| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes!
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| SDR |
 Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes!
It's very simple: "If anywhere in your equations
Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly
divorced from reality."
Well, the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory
and Ed Wood's, I mean Ed Witten's supersymmetry
nonsense (and thereby potentially bestows incalculably
monumental savings to the physics establishment by
keeping it from chasing rainbows with no pots of gold)
.... the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory because
all string theory equations require the utterly embarrassing
notion of "dimensions" (a truly goofy Abbot &
Costello confusion which arises innocently enough
from the innocuous historical tradition of referring
to our reality as "three-dimensional").
Follow such time-wasting nonsense to its logical
conclusion and you're likely to end up lost in a
Star Trek script world full of time-travel, worm
holes, and dark matter/dark energy clouds teeming
with intelligent non-corporeal beings, Mister Spok.
It's rather all so simple that it pains me to have to
point it out (and why I had to come up with the Santa
Claus Law for theoretical physics, in the first
place):
In the "real" world there "is" no such a thing as
"dimensions" of any kind, sort, or flavor (be it the
eleven dimensions of string theory, or 11,000
dimensions, or the singularities of legend & lore):
The very idea that the world is somehow restricted to
three-dimensions is a purely mathematical fiction (a
mental convenience, mathematical shorthand) which
SEEING any object with more than six sides instantly
disproves (if such proof be needed). Hell, if we
lived in a universe in which only six-sided blocks
existed I might forgive some mental deficient
believing that such a universe was three-dimensional,
but purely six-sided blocks are rare natural objects
(just a few crystals), and therefore I can only look
with contempt upon those who still cannot separate
[the mathematical shorthand of calling ours a
"three-dimensional reality (universe)"] from [the
"real" universe]. Embarrassing to even be in the same
species as these theoreticians, for Heaven's sakes.
For purely illustrative and needless additional
elaboration: Once you assign an arbitrary number (as
is the "3" dimensions in the infamous historical
mathematical shorthand) you can use that number in
calculations/equations/theories to construct all
sorts of math; but this does not mean that that
particular number has any reality outside our minds
(and the purely mental, detached from all reality,
equations that can live in the brain exclusively
quite "elegantly"): Our reality should be better
described as something like "infinitely dimensional,"
since there is no practical means of limiting the
number of ways you can slice a sphere. All manifolds,
of whatever design, are impossible to separate from
our "spherical reality" and are merely "combinations
of perverse slices" of the "sphere."
The morbius strip, for example, is perhaps the
easiest and most self-evident misinterpretation of
reality (the suspension of its reality from the rest
of reality): Take a strip of paper and just before
gluing its two ends together twist one of the ends,
now you can run a pencil down one side of the strip
and discover that without having lifted the pencil
from that one side... the unbroken line you've drawn
runs down BOTH sides of the strip: Does this mean
you've created a piece of paper with only one side
(something akin to one-dimensionality)? No, of course
not. Or, more aptly: ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
Another optical illusion is the "two-dimensional"
film screen. In it you can "see" two-dimensional
objects "existing." And I have actually heard
otherwise very respected physicists (apparently the
modern day equivalents of metaphysicists or your
everyday lunatics, can't tell which) going on and on
about the existence of these "two-dimensional
objects," when describing what we "witness" on film
screens! But, as all first year art students know,
the purely merely "optical illusion" we're seeing is
achieved with different shades/colors and the art of
perspective: In reality, in the reality in which we
actually live, there is not even the remotest
anything related to "two-dimensionality" about
anything ever "seen" on any movie screen or a
Renaissance painting.
The same thing with the silly notion of a
"singularity" (or, a one-dimensional object), which,
like all things impossible, are/is "hidden" by their
magician theorizers by conveniently reducing it/them
"out of sight" and into a physically impossible small
size (absolute size... something which ought to be an
instant tip-off for even silly inflation aficionados
of entire universes growing out of jelly beans and
other flyspecks) in flagrant violation of all the
laws of physics.
Therefore: ANY and ALL mathematical models claiming a
connection with/to reality... which employ ANY
(always necessarily arbitrary) number to balance
their equations are and ever will be "ultimately"
divorced from reality (agreeing with reality ONLY
when forced into it, and only inside the human mind).
In special relativity, for example, the number "3" is
restricted to the construction of a three-dimensional
grid whose purpose extends ONLY to the orientations
of the required map (which is the principal purpose
of having devised/assigned the number "3" to the
"dimensions" of reality in the first place--That is,
so that such a map could be drawn up). And so:
S D Rodrian's Santa Claus Law:
"If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is
required: your equations are utterly divorced from
reality."
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:49 am
|
|