• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Dimensions, Universe, and Time

Don't let ElphiNumerical convince you there is any, WHATSOEVER, empirical evidence for string theory
maybe i'm wrong, but i sense unjustified and unconstructive animosity in this post

there is no one on earth who pretends that there is evidence for string theory
if he did, AlphaNumeric wouldn't refer to it as a theory

but there are many people who realize that it works so marvelously well to describe our universe where others theories fail, that it cries "i am the theory of the universe" too hard for them not to hear

strong empirical support to the theory could appear once the LHC is finished, with observations of things that the theory predicted
 
Btw, Einstein was an inveterate plagiarist who stole the "space-time" idea from Lorentz, Poincare, and Wells.
no scientists pretend to have come up with their discoveries all by themselves

yourself when you write this post, you write it with the help of millions of human beings who, before us, developped language, writing, the ideas you use to make up your owns thoughts, computers, and so on

of course einstein used the scientific discoveries of others to come up with his theory
 
Last edited:
AlphaNumeric is known on many forums for being an pompous, pretentious, and deluded soul stuck in a world of imaginary symbols, thinking he's steaming hot shit because he studies theoretical physics in the UK. A man with his quite respectable talent would be better studying the ways to improve our ridiculous transport system. His mind could create something practical/pragmatic to improve the lives of others. Instead he whittles his time away trying to impress people with unsupported theories of imaginary manifolds and string theories WHICH lack empirical support.

There is indeed animosity, but I see it as justified AND constructive. I strive to warn people not to be deterred from their spiritual journey by haters as AN. The universe is not what he tries to impress upon us. It exists with or without his D-elusions.
 
Einstein plagiarized all his life. He'd play guitar for scientists and play scientist for the guitarist. He was the ultimate subjectivist, as Freud and Marx, and his stolen relativity dead-end cast a pall on science in the 20th century. We are just now escaping the demonic black hole of his treachery.

I notice Vegan, that you do not address my points, but instead you deflect the criticism without addressing my arguments.

My points still stand, please try to prove me wrong.

1. There is no (nope not ONE bit) empirical support for string theory.

2. And Einstein was nothing more than a celebrity plagiarist made famous by the media.
 
beauty is in the eye of the beholder

pompousness, pretentiousness and delusion also apparently
because that's not how he appears to me
i always see him state facts
even to answer ridiculously stupid posts, he rarely judges and answers with facts

i'm afraid you may be a bit frustrated by not getting what he's talking about

i'm going to bed
i'll answer tomorrow if i'm still interested

but i hope i won't be anymore cause this looks like a big waste of time coming this way
 
Besides, the speed limit of the universe is the UNIVERSE itself.

Energy and matter cannot travel faster than c, but

INFORMATION travels at the speed of OMNI...at omniVelocity.

The universe creates itself everywhere simultaneously.

Subjectively, everything exists relative to one's perception.

Objectively, everyt-ime (transportinfomassergy) exists absolutely, including one's perception.
 
Since Vegan again refused to back up his unsupported worship of AlphaNumeric, here is more information about the travesty of Einstein's celebrity, entitled Einstein: plagiarist of the century.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Thus once again, vegan, you've provided no empirical support for string theory and still refuse to Einstein's shockingly apparent plagiarism, yet I AM the one who "doesn't get what he's talking about." I know who you are (someone fearful of being wrong, pretending to be tired and uninterested when it is shown they cannot logically support their string theory assertions.)

All the subjectivist "universe crying out these strings are the theory of the universe" gibberish won't bring you closer to the OBJECTIVE science of the Omniverse.

Let me know when you find proof (or any bit of empirical evidence) of the OmniStrings, until then I win by default.
 
Last edited:
don't hate on string theory.

I don't see why you don't have an open mind and at least consider that it might be correct.
 
vegan said:
there is no one on earth who pretends that there is evidence for string theory if he did, AlphaNumeric wouldn't refer to it as a theory

Whilst I agree that string theory is not by any means accepted in the scientific community as plausible, you really need to understand what a "scientific theory" is.

In science you start with an "hypotheses", which is basically a question or assumption about the experiment you are about to carry out. Then after repeated testing and scrutiny if your "hypothesis" yields the same results repeatedly in circumstances that must provide leeway for certain conditions to falsify your "hypothesis".... then and only then do you have a "theory".

A "theory" is an "hypotheses" that has been backed up by "evidence!"

String theory is allowed to call itself a theory simply because the maths add up and it cannot be falsified. The issue many scientists have with this is that string theory predicts possibilities and outcomes on a scale so small that even our most powerful electron-microscopes and partial smashers are not even close to seeing anything that small. So we simply cannot test in real world conditions the claims that string theory makes.

anyways.... my only point was that a theory is not just some hair brained idea...it must be supported by evidence.
 
I'm not hating on string theory. All I asked was for references to where
punktuality said:
string theory predicts possibilities and outcomes on a scale so small that even our most powerful electron-microscopes and partial smashers are not even close to seeing anything that small. So we simply cannot test in real world conditions the claims that string theory makes.

So in the real world, string theory is untestable. Well maybe string theory will be valuable in the future but Until then it remains an Untestable religious HYPOthesis. It is not a theory because there is no empirical SUPPORT. When we have omniscopic quark measuring devices, then maybe it will gain an iota of empirical support to become a theory.

Until then it remains an Untestable religion. I don't disagree that there is an underlying substratum stringing or tying the universe together, but it seems theoretical physicists have begun to worship the subjective creations of your minds, instead of the objective universe which is the fundamental object of a physical scientist. My point is merely utilitarian/pragmatic- instead of improving the physical social world with the amazing brains of theo-physicists like Alpha Numeric, they waste their time worshipping imaginary mathematical fictions with no correspondence to actual physical reality.
 
Last edited:
Just because string theory's tautological maths "add up" do not mean they cannot be falsified.

Math is not physical objective empirical evidence. Math is subjective human abstraction.
 
Well, there aren't many, if any, tools out there to monitor or further study the nature of sub atomic particles in great detail.

So while you can't prove/disprove string theory, you can't prove/disprove the rest of the theories that try to unify the known natural forces either.
 
I notice Vegan, that you do not address my points, but instead you deflect the criticism without addressing my arguments.

My points still stand, please try to prove me wrong.

1. There is no (nope not ONE bit) empirical support for string theory.

2. And Einstein was nothing more than a celebrity plagiarist made famous by the media.
i addressed them in the post before this quote

and i said that those were not arguments
just as saying "prove me that the earth is not round" is not an argument

not even string theorists who spend 18h of their days working on it pretend that there is empirical evidence for string theory

so you're not making much of a point by saying that there are is empirical evidence
but empirical "support", yes there is
that means, hints that make them think that string theory is indeed a very good candidate for a right theory of the universe

google is a good start if you wish to know more
i'm not going to waste time
i've read it already, it's your turn now

as for einstein, you also didn't try to understand what i wrote
as a comparison, do you think you're being clever by criticizing einstein?
or are you just repeating the research that others did and that you read on the internet?
yet you could be making good points

einstein, as any other scientists, made good points and discoveries of his own while using what others had discovered before

maybe you're realizing this today, but be reassured that no one in the scientific community believes that einstein came out of the void with genius ideas that no one else had contributed to

it took him years to write his theories
years during which he corresponded with other scientists about the progression of his theory

Since Vegan again refused to back up his unsupported worship of AlphaNumeric
i like to think of P&S as a place where intelligent, open-minded people can talk about ideas without clumsy attempts at denigrating others
you don't seem to share this view

before criticizing me for not answering a question, you should first ask the question
i don't worship anyone, i only gave my view of someone's posts
if you want me to say more, ask for it
if you don't, i have no reason to write a book on AN

also, some people have a life that doesn't allow them to press the refresh button all day long in hold for a post they can answer to
i haven't opened this forum since my last post
big "refuse to back up" if you ask me!

INFORMATION travels at the speed of OMNI...at omniVelocity.
this makes me say one more time that your frustration at AN seems to take root in your bad understanding of the concepts he talks about

by the way, i wrote last week that i had nothing against you because i had never been further than the 4th line of your posts
inventing words doesn't make you cool. it makes you incomprehensible

vegan, you've provided no empirical support for string theory
it's very nice of you to repeat this one more time, while i'm obviously not on the board
so i'll repeat one more time myself that there is no empirical evidence, but there is empirical support
read "the elegant universe" and "fabric of the cosmos" and stop bothering us with your bad faith

I know who you are (someone fearful of being wrong, pretending to be tired and uninterested when it is shown they cannot logically support their string theory assertions.)
oh! i am discovered!
how can you read through me like through clear water
that's amazing!
now go back to your psychology classes, there were a bit too short

Let me know when you find proof (or any bit of empirical evidence) of the OmniStrings, until then I win by default.
now that's an interesting logic
"prove me wrong or i am right"

okay, i'll use the same logic
"prove string theory wrong, or it is right"

you really need to understand what a "scientific theory" is.
either i didn't make myself clear or you didn't see what i meant
i was pointing out the lack of empirical (rather than theoretical) support that manifesto was asking for
such as the extra dimensions hoped to be observed in the LHC

but thank you. i'll pay more attention to my use of the word "theory"

All I asked was for references to where
So in the real world, string theory is untestable
soon to be testable
see the 2 books mentioned before

Until then it remains an Untestable religious HYPOthesis
i missed the religious part of string theory

they waste their time worshipping imaginary mathematical fictions with no correspondence to actual physical reality.
the equations they study, not worship, are very real

don't just randomly use words that yo think will denigrate an idea, they have to fit the description too
there is nothing imaginary about equations

and actually, so many people spend time studying string theory because it indeed has a quite important correspondence to actual physical reality
it happens to describe physical reality quite well, where others theories fail

Just because string theory's tautological maths "add up" do not mean they cannot be falsified
no it doesn't
so we all count on you
take your pen and show us errors in the equations of string theory

i don't even try to defend string theory
i don't know enough about it to have a deep opinion
but i know about enough to see that so far, it fits
so rather than spitting on it, i hope that it will prove to be true

on the other hand, you seem to be on a crusade to discredit something that you know little about

what is your reason for hating string theory like this?
do you hate any mathematical theory that tries to describe how the universe works?

do you consider them an attack on your vague invented words?
 
All right vegan, with your continued straw men and deflections and misdirections and ad hominems, I have been convinced.

You guys convinced me. String theory is real. There is plenty of present and future practical value in string theory. St-Ring theory is an idea system that accurately describes the imaginary seven or eight dimensions besides our own four dimensioned (3 voluntary spatial dimensions and 1 involuntary temporal dimension).

My new year's resolution is to support string theory for the remainder of my days.

But hard as I stryng to buy into subjective strings, I return again to the Omni-Objective.

I'm no scientist (just a human). I am a intuitive thinker.

My question now becomes: So how does string theory relate to consciousness?
 
Your New Years resolution should be to stop trying to to add the word omni before ever word.

Does anyone else agree with my omni-statement?
 
All right vegan, with your continued straw men and deflections and misdirections and ad hominems,
which ones?

please point them out and i will excuse myself

You guys convinced me. String theory is real
i never tried to convince you that string theory is the right theory of the universe

i said several times that not even string theorists were sure if the theory was true or no
they like the theory, and think it has chances to be true, so they study it/ period
no one pretends to know for sure that it is true

I am a intuitive thinker.
there are subject for which intuition is not enough
you have to know a little about them too

My question now becomes: So how does string theory relate to consciousness?
maybe in branches of string theory that i am not aware of. but as far as i know, it doesn't

neiter do classic mechanics. and that doesn't make them less acurate for what they describe
neither do 99% of scientific theories out there
 
MaXPowers, I write as I see fit, and I just wrote 550 page trilogy called the OmniCapitalist Manifespo.

If you don't like omni's words, then stay clear of the verbalogical blades.

Read Buckminster Fuller, he loved to use omni's words.

I'm an ENTP thinker like Fuller (according to humanmetrics.com).

For me everything is an experiment.
 
Manifespo, I'm not digging your attitude in this thread. While I'm in charge here, this forum works on the golden rule: please write as you see fit TO BE WRITTEN TO. Consider this a gentleman's warning.

If you have an issue with another user, PM me and I'd be happy to mediate, if you'd like. Or just lend an ear. This goes for everyone; my door is open, no pun intended. :)

AlphaNumeric is not a BLer I feel particularly chummy with. He and I probably have little in common when it comes to philosophical or metaphysical worldviews. But I do respect the guy, for the dedication and effort he's shown to the field he's interested in. It's an enormous investment of time, money, and energy to earn a doctoral degree in anything, and anyone who does so has earned the right to speak with authority on the topic they earned their degree in. AlphaNumeric is one of only three people I'm aware of on BL who can talk particle physics like a pro. (The other two are zorn and complexPHILOSOPHY, neither of whom post all that frequently anymore.)

I've seen all three of BL's physics gurus I just mentioned sharply rebuke people who make heterodox claims about physics, math, or the scientific enterprise in general, and then who stubbornly refuse to admit they're way out of their league. Although it stings to be on the receiving end of this, and in principle I think there's no need for this sort of rebuking, I must say I can relate. I get awfully tired of setting straight ignorant (or just plain hateful or "agenda-ful") people on matters of theology or geography, two fields I happen to know more about than the average BLer. I'd like to think I refrain from getting my panties in a wad most of the time. But man oh man, it's about as rewarding as shoveling the sea floor free of sand.

To your credit Manifespo, from the little reading I've done on it, particle physics is a bit short on experimental verification or real world practical applications, at least compared to other areas of scientific endeavour, and at least at the present time. I've even read articles in pop science magazines where scientists themselves have expressed doubt about how worthwhile or useful a pursuit particle physics is. I personally take no joy in science that doesn't lead immediately to human-condition-improving technologies. But many people do, and I don't begrudge them that joy. Hey, we all like to geek out on something or other.

Just a hint (to everyone): use the words "dimension" and "energy" with great care in this forum. If you must use them, please explain exactly what you mean, making reference to well known books or movies if need be. These two words have very specific definitions in physics, so physics buffs (and rationalists in general) tend to get rather sore when people use them to mean something other than these definitions, without prior warning. Or sometimes even WITH prior warning. I prefer to use words like "realm" or "chi", among others, to make it very clear I'm not talking science.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
I've even read articles in pop science magazines where scientists themselves have expressed doubt about how worthwhile or useful a pursuit particle physics is.

Seriously. I don't think I've ever heard of any physicist say they have a firm grip of quantum mechanics/particle physics/string theory.

Just a hint (to everyone): use the words "dimension" and "energy" with great care in this forum. If you must use them, please explain exactly what you mean, making reference to well known books or movies if need be. These two words have very specific definitions in physics, so physics buffs (and rationalists in general) tend to get rather sore when people use them to mean something other than these definitions, without prior warning. Or sometimes even WITH prior warning. I prefer to use words like "realm" or "chi", among others, to make it very clear I'm not talking science.

Oh. My. God. Can you please add the word "ego" to this list? I've seen this word used and used time and time again . . . over and over and OVER again. Everyone feels the need to use it even though it might not even relate to the topic at hand.

:X :!
 
Top