Searching for a string explanation

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
To call someone a crackpot is an ad hominem especially considering that you don't know the theory I am talking about.

It has nothing to do with your theory. Attacking theories you haven't learned is what earns one the title of crackpot. Note that crank will also suffice. It's like a creationist coming here and claiming evolution is wrong, even though they couldn't tell you what the theory actually is.

I HAVE learned them.

So you've learned these mathematical models without math. Impressive.
But wait. If you understand the conceptual aspect of say GR, without it, why do you ask questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" and make statements like "space is just abstract"? Statements like those show a. you do not understand the physical meaning of the theory and b. you haven't put much thought into it at all.

A little more intellectual honesty on your part would make your posts here more productive.

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Uh huh, they are incompatible with each other. So let's just throw them away and forget about the fact that they have both had a lot of experimental sucess, right?

I made valid criticisms about string theory.

No, you simply displayed that you never bothered to learn basic geometry either. Arguing that there is no such thing as a dimension based on an ignorance of geometry is not a very convincing argument against string theory.

I don't think energy is a substance and I don't think dark matter is one either. It simply demonstrates the incorrectness of the theory.

Yet another ignored falsification.

What theory is falsified here?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It has nothing to do with your theory. Attacking theories you haven't learned is what earns one the title of crackpot. Note that crank will also suffice.

I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks. If you wish to debate the actual content of my posts unstead of making baseless claims and calling me names then I will be glad to discuss it.

Otherwise my posts are simply not for you and just go ahead and ignore them like a civil human being.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks.

And what does that have to do with the post you quoted?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
What's wrong with "Stress-energy warps space"?

It is waaaay too abstract and far from a causal explanation. Can you give an explanation of how mass (or "stress-energy" whateverthatmeans) warps space?

And incidentally, the search for quantum gravity is about unifying gravity with the other three forces.

Obviously, but this cannot be achieved without understanding gravity first.

No less so than observing a cloud or a force.

We have observed clouds directly, but the forces of Physics are abstract as well, but still not as purely quantitative as is a dimension.

No. The point-particle definition was prompted from the fact that a particular property of a wavefunction (average, I think) has many of the properties of the ideal classical point particle (or the ideal relativistic point particle in relativistic QM)

It was an incorrect interpretation of the quantum reaction of a light wave or an electric field to a responding atom.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And what does that have to do with the post you quoted?

you can figure it out

 

[Hurkyl]

Can you give an explanation of how mass (or "stress-energy" whateverthatmeans) warps space?

Nope. So?

I'm sure you're aware that ANY theory (even Sorce theory) has a point where it must say "It just does"... so I'm hard pressed to see why you are trying to imply this is a flaw.

We have observed clouds directly, but the forces of Physics are abstract as well, but still not as purely quantitative as is a dimension.

A cloud is an abstract entity; it's the description of a particular observation. (that there's a collection of water droplets in the sky sufficiently dense to have a grey/white color... and of course one could argue that all of the terms in this definition are abstract as well...)

What makes it okay to believe in clouds but not dimension?

It was an incorrect interpretation of the quantum reaction of a light wave or an electric field to a responding atom.

[?]

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
If you understand the conceptual aspect of say GR, without it, why do you ask questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" and make statements like "space is just abstract"?

Because I am not a believer in such nonsense so I can ask any question I like, even those "banned" by relativity theory.

A correct theory does not have to protect itself from reality.

Statements like those show a. you do not understand the physical meaning of the theory and b. you haven't put much thought into it at all.

Precisely the opposite actually. You are simply demonstrating your ability to believe and how difficult is that?

A little more intellectual honesty on your part would make your posts here more productive.

A little more actual discussion instead of personal attacks would be productive.

You act as if I am making personal attacks against you when I am simply arguing the other side to make for a more balanced debate. Why must you defend your faith through personal attacks instead of dissecting the errors in my logic?

Uh huh, they are incompatible with each other. So let's just throw them away and forget about the fact that they have both had a lot of experimental sucess, right?

Another misunderstanding. I am not saying to throw them away. i am saying that we need a deeper understanding so that we can know in what way they are correct and in what way they are not.

No, you simply displayed that you never bothered to learn basic geometry either. Arguing that there is no such thing as a dimension based on an ignorance of geometry is not a very convincing argument against string theory.

Come on can you actually debate anything or must you resort to blanket statements like this?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Nope. So?

I'm sure you're aware that ANY theory (even Sorce theory) has a point where it must say "It just does"... so I'm hard pressed to see why you are trying to imply this is a flaw.

This is my point. Sorce Theory can explain the root level of causality by fluid-dynamic mechanisms. All forces can be explained as a consequence of a basic fluid-dynamic pressure.

A cloud is an abstract entity; it's the description of a particular observation.

Not so. A cloud is a REAL entity and it is only our description (mathematical or otherwise)that is an abstraction.

What makes it okay to believe in clouds but not dimension?

As a physical entity I am guessing? It's because we can observe a cloud and understand its causality. A dimension is obviously an invention of the mind for the quantification of reality. No one has ever observed a dimension in the wild and there is no evidence that such a thing can exist outside the mind because there is no causal description of a dimension.

In String Thoery the extra dimensions are simply an excuse to add in the needed complexity that must exist at the core level. In Sorce Theory this complexity is derived entirely from the observed and quantified fluid-dynamic nature of fundamental PHYSICAL reality. Sorce Theory invents no hypothetical particles nor does it make any hypothetical assumptions of the physical reality of any mathematical entity. It simply does not need to rest with abstractions.

[?]

The theory is VASTLY different so it's bound to not make sense to you... before you understand the deeper mechanisms involved.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not interested in defending myself against your personal unwarrented and incorrect attacks. If you wish to debate the actual content of my posts unstead of making baseless claims and calling me names then I will be glad to discuss it.

What personal attacks? Your posts here have demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, yet you continue.

Otherwise my posts are simply not for you and just go ahead and ignore them like a civil human being.

I seem to recall that I didn't start this convsersation in this thread, you did.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
What personal attacks? Your posts here have demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, yet you continue.

Yet again you answer your own question... You are getting quite good at this!

I seem to recall that I didn't start this convsersation in this thread, you did.

I made my critique of string theory and you attacked me personally.

 

[Hurkyl]

All forces can be explained as a consequence of a basic fluid-dynamic pressure.

Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure? Describing the universe as a fluid is a pretty abstract idea anyways, don't you think?

The theory is VASTLY different so it's bound to not make sense to you... before you understand the deeper mechanisms involved.

My [?] was because your statement was seemingly unrelated to my comment, and entirely unrelated to the reasons physicists consider point particles.

No one has ever observed a dimension in the wild and there is no evidence that such a thing can exist outside the mind because there is no causal description of a dimension.

Sure we have. We do it every day.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure? Describing the universe as a fluid is a pretty abstract idea anyways, don't you think?

No it is entirely physical.



“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.

“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments ... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in Sorce Theory.]

“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [Sorce Theory fills in these crucial gaps as well.]

“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.

“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.

“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”

“The Big Bang Never Happened” -- Eric J. Lerner

My [?] was because your statement was seemingly unrelated to my comment, and entirely unrelated to the reasons physicists consider point particles.

Right, "seemingly".

Sure we have. We do it every day.

Only if you believe in it first!

You can say "yes space is definitely 3-d! Just look I can measure it this way and that way and...". Then Buckminster Fuller comes along and says that it is, 12 dimensional, and proceeds to show how the isotropic vector matrix is a much more efficient method of the geometrization of space (not to mention Gauss and Reimann etc.. But is space really physically any of these systems? You simply cannot prove that space is dimensional whatsoever. All you can do is invent different dimensioning schemes that make your quantitative reasoning more concrete. This is not a proof, nor is it an observation of a dimension independent of the mind.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you explain why there should be fluid-dynamic pressure?

It is due to the omni-directional turbulent motion of fine-scale fluid matter.

The root level is matter in motion (or abstractly "time and space"). This is the simple axiomatic level of Sorce Theory. If you can further reduce this level then PLEASE by all means do show me how!

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Because I am not a believer in such nonsense so I can ask any question I like, even those "banned" by relativity theory.

The point is that the questions display that you don't have a grasp of the conceptual (or physical) meaning of the theory. But you are claiming you do, even as you make those statements that show otherwise.

Precisely the opposite actually. You are simply demonstrating your ability to believe and how difficult is that?

As I said, it has nothing to do with believing the theories. If you can't even tell what the theory is, you're not in a position to judge whether or not it is true.

A little more actual discussion instead of personal attacks would be productive.

Again, what personal attacks? The only thing I have attacked are you arguments based on cartoon versions of theories. In other words, the fact that you didn't bother to learn a said theory necessarily means you will attempting to show flaws in a misrepresentation of it.

You act as if I am making personal attacks against you when I am simply arguing the other side to make for a more balanced debate. Why must you defend your faith through personal attacks instead of dissecting the errors in my logic?

No, you are making arguments against cartoon versions of theories. It has nothing to do with your logic or theories, only that you insist on attacking certain theories without knowing what they actual are.

Another misunderstanding. I am not saying to throw them away. i am saying that we need a deeper understanding so that we can know in what way they are correct and in what way they are not.

Prior to writing that, I asked you if GR and QM had been falsified, to which you replied:

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Doesn't sound like you're interested in a deeper understanding of these apparently falsified theories.

Come on can you actually debate anything or must you resort to blanket statements like this?

Do you want a basic geometry lesson? We already went over this in the thread about the center of the universe. I explained how space is not a mere abstraction, and how the universe would have no size if it wasn't a real property of things. From there, if you want to say that dimensions aren't real, volumes can't be real either and everything, including you and the computer you're typing on would be zero volume and thus not exist. But hey, we already went over that one.

 

[Hurkyl]

Fluid space is a nonsensical abstraction, it's not physical. You're confusing math with reality.

The only thing worse than someone who blindly follows the pack is someone who blindly departs from it.



And the non-satirical portion:

I don't have to believe in clouds to observe them. All I have to do is know what properties a cloud would have and go looking for occurances of those properties.

The same with 3-dimensional space; I don't have to believe it, I just have to go around and find occurances of things with the properties of 3-dimensional space.

The root level is matter in motion (or abstractly "time and space"). This is the simple axiomatic level of Sorce Theory. If you can further reduce this level then PLEASE by all means do show me how!

That's my point; you can't explain any better... you just pick a different starting point of things to presume initially true. There's no reason to think Sorce Theory gives a better interpretation than anything else.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It's a discussion about string theory, not crackpot ideas. There is a very specific forum for that.

But String Theory IS a crackpot idea! That is my point.

I vote we move all discussions of String Theory to the "crackpot" forum!

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yet again you answer your own question... You are getting quite good at this!

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement about the content of your posts. The act of attacking strawman versions of theories is being criticized here.

I made my critique of string theory and you attacked me personally.

Well I didn't mention your name, and I wasn't talking to you, but you can infer whatever you like.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Fluid space is a nonsensical abstraction, it's not physical. You're confusing math with reality.

Who said anything about "fluid space"? I am talking about physical substance.

The only thing worse than someone who blindly follows the pack is someone who blindly departs from it.

Words are cheap. Care to back that up?

I don't have to believe in clouds to observe them. All I have to do is know what properties a cloud would have and go looking for occurances of those properties.

The same with 3-dimensional space; I don't have to believe it, I just have to go around and find occurances of things with the properties of 3-dimensional space.

Lol. Well there is an multitude of geometrization methodologies. Can your "observations" prove that those are incorrect?

You still cannot prove that space has dimension. All you can prove is that you can apply the idea of dimension to it. Which simply amounts to the measurement of it.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It's not a personal attack, it's a statement about the content of your posts. The act of attacking strawman versions of theories is being criticized here.

You can make loose claims that I am attacking a strawman, but you have never been able to actually deconstruct my reasoning and point out where it goes wrong.

Well I didn't mention your name, and I wasn't talking to you, but you can infer whatever you like.

oh, ok...

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
But String Theory IS a crackpot idea! That is my point.

And my point is that you aren't in a position to be making that judgement! See? We're making progress here.

 

[Hurkyl]

But String Theory IS a crackpot idea! That is my point.

I vote we move all discussions of String Theory to the "crackpot" forum!

String Theorists will admit their theory is incomplete. That's why we have a Theoretical Physics forum.

String Theorists don't make strawman attacks against misunderstandings of mainstream physics and actively seeks testable predictions to empirically verify it. That's why it's not a crackpot theory.

Words are cheap. Care to back that up?

My justification is no worse than yours for calling the rest of us "defenders of the faith".

Lol. Well there is an multitude of geometrization methodologies. Can your "observations" prove that those are incorrect?

One can apply the scientific method to any geometrization methodology.

You still cannot prove that space has dimension. All you can prove is that you can apply the idea of dimension to it. Which simply amounts to the measurement of it.

And how is that different than observing clouds?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
The point is that the questions display that you don't have a grasp of the conceptual (or physical) meaning of the theory. But you are claiming you do, even as you make those statements that show otherwise.

baseless

As I said, it has nothing to do with believing the theories. If you can't even tell what the theory is, you're not in a position to judge whether or not it is true.

baseless

Again, what personal attacks? The only thing I have attacked are you arguments based on cartoon versions of theories.

You have simply said that I don't know what I am talking about. That is a baseless statement of opinion that has no place in a productive debate.

In other words, the fact that you didn't bother to learn a said theory necessarily means you will attempting to show flaws in a misrepresentation of it.

baseless

No, you are making arguments against cartoon versions of theories. It has nothing to do with your logic or theories, only that you insist on attacking certain theories without knowing what they actual are.

BACK IT UP! or give it up!

Prior to writing that, I asked you if GR and QM had been falsified, to which you replied:

Yes by the fact that they are incompatible with each other and with reality itself and that it takes far too many hypothetical dimensions to incorrectly patch them together.

Doesn't sound like you're interested in a deeper understanding of these apparently falsified theories.

I already have a deeper understanding of them than the standard model permits. I don't need to back-track and believe in them so that I ask only the permitted questions.

 

[subtillioN]

That's my point; you can't explain any better... you just pick a different starting point of things to presume initially true.

Yes a starting point from which the unification of ALL the forces naturally follows and everything is causal and visualizable.

There's no reason to think Sorce Theory gives a better interpretation than anything else.

I just gave you the reason.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
You can make loose claims that I am attacking a strawman, but you have never been able to actually deconstruct my reasoning and point out where it goes wrong.

That is too funny. Do you really want me to go into your threads and quote every single time you've misrepresented a theory, or shown that you aren't familiar with it's physical meaning while claiming otherwise? It can be done. Your claim that the Einstein equation was a created to fit the null-results of the M&M experiment is my favorite, but there are others. This shouldn't be necessary, since others have been correcting you in virtually all of those threads.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
And my point is that you aren't in a position to be making that judgement! See? We're making progress here.

Baseless attack. Why don't you debate the points I have already made instead of simply declaring them invalid?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
That is too funny. Do you really want me to go into your threads and quote every single time you've misrepresented a theory, or shown that you aren't familiar with it's physical meaning while claiming otherwise? It can be done. Your claim that the Einstein equation was a created to fit the null-results of the M&M experiment is my favorite, but there are others. This shouldn't be necessary, since others have been correcting you in virtually all of those threads.

more baseless claims

we can debate the points one at a time.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes a starting point from which the unification of ALL the forces naturally follows and everything is causal and visualizable.

(a) You have claimed that the math is the same as in the Standard Model.
(b) You are claiming that all forces are describable by Sorce Theory.

One of these is wrong.


Oh, and what again was the definition of "causal"? Wasn't it something like being derived from premises deemed physical? Sounds circular to me.

I already have a deeper understanding of them than the standard model permits. I don't need to back-track and believe in them so that I ask only the permitted questions.

Incorrect; every advance in scientific knowledge must explain why old, wrong ideas seemed correct.

BACK IT UP! or give it up!

Let's start with 2 easy questions.

(a) Why does Quantum Mechanics consider Hermitian operators?

(b) What are the Einstein field equations?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
One can apply the scientific method to any geometrization methodology.

and so how does that prove that dimension is mind-independent?

And how is that different than observing clouds?

Ever heard of objective reality? We can see clouds in objective reality whereas a dimension must be applied to it by measuring something. BIG difference!

 

[Eh]

So is that a YES? You won't cry foul when I make a list of some of your blatent (and rather embarassing) misrepresentations of physical theories?

 

[Hurkyl]

and so how does that prove that dimension is mind-independent?

How is this relevant to anything?

Ever heard of objective reality? We can see clouds in objective reality whereas a dimension must be applied to it by measuring something. BIG difference!

Sir, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means.