Space Forum / Astronomy / April 2007

nightbat wrote

nightbat

        Correct honorary Officer Dirk for the auk coffeeboys pervade
the deepest reaches of usenet and their endless cluelessness is
monumental. Our AA duty is to stowfile protect these wanton silly auk
creatures of lacking mental propensity for their own good. The Big A
wanted a physical based solution to field unification and it cost him
his 1st marriage due to his brilliant mathematicians first wife's
explanation that the solution was in the deduced mathematical infinite
energy invisible sub quantum.

        ponder on,
        the nightbat

Any child could. I'd be a poor adult if I couldn't!
And I have done this exercise many, many times:

... In the following example, a most innocuous
"mathematical obfuscation" (the superstition
that our reality consists of a specific "number"
of "dimensions") has driven mathematicians to
work out complex purely-mathematical systems
based on that "mathematical obfuscation" which
have then thwarted what would have been (might
easily have been) an examination of reality that
could have/might have then produced the true
understanding of it (of reality/of the universe).

BEGIN QUOTE:

EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

         YOU CAN  NOT  HAVE MORE
       DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts
to describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

   The trick is not being led to believe that
  "mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

RE:

"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/207d22acd7b50b
ab/9004a8405b2b8dd7?q=rodrian+%22The+Achilles+Heel+of+String+Theory%22&hl=en&rnu
m=1&lnk=ol

from "The Achilles Heel of String Theory."

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space,"  "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even theoretically
it would be hard to conceive of anything being even
one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would
one even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

 Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
 Your floating arm is describing an impossible
 journey through an infinite number of (certainly
 more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
 circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

  HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
  the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
  graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

 Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
 created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
 therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
 between the objects/items of the universe, neither
 going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
 they also being forced to give up the notion of
 "time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
 in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
 to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
 suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.
"

see:   http://physics.sdrodrian.com

from "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 Möbius 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 [of dimensions?]
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."

END QUOTE

The examples are endless. From the most basic one
(above) "that Einstein did not know what Gravity was
(in reality)" so instead of trying to find out "what it
was" he produced "a geometrical description of what
he saw Gravity doing." And from this "mathematical
obfuscation" to "veil his utter lack of basic knowledge"
(which has thwarted basic research into exactly WHAT
Gravity really IS, rather than just what it's "doing")
we've gotten mired in utter insanities such as "warped
space" , "worm-holes" , "time-travel" and so many,
many more it's a wonder we don't all believe Star Trek
is real---instead of just most of "us"). Every one of which
"mathematical obfuscation" is and remains one more
confusion we will have to dispense with before we can
finally get at "basic knowledge" of still veiled Reality.

The very concept of "time" as something other than
(more than) just "the timing of one arbitrary motion
against another arbitrary motion" (the science fiction
that "the Future" and "the Past" actually "exist") is
yet another insanity for which we can thank Einstein's
"mathematical obfuscations" (where it simply used to
be just a beautiful fantasy in the imagination). The list,
as I said, is endless. And when we shall bring an end
to it all is anybody's guess (because the careers/prestiges/
monies of most of the world's thinkers/physicists/teachers/
mathematicians are all wrapped up now in the perpetuation
of nonsense rather than in the pursuit of "basic knowledge").

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.