Physicists say universe evolution favoured three and sevendimensions

Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Ray Thanks for bringing in that site. Seems those two guys should
have read Witten,for he had much the same theory,and took some of the
dimensions away from string theory I have used the fact that nothing
can block gravity in my thinking of branes,and membranes. that nature
uses to separate stuff without using great areas of space. I have had a
theory(this my first posting the idea) that if EM force could enter
membranes all the trillions,and trillions of other mini-universes could
not be created out of the very first big bang. Love the string theory.
Edward Witten is my "ideal" String theory,and my weirdest ideas seem to
always fit. Bert


Remember that experiment that Mike Varney was involved in a year or two
ago? They measured the force of gravitational attraction at extremely
small distances. If there were any gravity leaking through from other
dimensions or other universes, they should have been able to detect it.

They found nothing!

Talk to me about rolled up dimensions and branes and string theory when
someone finds some evidence.

Until then, it is just as fanciful as theoretical angels dancing on the
head of a pin.

Double-A

Remember Gravity Probe B ?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

.... Still has Helium. Hmmmm ...

Shouldn't there be results by now ?

RL

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:33:12 -0400
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Hi Ray Right you are our Capt.does not cotton to BB BH
Mini-universes,and string theory. Today if astronomers leave out this
stuff they would have little to write a book about. Bert


Well good theories take time to sink in Bert, I warned the captain a
while ago about keeping his options open but he was having none it.
Now looks like Double A and Raving are digging in. I think it's just me
and you Bert on this one. Which reminds me I might watch that Nova
program again later The Elegant Universe.

Hi Double-A Since distance is relative that begs the question How small
a distance did Varney use? What did they use to detect a gravity force?
I can see lots of ways this experiment has a lot of fudge. Bert

On 29 Sep 2005 06:53:49 -0700
"Raving Loonie" wrote:

Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Ray Thanks for bringing in that site. Seems those two guys
should
have read Witten,for he had much the same theory,and took some of
the
dimensions away from string theory I have used the fact that
nothing
can block gravity in my thinking of branes,and membranes. that
nature
uses to separate stuff without using great areas of space. I have
had a
theory(this my first posting the idea) that if EM force could
enter
membranes all the trillions,and trillions of other mini-universes
could
not be created out of the very first big bang. Love the string
theory.
Edward Witten is my "ideal" String theory,and my weirdest ideas
seem to
always fit. Bert


Remember that experiment that Mike Varney was involved in a year or
two
ago? They measured the force of gravitational attraction at
extremely
small distances. If there were any gravity leaking through from
other
dimensions or other universes, they should have been able to detect
it.

They found nothing!

Talk to me about rolled up dimensions and branes and string theory
when
someone finds some evidence.

Until then, it is just as fanciful as theoretical angels dancing on
the
head of a pin.

Double-A

Remember Gravity Probe B ?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

... Still has Helium. Hmmmm ...

Shouldn't there be results by now ?

RL


OK Raving and double A, I see it like this, either it's multiple
universes/multiverse or the whole things a simulation.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi oc and double-A Best to keep in mind Google might some day reach
God status.Like spiritual Gods Google also is virtual See I' am
already giving it a capital "G" Bert


It already knows every search you ever made.

Once they interface it with the chip they are going to implant in your
forehead, it will know everything about you!

Omniscience!

Double-A

Ray Vingnutte wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 06:53:49 -0700
"Raving Loonie" wrote:

Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Ray Thanks for bringing in that site. Seems those two guys
should
have read Witten,for he had much the same theory,and took some of
the
dimensions away from string theory I have used the fact that
nothing
can block gravity in my thinking of branes,and membranes. that
nature
uses to separate stuff without using great areas of space. I have
had a
theory(this my first posting the idea) that if EM force could
enter
membranes all the trillions,and trillions of other mini-universes
could
not be created out of the very first big bang. Love the string
theory.
Edward Witten is my "ideal" String theory,and my weirdest ideas
seem to
always fit. Bert


Remember that experiment that Mike Varney was involved in a year or
two
ago? They measured the force of gravitational attraction at
extremely
small distances. If there were any gravity leaking through from
other
dimensions or other universes, they should have been able to detect
it.

They found nothing!

Talk to me about rolled up dimensions and branes and string theory
when
someone finds some evidence.

Until then, it is just as fanciful as theoretical angels dancing on
the
head of a pin.

Double-A

Remember Gravity Probe B ?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

... Still has Helium. Hmmmm ...

Shouldn't there be results by now ?

RL


OK Raving and double A, I see it like this, either it's multiple
universes/multiverse or the whole things a simulation.

Nope. Another possibility ...

Part of it is a 'Simulation in our mind', part of it is real. The
problem is recognizing the part that is the 'cognitive model' so as to
perceive beyond that 'subjective convenience'. Verrrrry tricky, IMO.

Here is a hint:

95% of physics is in-our-head !
Go figure the residual 5% ???????

RL

"Raving Loonie" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
Ray Vingnutte wrote:

OK Raving and double A, I see it like this, either it's multiple
universes/multiverse or the whole things a simulation.

Nope. Another possibility ...

Part of it is a 'Simulation in our mind', part of it is real. The
problem is recognizing the part that is the 'cognitive model' so as to
perceive beyond that 'subjective convenience'. Verrrrry tricky, IMO.

Here is a hint:

95% of physics is in-our-head !
Go figure the residual 5% ???????

I'm stunned... maybe you've found the truth about this weird world!
A mad mix of simulation and reality...
It's even more scaring than the Big Simulation...

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"Raving Loonie" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
Ray Vingnutte wrote:

OK Raving and double A, I see it like this, either it's multiple
universes/multiverse or the whole things a simulation.

Nope. Another possibility ...

Part of it is a 'Simulation in our mind', part of it is real. The
problem is recognizing the part that is the 'cognitive model' so as to
perceive beyond that 'subjective convenience'. Verrrrry tricky, IMO.

Here is a hint:

95% of physics is in-our-head !
Go figure the residual 5% ???????

I'm stunned... maybe you've found the truth about this weird world!
A mad mix of simulation and reality...
It's even more scaring than the Big Simulation...

Luigi Caselli

Stunned ?

ROTFLOL ...

Nawh. Physicists have always known "this" ...
And forget it almost immediately.

It is what is taken exceedingly much so for granted. It is assumed to
the ultra max !!!

A single universal model which describes everything, perfectly and
simply ?

Yes ... ?

What is being crafted is a perceptual/descriptive tool

Duh!

RL

Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Ray Thanks for bringing in that site. Seems those two guys should
have read Witten,for he had much the same theory,and took some of the
dimensions away from string theory I have used the fact that nothing
can block gravity in my thinking of branes,and membranes. that nature
uses to separate stuff without using great areas of space. I have had a
theory(this my first posting the idea) that if EM force could enter
membranes all the trillions,and trillions of other mini-universes could
not be created out of the very first big bang. Love the string theory.
Edward Witten is my "ideal" String theory,and my weirdest ideas seem to
always fit. Bert


Remember that experiment that Mike Varney was involved in a year or two
ago? They measured the force of gravitational attraction at extremely
small distances. If there were any gravity leaking through from other
dimensions or other universes, they should have been able to detect it.

They found nothing!

Talk to me about rolled up dimensions and branes and string theory when
someone finds some evidence.

Until then, it is just as fanciful as theoretical angels dancing on the
head of a pin.

Double-A

Remember Gravity Probe B ?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

... Still has Helium. Hmmmm ...

Shouldn't there be results by now ?

RL


I would think pretty soon.

If you hear nothing, you will know the results go against the
relativistic predictions!

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Ray Thanks for bringing in that site. Seems those two guys should
have read Witten,for he had much the same theory,and took some of the
dimensions away from string theory I have used the fact that nothing
can block gravity in my thinking of branes,and membranes. that nature
uses to separate stuff without using great areas of space. I have had a
theory(this my first posting the idea) that if EM force could enter
membranes all the trillions,and trillions of other mini-universes could
not be created out of the very first big bang. Love the string theory.
Edward Witten is my "ideal" String theory,and my weirdest ideas seem to
always fit. Bert


Remember that experiment that Mike Varney was involved in a year or two
ago? They measured the force of gravitational attraction at extremely
small distances. If there were any gravity leaking through from other
dimensions or other universes, they should have been able to detect it.

They found nothing!

Talk to me about rolled up dimensions and branes and string theory when
someone finds some evidence.

Until then, it is just as fanciful as theoretical angels dancing on the
head of a pin.

Double-A

Remember Gravity Probe B ?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

... Still has Helium. Hmmmm ...

Shouldn't there be results by now ?

RL


I would think pretty soon.

If you hear nothing, you will know the results go against the
relativistic predictions!

Mum's the word, eh ?

They are being uber-quite about things, yacking away concerning
everything 'but' ...

I can't figure out if this is indicative of " Mum's the word " OR "
Ultra tight assed" ?

Care to make a prediciton, here ...? .....? ...........?

Double-A