mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 is the world a graphic function in 3 dimensional cordinate system or a infinite convergent series ?
mathematic Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 The world is a physcial entity. The things you mention are possible mathematical models.
Strange Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 8:39 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: is the world a graphic function in 3 dimensional cordinate system Expand If you want to use GR to model the world, you need 4 dimensions. String theory needs 10 or more.
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 6, 2019 Author Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 9:31 PM, Strange said: If you want to use GR to model the world, you need 4 dimensions. String theory needs 10 or more. Expand i agree with GR but string theory its a absurd attempt to get ToE
Strange Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 9:43 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i agree with GR but string theory its a absurd attempt to get ToE Expand why is it absurd? Can you show errors in the mathematics?
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 6, 2019 Author Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 9:52 PM, Strange said: why is it absurd? Can you show errors in the mathematics? Expand no, but i can give you a analogy 2+2=1000-996=-8+12=...4 its mathematical corect but not result is important but the way of result. +and ST have issuse ... its like ephir theory from 1900
Strange Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:11 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: no, but i can give you a analogy 2+2=1000-996=-8+12=...4 its mathematical corect but not result is important but the way of result. Expand That is not a very good analogy. Because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. On 7/6/2019 at 10:11 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: +and ST have issuse ... its like ephir theory from 1900 Expand The aether theory was disproved by evidence (because science). String theory has not been disproved.
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 6, 2019 Author Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:15 PM, Strange said: That is not a very good analogy. Because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. The aether theory was disproved by evidence (because science). String theory has not been disproved. Expand you dont get the point like AT ST explains the world structure very good but dosent have evidence they are basically the same there more way to explain universe but we should base one the way he stud
Strange Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:25 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: like AT ST explains the world structure very good but dosent have evidence they are basically the same Expand That is not how science works. Aether theory was rejected because it was contradicted by evidence. String theory will be rejected if it is contradicted by evidence. Until then, it is a useful model.
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 6, 2019 Author Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:28 PM, Strange said: That is not how science works. Aether theory was rejected because it was contradicted by evidence. String theory will be rejected if it is contradicted by evidence. Until then, it is a useful model. Expand ST is using to explain nature of fundamental particles and multivers is the uselful as hedgehog in condom factory ''1)The biggest drawback of string theory is that even it cannot specify the exact reason for the bashing of strings or even membranes for that matter.2)also you cannot test string theory.3) you cannot explain dark matter or dark energy using string theory4)When the strings dont intertwine our universe holds good but this gives no space for pocket dimensions like general relativity (electrons go missing while jumping energy levels giving a theory of pocket dimensions), if the pocket dimensions do exist then the universe implodes which doesnt happen.5) Is reformulated a lot of times based on new theories and concepts and will still be reformulated.6) a huge fight on the number dimensional elements have been going on between 10 and 11 and still not given a solution''
Strange Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:39 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: ST is using to explain nature of fundamental particles and multivers is the uselful as hedgehog in condom factory ''1)The biggest drawback of string theory is that even it cannot specify the exact reason for the bashing of strings or even membranes for that matter.2)also you cannot test string theory.3) you cannot explain dark matter or dark energy using string theory4)When the strings dont intertwine our universe holds good but this gives no space for pocket dimensions like general relativity (electrons go missing while jumping energy levels giving a theory of pocket dimensions), if the pocket dimensions do exist then the universe implodes which doesnt happen.5) Is reformulated a lot of times based on new theories and concepts and will still be reformulated.6) a huge fight on the number dimensional elements have been going on between 10 and 11 and still not given a solution'' Expand If that is a quotation, please provide the source.
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 8, 2019 Author Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/6/2019 at 10:54 PM, Strange said: If that is a quotation, please provide the source. Expand i just googled ST isuses and copy then -3
zapatos Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 2:50 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i just googled ST isuses and copy then Expand Science at its best!
Strange Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 2:50 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i just googled ST isuses and copy then Expand So you are not even pretending to actually understand any of it? Just copying someone else's opinions. And without any credit - that is very dishonest. Is there any point to this thread staying open? Do you have anything useful to contribute? On 7/8/2019 at 2:50 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i just googled ST isuses and copy then Expand As you are not willing to provide the source, I will just point out that these (largely incomprehensible) comments were made by a consultant at an insurance company. I don't know why we should put any faith in their opinions. Do you?
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 8, 2019 Author Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 3:25 PM, Strange said: So you are not even pretending to actually understand any of it? Just copying someone else's opinions. And without any credit - that is very dishonest. Is there any point to this thread staying open? Do you have anything useful to contribute? Expand i copy them because that quote fits perfectly the ST isuses. its not dishonest i copy the facts not opinion. and you should not close the topic because i want to develop the subject : the nature of space dimension.
Strange Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 4:15 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i copy them because that quote fits perfectly the ST isuses. Expand Does it? How do we know that? On 7/8/2019 at 4:15 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: its not dishonest i copy the facts not opinion. Expand It is dishonest to copy without giving to credit the author. On 7/8/2019 at 4:15 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i want to develop the subject : the nature of space dimension. Expand Go on then.
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 8, 2019 Author Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) On 7/8/2019 at 4:26 PM, Strange said: Does it? How do we know that? It is dishonest to copy without giving to credit the author. Go on then. Expand 1.yes it does ST is just part of MT that should explain the origin of matter but you cant experementaly prove it that the ISSUSES .(+ST is not finished) 2.i dont care about honor or credit only information realy maters. 3. i think number of spacial dimension is determinated by a formula i want to know if that formul exist or NoSD is determined random . Edited July 8, 2019 by mathematicalproiectionofme
Strange Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: 1.yes it does ST is just part of MT that should explain the origin of matter but you cant experementaly prove it Expand You can't prove ANY scientific theory. That is not how science works. Science works by disproving theories. On 7/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: 2.i dont care about honor or credit only information realy maters. Expand Wow. Most people would apologise after it has been pointed out that they have plagiarised someone else's work and committed the crime of copyright infringement. (The information value was close to zero. Most of the comments by that insurance clerk were meaningless and not based on anything to do with string theory.) On 7/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: 3. i think number of spacial dimension is determinated by a formula Expand What formula? On 7/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: i want to know if that formul exist or NoSD is determined random . Expand This is the only thing I know of: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 8, 2019 Author Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) On 7/8/2019 at 6:40 PM, Strange said: You can't prove ANY scientific theory. That is not how science works. Science works by disproving theories. Wow. Most people would apologise after it has been pointed out that they have plagiarised someone else's work and committed the crime of copyright infringement. (The information value was close to zero. Most of the comments by that insurance clerk were meaningless and not based on anything to do with string theory.) What formula? This is the only thing I know of: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime Expand 1.yes you can and science works like that 2.- 3.that my question . 4.good example but i wonder how apeard that structure named space-time and how that model influence universe laws? (from image) Edited July 8, 2019 by mathematicalproiectionofme
Phi for All Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: 2.i dont care about honor or credit only information realy maters. Expand ! Moderator Note Rule 2.2: Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not. Furthermore, changing what others have written for the purpose of misquotation is equally unacceptable. ! Moderator Note This was pointed out to you, so you had a chance to avoid the warning point I'm giving you now. We don't copy anyone else's work here without giving a citation for the work THEY did. You should care about ethics, since it guides how information is used (which is what really matters).
Strange Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 6:58 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: 1.yes you can and science works like that Expand Citation needed. Preferably from a reputable authority on the philosophy of science (and not from someone who work in a coffee bar).
mathematicalproiectionofme Posted July 8, 2019 Author Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 7:23 PM, Strange said: Citation needed. Preferably from a reputable authority on the philosophy of science (and not from someone who work in a coffee bar). Expand so you judge people by their diploma not by their brains. this topic is about space dimension and their structures not about pointless talk. -3
Strange Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/8/2019 at 7:36 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: so you judge people by their diploma not by their brains. Expand What? No, I am just asking you to provide some support for your claim that science can prove things. I'll give you a hand. One of the leading philosophers of science(*), Karl Popper, said: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html (*) Note that this is nothing to do with "his diploma", just the fact that he is an expert in the field who spent very many years studying the subject. On 7/8/2019 at 7:36 PM, mathematicalproiectionofme said: this topic is about space dimension and their structures not about pointless talk. Expand It is relevant, because if you don't understand how science works, then how can you evaluate any theories about spacetime?
MotleyNoumenon Posted July 8, 2019 Posted July 8, 2019 Shouldn't this be in the Speculation section, i dont see how any of this is about math.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now