> "Is String Theory Justified?"
> The holy grail of theoretical physics seems to be the generation of a
> "theory of everything". It is the goal to generate a single set of equations
> which deals with all physical processes. Mathematical theoreticians have
> apparently been successful in generating five theories which meet the
> requirements. Some of those theories require 11 dimensions while the others
> require 26 dimensions, as compared to the four dimensions (3 length and 1
> time), of common experience.
> The fact that those higher number of dimensions are required shows that
> some of the included processes are completely independent of each other. If
> this were not true, the extra dimensions would not be required. To the
> writer, the search for a single theory is about as sensible as an effort to
> create a single master drawing which would show an automobile engine in its
> entirety rather than as an assembly of individually defined parts. It could
> be done, but it would be so unwieldy as to be useless. Treating the parts as
> individual and independent entities and then showing how thy fit together
> has been found to be a much more useful practice.
> When we look at the processes which are described in superstring theory
> we find that we are describing independent process which operate in the same
> region of space. The resultant can be obtained by treating them as
> independent processes and obtaining the results by combining them using the
> principle of superposition. (This is what us simple folks do instintively.)
> The extra dimensions added by string theorists has the effect of
> compartmentalized the processes since each of the dimensions they employ
> must be mathematically orthoganal to all the others It would seem that
> string theory is a sophisticated way of achieving the same result as the
> simpler process of superposition.
> It is unfortunate that Dr. Einstein had to resort to the fakery of
> "curved space" in order to overcome the defect caused by the sophomoric
> error he made in the generation of General Relativity. Instead of doing his
> mathematics correctly, he made the equations solve by adding an extra degree
> of freedom. string theorists hav not added one extra dimension, as did Dr.
> Einstein, they added as many as 22! It would appear that the most useful
> result of string theory is to provide employment for theoretical physicists.
> ANY JACKASS, OR GROUP THEREOF, CAN MAKE A FAULTY THEORY WORK BE ADDING
> ONE OR MORE SUPERLOUS DEGREES OF FREEDOM. THE THING THAT SEPARATES THE MEN
> FROM THE BOYS IS THE ABILITY TO DEFINE NATURE IN TERMS OF THE THREE SPATIAL
> AND ONE TEMPORAL DIMENSION WHICH WE CAN OBSERVE.
> The source material for this posting may be found in
> (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm
(1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
> ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
> TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
> MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
> All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
> Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
> a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
> as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
> please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
> have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
> E-mail:- firstname.lastname@example.org
. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
> mail reception is not blocked.
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
> exception for which a correction was provided.
And all that time we thought the "Final Theory" was almost infinitely far away. :)
It's I think it's quite easy to dismiss the conservation of energy.
The concept is an attempt to define the unknown with other unknowns.
We can't observe energy or mater(stuff). We only interact with a little bit of the stuff, most of it goes hidden. Any way in which we address an amount of energy to the stuff that we cant see can only display a biological statistic of how much of the stuff we pretend to be able to observe.
Imaging HUGE amounds of dark stuff moving straight true the stuff we are made of. It's bumping into our stuff from all angles at all speeds.
All the kinds of attraction forces including gravity are NOT-A-FORCE but only preform A SHIELDING EFFECT. Think of Casimir or van der Waal.
Earth shields the Moon and the Moon shields Earth.
The Sun shields off Earth but Earth also shields off the Sun.