17 replies to this topic

[UM-Bot]

Image credit: NASA

Peter Fotis Kapnistos: Recent progress in science predicts there are more than three familiar dimensions of space that we know of. In order for modern quantum string theories to work out, there must exist up to eleven dimensions. But the extra dimensions may be enveloped or "wound up" in areas so small they are microscopic or beyond our detection.

View: Full Article

[badeskov]

Sigh. Don't look into physics much, do you? Don't mind answering, that was a rhetorical question.

What do you mean by this, for instance?

Quote

Recent progress in science predicts there are more than three familiar dimensions of space that we know of.

You are, naturally (given that you write about the subject) aware that string theory was "born" in 1970, correct? And that the 11 dimensions (or M-theory) is some 16 years old or so? Not exactly recent in physics.

Say, how about this one?:

Quote

A dimension is an attribute of an object (or its space). We physically  travel and navigate along the common dimensions of length, width and  height.

While not exactly wrong, you never hear anybody with even a simple understanding of physics say something like that.  

However, this one:

Quote

What might a fifth dimension be? Maybe heat or temperature. Every object in space has a temperature.

Matter has thermal energy (or heat), the temperature is the measurement unit by which you quantify it. By all means or respect, but you have written an essay of fiction littered with fancy words and nothing to stitch them together except some weird references to 11/11/11 and mysticism (spirals).

Uhmmmmm......Good grief.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 21 December 2011 - 02:31 AM.

[ShadowSot]

Quote

Sigh. Don't look into physics much, do you? Don't mind answering, that was a rhetorical question.

Yeah well, it's the 'Bot and Uri Geller. Neither particularly stellar thinkers. One was a successful con artist, however.

Quote

By all means or respect, but you have written an essay of fiction littered with fancy words and nothing to stitch them together except some weird references to 11/11/11 and mysticism (spirals).

It's an article featuring Uri Gellar.
Hell, it's a article featuring a acclaimed "psychic." The main method is throwing scientific techno-babble into it as much as possible.

S'why anytime I hear someone exclaim the evils of electromagnetism I have to figure if it's a Poe or not.

Edited by ShadowSot, 21 December 2011 - 03:18 AM.

[badeskov]

ShadowSot, on 21 December 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

Yeah well, it's the 'Bot and Uri Geller. Neither particularly stellar thinkers. One was a successful con artist, however.

Very true indeed - on all accounts.

Quote

It's an article featuring Uri Gellar.
Hell, it's a article featuring a acclaimed "psychic." The main method is throwing scientific techno-babble into it as much as possible.

Indeed. Seems to be the MO of said author (and quite a few others). It just makes me sad when people can jumble physics up like that; if you have to make something in writing, at least try and get it straight, only then are you in my book allowed to make leaps of faith When you start out by being completely wrong, you are not making a leap of faith, you are throwing yourself over a cliff.

But sadly, I am sure some will gobble it up.

Quote

S'why anytime I hear someone exclaim the evils of electromagnetism I have to figure if it's a Poe or not.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[ShadowSot]

Quote

But sadly, I am sure some will gobble it up.

Yup, imagine how many people would refuse to invest in something that was a quantum leap over it's competitors, if they understood the terminology.

Personally, it's ruined how I watch Star Trek, but hey, stuff gets blown up during the episode, I'm satisfied.

[badeskov]

ShadowSot, on 21 December 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

Yup, imagine how many people would refuse to invest in something that was a quantum leap over it's competitors, if they understood the terminology.

Personally, it's ruined how I watch Star Trek, but hey, stuff gets blown up during the episode, I'm satisfied.

Hahaha, anything with stuff in it that gets blown up works for me

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Xpeople]

Interesting question the articles raising.  Does it discredit spring theory?

[badeskov]

Xpeople, on 01 January 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Interesting question the articles raising.  Does it discredit spring theory?

Not at all. The author simply knows too little about physics to write anything coherent about said subject, let alone discredit anything but himself (which he does pretty thoroughly).

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Xpeople]

badeskov, on 02 January 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Not at all. The author simply knows too little about physics to write anything coherent about said subject, let alone discredit anything but himself (which he does pretty thoroughly).

Cheers,
Badeskov

I have to disagree with you.  The only raise in the article is very basic, what is dimension?  The dimensions that we know of height, width, length, and time all can be measure with am instrument of some kind.  If there are dimensions then you do measure them.  Hwo do you show 11 dimensions in a three dimensions world.

[badeskov]

Xpeople, on 03 January 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I have to disagree with you.  The only raise in the article is very basic, what is dimension?  The dimensions that we know of height, width, length, and time all can be measure with am instrument of some kind.  If there are dimensions then you do measure them.

Indeed so, I have no problem with that so how do you disagree? I basically stated that while not wrong, the nomenclature used is one that anybody well versed in physics would never use. But that is really not the worst part. He doesn't even know the difference between heat and temperature (which is so basic that it hurts my eyes to read), which tells me that the author of this essay has no place to write it in the first place, as it is simply a bunch of fancy words pretty much jumbled by by poor knowledge of the subject at hand.

Quote

Hwo do you show 11 dimensions in a three dimensions world.

You can't. That is pretty much well known. No mystery there, but where does 11/11/11 and Uri Geller fit into this equation? They don't. If you want to raise the question on what constitutes dimension, then he should do so, but that is not what he does. He stitches up a patchwork of pseudoscience and mysticism. That is all that he does. And it has no scientific merit whatsoever. Despite his feeble attempts of putting in some science, which he clearly does not understand in the first place.


Cheers,
Badeskov

[Xpeople]

badeskov, on 03 January 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Indeed so, I have no problem with that so how do you disagree? I basically stated that while not wrong, the nomenclature used is one that anybody well versed in physics would never use. But that is really not the worst part. He doesn't even know the difference between heat and temperature (which is so basic that it hurts my eyes to read), which tells me that the author of this essay has no place to write it in the first place, as it is simply a bunch of fancy words pretty much jumbled by by poor knowledge of the subject at hand.



You can't. That is pretty much well known. No mystery there, but where does 11/11/11 and Uri Geller fit into this equation? They don't. If you want to raise the question on what constitutes dimension, then he should do so, but that is not what he does. He stitches up a patchwork of pseudoscience and mysticism. That is all that he does. And it has no scientific merit whatsoever. Despite his feeble attempts of putting in some science, which he clearly does not understand in the first place.


Cheers,
Badeskov

You have clearly misunderstood his article.   We know what the four dimensions are: length, width, height, and time but the article is asking what the other dimensions are? When he was writing about the fifth dimension, he was speculating that it was maybe heat or temperature.  It does not make sense but neither does 11 dimensions.

[badeskov]

Xpeople, on 04 January 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

You have clearly misunderstood his article.

I wouldn't say that I have misunderstood. I would say that it is beyond comprehension, but maybe you can enlighten given that you must have understood it given that you can state the above.

Quote

We know what the four dimensions are: length, width, height, and time

Yes, I get that. Except that that terminology is not one that anybody with even a mediocre knowledge of physics would use, but let that be for now.

Quote

but the article is asking what the other dimensions are?

I get that too. No biggie there.

Quote

When he was writing about the fifth dimension, he was speculating that it was maybe heat or temperature.

And this is where it completely goes wrong for the poor fellow. To use his terminology, is the first dimension length or meters?  The bolded part is that ignorant of physics. It demonstrates a clear and blatantly lack of understanding of even basic physics.

Quote

It does not make sense but neither does 11 dimensions.

No, heat or temperature doesn't make sense - at all. However, 11 dimensions do if you actually understood the math and physics behind it. Whether correct is a completely different question.

So now, please do explain to me why 11/11/11 has anything with this to do and what Uri Geller is doing in this ridiculous mix. Because I sure don't see any connection but a feeble attempt of trying to tie mysticism into the mix and drum up sensationalism (as usual, I daresay).

I am all ears.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Xpeople]

badeskov, on 04 January 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I wouldn't say that I have misunderstood. I would say that it is beyond comprehension, but maybe you can enlighten given that you must have understood it given that you can state the above.




Yes, I get that. Except that that terminology is not one that anybody with even a mediocre knowledge of physics would use, but let that be for now.




I get that too. No biggie there.




And this is where it completely goes wrong for the poor fellow. To use his terminology, is the first dimension length or meters?  The bolded part is that ignorant of physics. It demonstrates a clear and blatantly lack of understanding of even basic physics.



No, heat or temperature doesn't make sense - at all. However, 11 dimensions do if you actually understood the math and physics behind it. Whether correct is a completely different question.

So now, please do explain to me why 11/11/11 has anything with this to do and what Uri Geller is doing in this ridiculous mix. Because I sure don't see any connection but a feeble attempt of trying to tie mysticism into the mix and drum up sensationalism (as usual, I daresay).

I am all ears.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I do not know wo Uri Gellar an I did not think we was important to the article.  I do not know where 11/11/11 came from.  I am going to assume it is from Uri Gellar.  He only use his name in the title.

How can you believe something exist if you cannot define it.  There is no definition for the 11 dimensions.  No way of definiting them.

[badeskov]

Xpeople, on 05 January 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

I do not know wo Uri Gellar an I did not think we was important to the article.  I do not know where 11/11/11 came from.  I am going to assume it is from Uri Gellar.  He only use his name in the title.

By all means of respect, but if you don't even know ho Uri Geller is and where the 11/11/11 date came from, how can you with any authority tell me that I misunderstood his article, when you don't even understand the main parts of it?

Quote

How can you believe something exist if you cannot define it.  There is no definition for the 11 dimensions.  No way of definiting them.

It is not a question of believing. We want to know, but we don't yet. However, the 11 dimension theory is one that actually fits our observable Universe pretty well. Is it correct? Nobody knows, but we can see that we can derive physical constants from that theory that no other theory can so far.

And it is ridiculous to state that we cannot believe something because we can't define it. First of all, again, we don't want to believe, we want to know to the best of our abilities. Secondly, just because we cannot put 11 dimensions into an explanatory visualization doesn't that we haven't defined them. We have - mathematically. Just like gravity, a 1000 years ago nobody had defined gravity, but it still was there.

The whole article is a sad picture of bungled up physics and mysticism stitched together in something that can at best be called abstract art.

Cheers,
Badeskov  

[Xpeople]

badeskov, on 08 January 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

By all means of respect, but if you don't even know ho Uri Geller is and where the 11/11/11 date came from, how can you with any authority tell me that I misunderstood his article, when you don't even understand the main parts of it?




It is not a question of believing. We want to know, but we don't yet. However, the 11 dimension theory is one that actually fits our observable Universe pretty well. Is it correct? Nobody knows, but we can see that we can derive physical constants from that theory that no other theory can so far.

And it is ridiculous to state that we cannot believe something because we can't define it. First of all, again, we don't want to believe, we want to know to the best of our abilities. Secondly, just because we cannot put 11 dimensions into an explanatory visualization doesn't that we haven't defined them. We have - mathematically. Just like gravity, a 1000 years ago nobody had defined gravity, but it still was there.

The whole article is a sad picture of bungled up physics and mysticism stitched together in something that can at best be called abstract art.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Why do I need to read the whole article?  The first few paragraph were what was important.  He is trying to understand what the 11 dimensions are.  He suggest that it is heat.  He is probably wrong but who can say he is wrong.  We feel the effect of gravity that how we know it exist.  You cannot do use the same idea to understand the 11 dimensions.  You are believing something that you cannot feel, touch or any of the other senses.  So how do you know they existence?  All we have is mathematic.