) field are disturbed by our colleagues' insistence that every new semi-adolescent who has done something in string theory is the greatest genius since Einstein and therefore must occupy yet another tenure track. ... Our sciences are becoming increasingly infected with quasi-theology, a tendency which needs to be openly debated.

EDIIT: “energy“ (not “matter“...just sow this now)

[edit on 29-5-2007 by blue bird]

I never said that one and zero represent unity. One represents unity, that is why it is one. 0 and 9 represent eternity, one represents unity, two represents duality, and from there above represent relativity and relative trichotomy of 3d. Which explains why the term "uni-verse" is actually incorrect and the term "omni-verse" would be more efficient.

I did not make the reference of unity, one, and zero, some one else did.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by blue bird
Way would string theorist try now to explain dark matter - how come that they miss to find out that expansion of our universe is accelerating ?

The universe is not expanding and there is nothing outside of it. Nothing is not something, thus the universe is an immeasurable expanse and not expanding. There can't be other universes because there is no room in existence to allow for it. There is no space of nothingness existing, there is only an eternal expanse, there is only this 'uni-verse'. Einstein and Hawking are messing every thing up.

Before we ever attempt to explain a TOE we have to understand basic logic and definitions of words/concepts.

You will all hate me for a while, but you'll come to find out that what I am saying is more valid than any thing you've ever been presented with

Am I not from this planet...

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

and to get back on topic, using the concept "quantum fluffy pillow talk"....

the only reason that higher numbered dimensions are necessary is because super-luminous communication between particles is a huuuuuge problem for a purely mechanical process. feynman's suggestion of using the aggregate sum of the constant of all multiple dimensions (according to the article), is an attempt at circumventing the evidence of non-local consciousness....but i think we are going too far down the wrong path.

at the constant speed of light, matter (and dark matter), energy (and dark energy), and time (and dark time, or gravity) return to unity. it is from this state of unity that time and dimensional travel are possible. however, in this sense, the word "dimensional" is used not as an excuse for non-locality, but rather as additional planes of existence which are directly linked to our physical reality, directly accessible from our physical reality, run in parallel to our physical reality and, in fact, are at cause to our physical reality.

with this explanation, aliens are probably some form of diety whom exist in tandem with our reality...and UFOs are a method of "descending" from a "higher dimensional plane", super-luminally.

i find that this brings a proper marriage of science to metaphysics. and a possible explanation of the nature of extra-terrestrial intelligence.

it may not be completely satisfying, but i am just flying off the cuff here....i openly admit that i am not as deep into current physical theory as others on the forum...


dkp

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Am I not from this planet...

...and i dont know where you are coming from at all. to tell the truth, i LOVE metaphysics mumbo-jumbo, provided that it makes sense with what i can directly experience and understand.

i do not understand what you are saying at all....and i do not think that it is my fault, i have tried. i think that, if your ideas make sense at all, you are not communicating them very well. and frankly, it is annoying for others of us that are trying to make sense to have to listen to non-sense.

sorry....no more replies to you. either make your talk at our "unenlightened" level, or go away.

That was a very, very good post tdk. Talk about whatever you want to and tie in any thing you desire, never let any one discourage your free thought.

I think the words "higher level of dimension" could be switched to a 'higher level of existential awareness and how it functions'.

When talking physics, to make things intelligible, we should keep dimensions in the geometrical world, and revert to using the term awareness. Extra-terrestrials traveling light years to arrive here are obviously at a higher plane of 'uni-versal' awareness and purposely making it known.

P.s. sorry if I offended you with the "am I from this planet...?" remark.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

The universe is not expanding and there is nothing outside of it. Nothing is not something, thus the universe is an immeasurable expanse and not expanding. There can't be other universes because there is no room in existence to allow for it. There is no space of nothingness existing, there is only an eternal expanse, there is only this 'uni-verse'. Einstein and Hawking are messing every thing up.

What do you mean with “universe in not expanding“?

I mean Edwin Hubble ( before it was LaMatrie came first to that notion of expanding universe....than results obtaind by Slipher) announced this long ago - 1929..... and very important thing in physics is after that called Hubble constant - it is the ratio of distance to redshift and it is 170 km/s for a LY of distance.

Hubble discovery really revolutionized astronomy.

And again ( I am coming again with this ) universe is all there is ..no outside...no expansion in anything in “into“...there is no boundary or center of universe - just the expansion of fabric of universe - spacetime expanding...distances between galaxies are getting bigger...

Originally posted by tgidkp
the only reason that higher numbered dimensions are necessary is because super-luminous communication between particles is a huuuuuge problem for a purely mechanical process.

Yes! tgidkp understands!

To add on to what you said, yes, nonlocality is a problem for scientists, because they have built there ideas off the wrong foundation. I don't want to get too deep on this point, but it is important to highlight it for JungleLord.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
To say there is no spiritual world is denying what is inside you, and to say there is no physical world, well that's denying what is right in front of you.

Simple, but true. You denied ignorance

Originally posted by badw0lf
Nonsense.
What are you saying, that if we 'believe' enough, we can change our physical world ?
Thats a nice thing to believe, but it's a load of bunk.

Yes, we can change the physical world, its not bunk. But it is not just about "believeing".. logically thinking, do you think you would be given the inherrent power to change the physical when you demonstrate such an unmature viewpoint? There is a safeguard to prevent this, and its called awareness. Increase your awareness, thus increase your coherrence with energy, and huzzah!

Any human however, can affect the outcome of random number generator machines, which has been demonstrated time and time again. A married, or a couple, have a greater impact on the machine... ie they have more coherrence.

Originally posted by Azador
I agree with Astyanax this has been hijacked by Lastoutfinblahblah and others when all junglelord was trying to do was get people who might be interested in this area to research and read the relevant material and discuss the topic specifically.

Sorry, but i had to point out the inherrent error with string theory etc. I can't let people lose themselves in an area of research which is going to be proven wrong within the next couple of years. Im trying to save you time!!

I am not trying to mislead you, nor are the other posters who have agreed to some extent with what im saying.

If you want to get yourself back on track, i recommend watching "Thunderbolt of the Gods", a documentary about the "electric universe". It does away with the need for dark matter, dark energy, solves all the problems associated with blackholes, sunspots, comets, neutron stars spinning so fast they should fly apart due to nuclear laws.


Tesla > Einstein.

Theres a reason why he is forgotten from our textbooks. That one man came closer to understanding the workings of reality than Einstein ever did. The Universe is electric, a symphony of vibration, as is everything in reality.

well I have no doubt of the spiritual world, but thanks for highlighting that for me.

I have seen no proof only talk as far as the antistring no extra dimension people

talk is cheap which is where my thread has gone

In fact although still a theory there has been some experimental evidence that Strings are very real.
It involves the surpession of energetic quark jets that should have come from two gold nuclei being collided.
The paper goes on to show there are other test being performed to again prove the existance of Strings

String Theory Explains RHIC Jet Suppression

String theory argues that all matter is composed of string-like shreds in a 10-dimensional hyperspace assembled in various forms. It has won acclaim from many who appreciate the theory's elegant mathematics and ambition to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, and skepticism from others who cite the theory's lack of a practical track record. String theory, the doubters say, makes no testable predictions.

But this isn't exactly true. Indeed, the theory has not yet been experimentally vindicated in the realm of quantum gravity, but has been put into play in the realm of high-energy ion collisions, the kind carried out at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). A few years ago string practitioners attempted to establish a relationship between the 10-dimensional string world and the 4-dimensional (3 spatial dimensions plus time) world in which we observe interactions among quark-filled particles like protons (for background, see Physics Today, May 2005).

This duality between string theory and the theory of the strong nuclear force, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), was recently used to interpret puzzling early results from RHIC, namely the suppression of energetic quark jets that should have emerged from the fireball formed when two heavy nuclei (such as gold) collide head on. The thinking was that perhaps the plasma of quarks and gluons (quarks bursting free from their customary proton and meson groupings) wasn't a gas of weakly interacting particles (as was originally thought) but a gas of strongly interacting particles, so strong that any energetic quarks that might have escaped the fireball (initiating a secondary avalanche, or jet, or quarks) would quickly be slowed and stripped of energy on its way through the tumultuous quark-gluon plasma (QGP) environment.
www.aip.org...

What were you expecting? As i said before, string theory is so mathematically complex that none of us here understand it, so none of us can prove/disprove it... all we can do is talk about why we think it is right/wrong.

The fact that you want a discussion centred around how "right" it is simply shows that you are not prepared to consider another explanation for how reality works. I don't want to call you closed minded, but thats how im seeing it.

Also, working with experiments on the subatomic scale only increases the margin of error. Mainly because we have no real idea how things work down at the fundamental level..afterall, thats what they are trying to figure out!

They are waiting for proof to confirm the theory using CERN etc, but that is the wrong way of going about it. They are trying to find evidence to fit there conclusion, instead of simply observing reality around us. We already have all the data we need, its just that we are looking at the wrong parts of it..

The same can be said about 9/11 truth movement. The evidence is all there, but people have been hypnotized by people like Alex and S.Jones into believeing their theory, instead of observing the evidence for themselves, and coming to their OWN conclusions.