multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Rex wrote:

Fyxe wrote: Are you making the claim they do not exist? Absolutely? Please show evidence to that.

That's not how it works

Actually thats exactly how it works. I have made a claim and I plan to prove that claim through this discussion. On the other hand another has made a claim as well, that it CANNOT exist as I say. That is a claim just as much as mine. So Im asking that it be proven as well. simple logic. Get with it.

Thank you ! this is a very informative class keep up with the lecture professor .sorry for the distractions you're getting!

Not to be offensive to those who don't understand what's going on .
but it reminds me of a story when I was in college Many years ago.
my history professor told me on the 1st day of class I really should drop his class and go take english-as-a-second-language.
So I immediately did Sometimes we just have to take baby steps.

Same thing here ,with people in your class.
I would suggest if some things are too difficult to understand.
it might be better to find
A force as a second language class for beginners.
No offense that way it's not so distracting for the teacher to explain something. And to show a little respect for the time they've put in to the presentation.

Thank you ! this is a very informative class keep up with the lecture professor .sorry for the distractions you're getting!

Not to be offensive to those who don't understand what's going on .
but it reminds me of a story when I was in college Many years ago.
my history professor told me on the 1st day of class I really should drop his class and go take english-as-a-second-language.
So I immediately did Sometimes we just have to take baby steps.

Same thing here ,with people in your class.
I would suggest if some things are too difficult to understand.
it might be better to find
A force as a second language class for beginners.
No offense that way it's not so distracting for the teacher to explain something. And to show a little respect for the time they've put in to the presentation.

Fyxe wrote: GIST:please, name as many as two other areas of physics that work with ten-dimensional spaces.

why? Are we not discussing multi dimensional physics here? The field of study for this physics is string theory. So why are you asking for others?

This is what we call quote-mining, a tactic to misrepresent your interlocutor's comments by deliberately leaving out crucial context, down even as far as to leave out important parts of the sentence being quoted. I did not ask for other areas of physics unconditionally, but I have explained exactly why I did, if the conditions apply. You said that theories of ten dimensions were part of "a lot of" physics, and I have linked to the post where you said that, so you and others can check whether I misunderstood your saying or even misquoted/misrepresented you. I don't know a lot of physics, only a little, and I listed areas I am moderately familiar with for transparency. Of course whether any one field can be rightly called "a lot" is subjective, and I have gone to some length to admit as much and provide the metrics I would use to make that judgement by. I say that a field constitutes "a lot" of physics if it is taught a significant number of hours per capita as a fraction of the academic week, researched a significant number of hours per capita as a fraction of the academic week, or applied for technology development in the private industries with noteworthy produce. String theory meets none of these criteria. If "a lot of" physics by any of these I hope reasonable metrics does incorporate a theory of ten dimensions, it stands to reason, that such theories would be found in other, more prominent areas. In such an event, and only in that case, I asked you to name two. For some reason, you elected to leave out and ignore that context and paint it as though I was diverting away from the topic.

Fyxe wrote: GIST:Name the observation the structure hypothesis is supposed to account for, and then to show that it is indeed evidence.

the observation that there is more to the universe than meets the eye?

If memory serves, I specified criteria for what I count as an observation in this context, under steps 1 and 2 of the procedure I proposed. It has to be

1. (verifiably) made at all,
2. intersubjectively verifiable in content,
3. unaccounted for by other models, and
4. accounted for by yours.

The observation "that there is more to the universe than meets the eye" is so vague that it fails to meet criterion #2 and is therefore not admissible as evidence.


Because this may become relevant later, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out again, how Fyxe is quote-mining my post, even changing punctuation (and capitalization) in a non-corrective manner. The term "evidence" at the end of the quote is followed by a comma in the original passage of my post #348643, not a full stop, after which I elaborate what sort of observation I would count as such. Without this context it would sound like I am ignorant of possible things that could be said in response to my query, and I can be painted as closed-minded, dogmatic, or dishonest for refusing to accept items submitted to me. In fact, however, I went through some effort declaring my standards ahead of time in brief, but not uncertain terms, and I am now adhering to them and referencing them as the reason for any rejection I may do against items submitted as evidence of the submittor's model.

The mathematics that cant account for the reason the universe is not only expanding but accelerating. The observation that there is not enough obvious mass in the galaxies to actually hold them together like they do. All this you label with a nebulous term dark energy and dark matter. But you dont know anything about it. It's just your convenient placeholder for a thing you refuse to believe might exist.

The terms are as "nebulous" as the term Big Bang is "mocking". If this is a discussion about physics, then to physics we should stick. If it is to be scientific, then let's make it so, too. How you feel about label choices is irrelevant. Fact is, constructing a mathematical account for data gathered already is cheap. So cheap, that computers do it within milliseconds for polynomials and seconds for more complex functions. If you have a decade old office computer and a few hours on your hand, you can run simulations even to fit parameters in equations for which you do not even have full solutions at all. It's not about having some mathematical expression that fits the data, it's about deriving it from first principles from whence a vast array of phenomena can be accounted for. It's about making non-trivial predictions. That's why dark energy and dark matter are - contrary to what your special revelation contained - not mere placeholder terms.

Dark matter is a prediction of general relativity. GTR is a theory that accounts for a vast array of observable phenomena. We can always assume that it has limited scope beyond which it is wrong, but that is putting the cart before the horse, and we learn nothing from assuming that. Incidentally, "Theory X is generally inaccurate" is not a falsifiable claim to begin with. Instead we assume that GTR is correct, and if it is, then judging by the movement of the visible bodies in the galaxy there must be some further space-time curvature sources of a specific predicted magnitude that are to our electromagnetic sensors indistinguishable from background noise.

Dark energy is an extension of general relativity. Einstein assumed that the relevant term would be zero for aesthetic reasons, but the most general form of his field equations do contain it. This free parameter can of course be varied so as to fit the accelerating expansion, but mathematical fits are cheap. The question why it would have that specific value would not be answered by simply computing it. Instead it must be consistent or even derivable from other principles. Alas, quantum theories predict a wrong value, so their current postulates are insufficient to fully account for dark energy.

To paint it as if these were wild guesses that fail to fit observation or are mathematically unsound is just wrong. Do we know what dark energy and dark matter "are"? Well, no, but the same can be said of literally anything else. If ontology was a settled issue, half the world's philosophers would be out of a job. Scientific questions are about predictions and expectations, about what meets the eye, not what doesn't; about what things do and how they work, not about what they are.

I recommend at any rate, that next time before you consider commenting on the state of understanding about a hypothetical entity or one that has less than a full theoretical account, you take the patience to read up on it, at least superficially. It may help avoid making such laughable statements as that there is trouble accounting mathematically for the accelerating expansion. I am assuming, of course, that you want to avoid saying such things, because it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about and for most people that's an undesirable look.

Fyxe wrote:

Rex wrote:

Fyxe wrote: Are you making the claim they do not exist? Absolutely? Please show evidence to that.

That's not how it works

Actually thats exactly how it works. I have made a claim and I plan to prove that claim through this discussion. On the other hand another has made a claim as well, that it CANNOT exist as I say. That is a claim just as much as mine. So Im asking that it be proven as well. simple logic. Get with it.

Actually, that's a lie. Nobody made the claim that Santa Clause doesn't, much less cannot exist. The only thing OB1 said was that he was confident you made it all up. He didn't say it was wrong, so he has no burden to prove it wrong. Ganner then expressed just that: That it needn't be wrong just for being made up. To this, OB1 made the implicit point that something is not automatically believable just for not being proven wrong yet. We don't believe in Santa, even if we fail to prove his non-existence. If we had to, then we'd have to also believe in the non-existence of Santa based on the fact that his existence is also unproven, and thus believe two contradictory things. Instead, we don't believe either of them, until either belief has been warranted. That's what Rex meant. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right" is not how it works. That's called an argument from ignorance fallacy. And not buying what you are selling is likewise not a sale in its own right. But you've had this lecture so many times by now, so this is clearly not about you not knowing any better, this must rather be purposeful rejection of basic rational discourse manners and rules of inference...

Very good reply my friend Gist. Im not here to put words in your mouth so maybe you could take a few out before you ask another question. all the verboseness may not be necessary. be suscinct and remember that I am not a rocket scientist, duh! prolly you are not either so I dont see the need for all the weirdness. Im not trying to prove string theory or whatever, just presenting my theory and why I see it as viable.

as for 10 dimensional physics I present this article

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

so in essense anyone that lives and exists in time and creates any science theory is concerned with the 10 dimensions in one way or another. so I say EVERY party of sceince you can name.


As for the energy and matter in the universe.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

from nasa who says over 70 percent of the universe is made up of stuff we cant measure or explore or know what it is. sounds like about the worlds above this one doesnt it. so all the sceintists have this idea of how the univese works and then they figure out it does not owrk that way at all. they cant make it all fit together so they "makeup" a fancy term and pretend they know what it is and call it "dark"! ohhh scary! but what is it? well obviously my theory is its the other worlds that are interacting with our subjective reflection of reality.

I setup a design based on observation and keep in mind that observation is not knowledge, its only awareness of something. the knowlege about it comes later and so in the case of my theory the knoweldge is comi9ng through experiementation iwth these other worlds and the beings that inhabit them.

Maybe I will prove it right and maybe not. I dont know but I do know that something is there. what is to be discovered will be amazing either way. just because you think you know what is there does not make you an expert gist. All you can say is its dark.. right? well yea, so is my closet. Maybe its made of dark matter too,.. LOL

I thought Gameboy's Final Fantasy Legend II made a good case for the Pillar of Sky leading to the Celestial World which connects to all other worlds.

Of course, I have yet to collect any Magi, so I have been unable to journey off-world. I am confident I am right, of course, and no one has proven otherwise just yet.

Manu wrote: I thought Gameboy's Final Fantasy Legend II made a good case for the Pillar of Sky leading to the Celestial World which connects to all other worlds.

Of course, I have yet to collect any Magi, so I have been unable to journey off-world. I am confident I am right, of course, and no one has proven otherwise just yet.

Before you do that you will have to prove you exist.

Please present your case...

Fyxe wrote: Very good reply my friend Gist. Im not here to put words in your mouth so maybe you could take a few out before you ask another question.

Well, if you made some effort to avoid contradicting yourself less than most of the time, or lying about things said in the past or positions held, or dodging every attempt at civil discourse, maybe I wouldn't have to run my mouth quite so much...

all the verboseness may not be necessary. be suscinct and remember that I am not a rocket scientist, duh! prolly you are not either so I dont see the need for all the weirdness.

You were the one who brought up that physics was consistent with your world view. All I did was ask to elaborate enough times for you to notice, so here we are now. If all the science-y stuff is too cumbersome for you, too bad.

Im not trying to prove string theory or whatever, just presenting my theory and why I see it as viable.

You stated it, re-stated it, grossly modified, pretended like it wasn't changed, but the only justification you ever presented for believing any of it was some spiritual revelation. And for that much I am grateful. Now at least we all understand that your belief in it is not rooted in evidentiary support. But as long as you keep claiming that there is any, expect people to ask to see it.

as for 10 dimensional physics I present this article

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

so in essense anyone that lives and exists in time and creates any science theory is concerned with the 10 dimensions in one way or another. so I say EVERY party of sceince you can name.

Ah, yes, now that I have listed off several foundational and prominent parts of physics that do not pose as many as ten dimensions and pointed out that exactly zero scientific or industrial experimental research labs actually worked with anything of the sort, now at last you clarify what you actually meant. It's not that a lot of physics work with ten dimensions, it's more that "from a certain point of view" every toddler is secretly performing a scientific investigation into the edibility and taste of ten dimensions when they attempt to eat sand on any playground. Fine, you can carry on with that cheating. I'm not here to squeeze admissions of defeat out of anyone. All who care can go back and read through this and see for themselves whether or not you had any clue about the subject you were talking of before with such condescending confidence.

As for the energy and matter in the universe.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

from nasa who says over 70 percent of the universe is made up of stuff we cant measure or explore or know what it is.

Maybe you should read the article you linked.

sounds like about the worlds above this one doesnt it.

No, it does not. It sounds far more specific in terms of testable implications.

so all the sceintists have this idea of how the univese works and then they figure out it does not owrk that way at all. they cant make it all fit together so they "makeup" a fancy term and pretend they know what it is and call it "dark"! ohhh scary!

Good grief, the sheer amount of projection here. No, actually, if they pretended that they knew, you wouldn't be picking up some layety-adapted popular science articles declaring the opposite. If they pretended that they knew, you wouldn't be pointing at their openly admitted ignorance to abuse it as support for your own fantasies. However, if any of our readers care who does pretend like they know, I humbly direct them to this gem of a passage from your post #348652 earlier in this thread:

Fyxe wrote: All this you label with a nebulous term dark energy and dark matter. But you dont know anything about it. It's just your convenient placeholder for a thing you refuse to believe might exist. Do I know what this structure actually is? Yes I do, ...

Also the NASA article explains (though with little emphasis) why it is called "dark". By no means am I a friend of popular science media, nor would I recommend it as a primary source for anyone's education in physics, but if you are going to use that as your references, and mock so arrogantly the work and progress they allude to, at least have the wit and decency to bloody read them first.

but what is it?

That's not a scientific question. If it is interesting to you, fair enough. I'll stick to physics for this thread, though.

well obviously my theory is its the other worlds that are interacting with our subjective reflection of reality.

Does your "theory" contain something from whence to draw testable predictions?

I setup a design based on observation and keep in mind that observation is not knowledge, its only awareness of something.

Not the way I introduced the term "observation" to this thread it isn't. It's irrelevant what anyone has "awareness" of. We are talking about science here, not woo. If you are going to call something an observation, it had better be a concrete piece of data that has made it into some record others can review (that means not your personal memory seeing as that can't even keep track of simple integers) and the quality of which is to at least some extent not entirely subjective but can be intersubjectively verified. If you are going to keep trying to cheat your way around and away from the subject, I'm afraid this game won't last long.

Maybe I will prove it right and maybe not. I dont know but I do know that something is there. what is to be discovered will be amazing either way. just because you think you know what is there does not make you an expert gist.

And just because you keep lying about what I think - or indeed say - does make you a dishonest weazel who is frankly enjoying far more patience from me than they earned. You're welcome.

All you can say is its dark.. right?

Wrong. I compiled a list of areas of physics I am familiar with back in my post #348643 specifically for later reference like now. They are the subjects I can say anything at all about. I have had no introduction to cosmology or to non-classical extensions of general relativity and I have no familiarity with experimental procedures in astrophysics. The only advantage I have over you in that area is that I have any sort of attention span and rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

Gisteron wrote: Well, if you made some effort to avoid contradicting yourself less than most of the time, or lying about things said in the past or positions held, or dodging every attempt at civil discourse, maybe I wouldn't have to run my mouth quite so much...

You were the one who brought up that physics was consistent with your world view. All I did was ask to elaborate enough times for you to notice, so here we are now. If all the science-y stuff is too cumbersome for you, too bad.

You stated it, re-stated it, grossly modified, pretended like it wasn't changed, but the only justification you ever presented for believing any of it was some spiritual revelation. And for that much I am grateful. Now at least we all understand that your belief in it is not rooted in evidentiary support. But as long as you keep claiming that there is any, expect people to ask to see it.

Fine, you can carry on with that cheating.

Good grief, the sheer amount of projection here. No, actually, if they pretended that they knew, you wouldn't be picking up some layety-adapted popular science articles declaring the opposite. If they pretended that they knew, you wouldn't be pointing at their openly admitted ignorance to abuse it as support for your own fantasies. However, if any of our readers care who does pretend like they know, I humbly direct them to this gem of a passage from your post #348652 earlier in this thread:

, and mock so arrogantly the work and progress they allude to, at least have the wit and decency to bloody read them first.

Not the way I introduced the term "observation" to this thread it isn't. It's irrelevant what anyone has "awareness" of. We are talking about science here, not woo. If you are going to call something an observation, it had better be a concrete piece of data that has made it into some record others can review (that means not your personal memory seeing as that can't even keep track of simple integers) and the quality of which is to at least some extent not entirely subjective but can be intersubjectively verified. If you are going to keep trying to cheat your way around and away from the subject, I'm afraid this game won't last long.

And just because you keep lying about what I think - or indeed say - does make you a dishonest weazel w ho is frankly enjoying far more patience from me than they earned. You're welcome.

Are these your "professional" scientific comments on the subject? I cant believe you are actually trying to demand of me rigorous and dsiciplined scentific interaction to incllude all the stuff that they do like record results, or whatever and then in reply you treat me and talk to me like this???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should I continue in this baby talk farce of a discussion if you are not going to actually COUNTER ANY OF MY ARGUMENTS??!!

All you have done is make demands, scream assertions, call me names, insult me and demean me. I have tried to present you some data that I use in my arguments. and have you even looked at it, no, you find it more fun to make fun of me. your no scientist and your not even a very good person.

The proof I have is what I have, all you are doing is deflecting by constantly calling me a liar, a cheat, and someone who contradicts themsevles. well sorry bucko but its not true. I wanted to start here with a clean slate nad exactly present to you my theory that I precisely layed out for you in my diagram so there would be no misunderstanding and what do you do with it. ignore it and instead go to anceint history and all your bias and assumptions and try and make me look like I contradict over and over and over and over. well get over it. this is where we start, not with your misunderstandings and your deliberate misdirections.

Wanna go on? fine stop acting like a rabid animal or this is done.

I began my post this morning and completed and submitted it a few moments ago, without updating myself to the current sate of the discussion. Things seem a little more emotional now than when i started my reply and i dont think it would be useful, in this moment.
Carry on.