What would the universe be like

[Reflector]

Getting beyond the point... it's really about the shape 'm', 'w' and '-'...

 

[Reflector]

'-' could not exist without 'm' and 'w'...

 

[wonderer]

I do appreciate your responses. It seems to me the answers went AROUND the question and didnt answer it...
Could anything be solved passing through space, not just nothing. With no approximations.

In this context NOTHING = LACK OF REACTION.

 

[wonderer]

Getting beyond the point... it's really about the shape 'm', 'w' and '-'...

I'm stupid. What exactly is m,w and -. shape in your terms?

 

[wonderer]

On a silver platter...right?

Picture this...remember the triangle for fire.
ABILITY
SPACE
TIME

TIME IS NOT AN ENTITY OR OBJECT.

Remove any one...the whole is no more...

 

[Reflector]

No, I can't say. I'm just having fun by putting simple childish things which represent my theory which (I think) explains ALOT. If you choose to view them as childish then you are bypassing it... :rofl:

 

[Reflector]

It's just a good way for Reflector to post his subliminal mysterious messages on the internet... That's how I view it. What else am I going to do? I'm just in my room trying to make a cool environment for my self, and I don't have any friends...

 

[Reflector]

Sorry, I got side-tracked. 'M' and 'W' are the same thing viewed from different points of view...

 

[wonderer]

Now that's a little more in the same ballpark.

 

[wonderer]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0102/0102027.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0310/0310188.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307207.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0301/0301116.pdf

 

[Chronos]

Not so. The extra dimensions in string physics come from the need to describe the string consistently, not explaining lower dimensions. And they've had stable numbers for decades: 28 for bosonic strings, 10 for superstrings, 11 for M-theory. With clear, if technical, explanations of why they are different.

Apologies. I can't resist poking fun at string theory. I will take it more seriously once a background independent version is proposed.

 

[Erck]

It does seem that any theory that uses mulitples of the same thing (albeit in different configurations), in this case strings... AND without explaining the "space" in between them... is presumably flawed.

Some seem to forget that it's all about a "singularity."

I got a "hair" theory I'll sell ya... much smaller than strings.

 

[wonderer]

Maybe...just maybe you hit a direct bullseye...

A universe that should be something it...is not ...never was...and never will be.

 

[Erck]

There is no true solidity in the universe... nor does it ever truly disappear.

 

[wonderer]

And I believe the reason for this is that it is continually attempting to achieve something it can never achieve...by design. A simple flaw.

 

[Chronos]

String theory is elegant and attractive. Unfortunately, it makes no testable predictions, to date. That is my main objection.

 

[Erck]

And I believe the reason for this is that it is continually attempting to achieve something it can never achieve...by design. A simple flaw.

It seems like it's comfortable in it's imperfection though. Maybe not so much a flaw but a limit.

Kind of like saying "it's a fun job, I can't be boss, but I can't be fired either."

 

[wonderer]

Guess it could even be expressed as a Lot like "tug of war"...the rope could be a string. I have only read a few lines about string theory and heard about the same.So if it doesn't fit...

 

[wonderer]

but If It Does...