Will anyone ever accept that the universe is a three dimensional net?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuantumNet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Net Universe
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the assertion that the universe is fundamentally a three-dimensional net, challenging the acceptance of higher dimensions. The author argues that concepts such as spin, sink-source, knots, strings, and ether are misguided, emphasizing that time is merely a consequence of the net's movement. The reference to Minkowskian four-dimensionality indicates a recognition of established theories while rejecting the notion of additional dimensions beyond three.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of three-dimensional space and its properties
  • Familiarity with Minkowski spacetime concepts
  • Basic knowledge of string theory and its implications
  • Awareness of philosophical implications of dimensionality in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Minkowski spacetime in detail
  • Explore the fundamentals of string theory and its dimensional claims
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of dimensionality in physics
  • Study the concept of time as a dimension in various physical theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of dimensionality in the universe.

QuantumNet
Will anyone ever accept that the universe is a threedimensionall net?
That time passing is a consequence of net moving?

Therefor spinn, sink-source, knot, string, ether, relativity and all the other theories you ever came up with.

Foolishness is driving you into believing in more than three dimensions,
and deed deed inside, you know this.

http://www.quantumnet-string.tk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
Actually, inside I am quite comfortable with Minkowskian four dimensionality. Don't assume that because you feel or "know" something is true that others fell or know the same.
 

Thread 'Estimates — True Size of the Universe?'

I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Is the Three-Dimensional Universe Explained by Knot Theory?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Development of dimensional universe since big bang.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Relationship between expanding universe and time
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
8K
Possible non-existence of black holes and its consequences
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Big Bang, big rip, lQc, has anyone ever run a computer simulation?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Universe Expansion: is it really expanding?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Shape, structure, and nature of the universe - questions/theories
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Two separate barycenters of a binary system in a small closed universe?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Seeing the edge of an unbounded, closed universe
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K