JaKiri

You really heavily implied it though, which is by and large the same. Anyway, I vote B5.

More like 34 am i rite

It's not my fault you americans use the words incorrectly, with your stupid major/minor system. Given I have a reasonable knowledge of latin, yes.

Given that we haven't found any extraterrestrial life, you're a bit premature in saying we've done it once, let alone over and over again.

I'd presume 'Astronautical Engineering' would be an engineering course. Forgive me if I'm jumping to unreasonable conclusions.

I've never heard of the conflict between GR and QM coming up in ANY engineering course.

Astronautical Engineering is pretty irrelevent.

I have. Note, however, that a. popscience books do NOT take precedence over proper scientists. b. it overstates it somewhat. However, I do remember that he tended to word it in terms of potential, so you may be misinterpreting somewhat.

You appear to be grossly overestimating the amount M-theory can actually do. It currently can do... pretty much nothing. If it could do everything you said, or even looked likely to, there wouldn't be the controversy in the scientific community over the amount of funding its getting.

No, it's a postulate. It's just referred to as a theory because Pop Science doesn't really go for the proper words. Plus people don't like saying 'postulate' every five minutes. Although strictly speaking, it's not even a postulate given it doesn't predict anything and doesn't explain much that we do know.

I fixed it. It's not a theory, it's a postulate. There is a significant difference, as I explained before. And for someone who has been shown to attempt to make argument on the basis of the definitions of words, you're not doing a very good job at using the right words in your posts.

THIS ISN'T A DIFFICULT IDEA TO UNDERSTAND The cosmological constant may or may not exist. The chance of it existing isn't 1, however, so it's utterly invalid to state it as fact, as you have done. It may be fact, it may not be fact. That is immaterial to this discussion. Please reread my posts and quote me where I said anything about the cosmological constant not existing.

Fixed.

Infinite values are annoying, and quite a lot of effort is spent in their removal. One of an infinite number of possibilities isn't annoying. See the difference?

Nah, it wasn't.

And round we come again. You can't definitely prove it because it ISN'T definitely true. Capiche?

Infinite variations. It's just one of them. A calibi yau space is just a term for some things grouped in a way mathematically devised by Calibi and Yau.

You're stating postulate as fact. Things which can't be tested, or proven, or whatever word you wish to use aren't science.

The 4 main ones, then 7 more. The 7 more are postulated to be as a Calibi-Yau space, which can be explained as follows. Have you heard of flatworld? The thing Einstein used to make a comparison of 4-D space? It involves little 2 dimensional beings on a 2 dimensional surface. Lets take one of these 2 dimensional beings and put it on a thin pipe. In one direction, the pipe is infinite (like our time/distance dimensions). In the other direction however, it's curled up very tightly (if you see what I mean); it's a finite dimension. You can only travel a short way in it before you come back to yourself. This dimension is like the 7 new ones postulated by several of the superstring postulates.