The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: String theory?  (Read 7612 times)

Offline fusaliker

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
String theory?
« on: 16/09/2009 00:02:52 »
Firstly i am under educated in physics, that said i have a great interest in physics, this interest sends me a drift with many questions. As many questions in philosophy i seek to start at the beginning and develop a theory from there (or at least what i thin k is the beginning).

For "existence" i believe that this would be finding the smallest or initial building block of "everything". Not knowing much if anything about string theory, i do not know if i am having original thought.

As of late, i have been thinking that everything must be comprised of vibration or a frequency that this movement no matter how slight causes "everything". Wasn't it Einstein said everything exists in a place and at a time? i question (not that i compare to him), Does it not also have to move, vibrate, even at the smallest amounts. Is this kinda the track of string theory?

My research into string theory has yelled little as far as what i am postulating. it is my belief that everything vibrates or has some form of motion at some level in order to exist in our reality. if there were Zero Motion that would be the definition of non existence.

Crude example would be temperature, the lower the temperature the less movement there is in any given material. thus the temperature is related to the vibration and/or vise verse. Radioactivity, light, sound, even people, etc. all are manifest vibrations. (just a thought from and under educated person)

I just do not know how far "M" Theory, has come to explain vibration or harmonics at the sub atomic level. But is my perception that it has everything to do with it.

If anyone knows of any research into a related study please feel free to give me direction.


So, here is my real question(s)
Does string theory posit, that vibrations and or the frequency of them are responsible for everything?

ty, Seeking Knowledge


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #1 on: 16/09/2009 00:13:08 »
Firstly i am under educated in physics, that said i have a great interest in physics, this interest sends me a drift with many questions. As many questions in philosophy i seek to start at the beginning and develop a theory from there (or at least what i thin k is the beginning).

For "existence" i believe that this would be finding the smallest or initial building block of "everything". Not knowing much if anything about string theory, i do not know if i am having original thought.

As of late, i have been thinking that everything must be comprised of vibration or a frequency that this movement no matter how slight causes "everything". Wasn't it Einstein said everything exists in a place and at a time? i question (not that i compare to him), Does it not also have to move, vibrate, even at the smallest amounts. Is this kinda the track of string theory?

My research into string theory has yelled little as far as what i am postulating. it is my belief that everything vibrates or has some form of motion at some level in order to exist in our reality. if there were Zero Motion that would be the definition of non existence.

Crude example would be temperature, the lower the temperature the less movement there is in any given material. thus the temperature is related to the vibration and/or vise verse. Radioactivity, light, sound, even people, etc. all are manifest vibrations. (just a thought from and under educated person)

I just do not know how far "M" Theory, has come to explain vibration or harmonics at the sub atomic level. But is my perception that it has everything to do with it.

If anyone knows of any research into a related study please feel free to give me direction.


So, here is my real question(s)
Does string theory posit, that vibrations and or the frequency of them are responsible for everything?

ty, Seeking Knowledge


I know quite a bit for you to digest. I want you to know however, i am a Copenhahenist.

The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's!

''The most incomprehensible thing is that the universe is comprehensible,'' Albert Einstein

According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang (or at least, so we are led to believe), all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations.
To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...'
Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions.
You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable.  
This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them.
   
Gods Resevior

And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe.
What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps?

This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and
space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does?
In many ways, for any believers in some intelligent Grand Creation, then the being responsible used this potential in one of the most remarkable ways. The being must have decided to initiate this universe over all the other possible-known universes because this universe was just consistent to make life. Even Hawking not too long ago admitted that we might need to start accepting that an Anthropic Principle model of quantum mechanics is inescapable.    

The conclusions are bizarre. We can have a potential sea of everything needed to create the universe, but it never really existed - it's so imaginary on every level that nothingness pervaded the void, and then it wasn't so suddenly and spontaneously, so it might it be that something with a little more substance could have existed before the big bang? I seriously doubt that the current model of what existed before the big bang (which really accounts to nothing) seems to be wrong in our understandings through the logic we entertain the
theory with, because obviously this ''nothingness'' was in fact the ''everything-ness'' that was required to set to the initial laws and expansion of the universe. Using this same logic, we begin to have some idea as to what might be required; a multidimensional infinite pool where our universe happens to be an emergent property of this everything-ness.

The Time Before Time

One major problem is our language; even though in the dictionary there are approximately 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words, and whilst they equally make a wide range of vocabulary, the essential descriptions we give the standard laws of the physical universe concerning big bang break down - as though being a conceptual error of understanding because of the words we use. A good example was given above explaining how the nothingness of the universe before big bang was practically the everything-ness that was required
to have the universe emerge as a vacuum. Yes, our language makes our descriptions hard to fathom, theoretically and conceptually. So where our language can degrade our chances of making sense of the deep metaphysical and philosophical roots of physics, we need to find new ways as to explain our models without any conceptual-breakdowns. It won't be easy, and it's task i decided to take on myself as to understand a better model for explaining existence in terms of a big bang.

Instead of saying that there is nothing before the beginning of time, it might be best that time has actually been around for an infinity. If we allow our universe which is a four-dimensional manifold to be an ''object'' that floats around in a multidimensional pool, then we have ourselves a theory where time has actually persisted forever, and that the emergence of our universe is of some ''shatter'' in the multidimensional pool, analogous to breaking on mirror into many different but smaller parts, and those parts which represent the four
dimensions that we personally observe and experience are but the larger shards of a much more complex and compactified structure in the emergent properties of the spacetime vacuum. In fact, this is what string theory models have been trying to do, by describing the universe in terms of superpositioned universes of a much larger spacetime hierarchy of dimensions, and by allowing the universe to have these extra dimensions, we may speculate that the universe is not simply floating around in nothing, but rather floating in a much more complicated
spacetime realm, one with possibly an infinite amount of dimensions - But M-Theories 11 dimensions would suffice obviously.

You can have the model two ways. Treat spacetime normally with four dimensions, but being an emergent object from a much more complicated realm of dimensions, or you can have the same amount of dimensions (so long as its not an infinity of them) which make the pool, and simply apply the normal interpretational model which string theory models give, such as these dimensions exist hidden from us in this universe because they where compactified by some catastrophic event. Hyperspace theory states exactly this... But, what is hyperspace theory?
Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size. In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion
of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime.

Using the idea however that perhaps spacetime truely is four-dimensional which would be most rational since they are obviously there and contending that it's like a four dimensionsional object floating about in a multidimensional pool is quite a strange thing to imagine, if one can. If someone could observe the universe moving through this place, it would be remarkably wierd where the dimensions twist and curl and defy normal understandings. For instance, if i decided to take a strole in the fifth dimension according to string theory, i can find
myself moving forward just to end up where i began? Wierd or what? Whilst the fifth dimension is an electromagnetic dimension, the hypothetical sixth dimension can even be entire baby universes themselves, with their own reality of matter and gas! The laws would seem strange indeed and the universe would certainly not move through it in any linear sense. What is even more interesting, is that it would imply Einstein was wrong about the universe being a self-contained object as with such a model, you can now apply the universe relative to something else;
the mulidimensional pool in which the droplet of this universe was extracted.

I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other than one which incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it, even because the beginning of the universe is being more consistently proven with each passing observation of the cosmos. But i am heavily open to the idea that time could have existed before the initial beginning of this universe, just in a different form, in a much more complex form or forms since more than one time-dimension is very consistent with theory. Remember, the variation of the theory
i believe in does not encorporate any more than the four dimensions in this universe, but can suggest that it is a droplet from a much larger sea. An excellent discussion is present here in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7598996.stm where doctor cox explains some of the idea's following the exploration of a multidimensional bulk.

In the string theory brane model, this universe does interact with the other universes via gravitational forces, but since my theory neglects the use having these extra dimensions within this manifold, then it might invoke a whole new meaning, where our universe does not interact with any physical meaning with possibly other universes, unless through some process we might come to expect, like a quantum tunelling from one universe to another. In fact, i believe the universes did at least at one time interact with each other. Let me explain.

I showed how you can have all the essential ingredients for spacetime to exist in a potential sea, but also imagine this sea existing as a multidimensional bulk where at one point some collision between two universes (or branes) happened. You could allow the extra dimensions of spacetime to disappear completely with a compactification of the extra dimensions to infinitely small sizes to being non-existent alltogether. The only reason why its not beneficial however in string theory to make these extra dimensions disappear entirely is due to the hopeful
answering of why gravity is so weak in this universe. So instead of compactifying them before nothing was left, string theorists compactified them on scales we cannot even measure yet, but they are there, according to the theory. In one of my ''possible'' interpretations, is that they are there no longer because they where once part of the multidimensional bulk, but upon interaction between the two universes caused them to shatter the multidimensional bulk as to completely identify a four dimensionsional vacuum emerging from it rather than one which seems to have these dimensions at
ridiculously-small levels. I like Brane theory [2], and the evolution of this universe is actually limitless in the possibilities that may arise, and whatmore, they can involve initial beginnings of important events while still retaining a mother-principle which states that they are only the beginnings of changes, not the beginning of the dimensionsional origins themselves, because they can neatly remain eternal.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5D81431F934A35751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3

What of the Time in this Universe then and the Time contained in the Bulk?

And so, if there is a multidimensional bulk, then we might also be able to have the time in our universe flow afterall. The problem with the idea of a time dimension which flows is that of the question of what it moves relative to... In my studies, the psychological principle clearly illustrates that time is relative to the observer when perception of time in its linear fashion is investigated. But the time dimension which makes the four-way manifold of this universe could be applied to a completely static dimensional bulk acting itself like an absolute
aether as though the universe itself is sitting on the wall of an aether field - which is a unique and i think new way to interpret the dimensional bulk. It would also answer why we haven't detected an absolute aether in experimentations, because our universe is not actually composed of any absolute aether, but is in fact cast upon a static changeless dimensional sea, from out of which emerges systems which do change internally, despite the Wheeler-de Witt equation.

Our universes time would be moving relative to a static time dimension, maybe many of them which consist of the bulk beyond the boundaries of the spacetime fabric. A study of my essay on time would suggest that time could certainly have these relative conditions to them. It would be hard to consistently say however that the static nature external of the universe would be hard to differentiate between the static models of this universe we have today... in fact, they would be indestinguishable, since we can statically-model the univere in a flash instant
present time method, where reality can be seen from a quantized temporal viewpoint, unleashing many important area's of discussion, again, most of these where covered in my essay and theory on the fundamental line of flux theory of time. The essay also covered why physicists today do not believe that time has a flow fundamentally (and some credit has gone to this young man http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html ) who applied the principle logically and showed how objects cannot have defined positions using the start-and-stop nature
of the universe. So from here, we are going to explore the nature of time from the invention of the bulk theory and what static dimensions of time would mean for the universe at large.

(following on since this exceeds my allowance here)
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #2 on: 16/09/2009 00:13:29 »
The Incredible Bulk

Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."
   
I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to
mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances.
   
Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too, but then you can have an adaquate theory of time which solves his problem without reducing the theory to the conclusion he had. But despite this, he has
not only shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work:

http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf

http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement i based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory
only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. Time may indeed physical [1], despite what lynd claims, it just takes on a much smaller role - the consistency of upholding a physical fluctuation in any given amount of time, even in the smallest we could calculate [latex]5.3(10^{-44})[/latex]. So, to tell the truth, i've always been a fan of modifying
theories, but only when modification truely is required, and the modification itself is simple, but should not be any more harder; so the invitation of two new dimensions that are static in nature, one of the temporal and the other spatial can add the detail in the physical models we require to solve some very basic problems in the conceptualization of time in physics.

[excerpt note] - even though the geometric time theory can be argued not to be fundamental and thus implying the final theory to be dressed in the quantized version are only fooling themselves. For a unification of physics one would need to also why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.
   
[1] - I am reserved within this interpretation. I do believe that according to my investigation, that a physical time can exist - however, i impose that the non-physical dimension of time is one which involves psychology and the appearance of an intelligence which can make events run into each other rather than being discontinuous. I would also like to note that the timelessness or static interpretations that come from generalized pure gravity theories can still exist. In fact, we can try and make good use of them, as i have attempted to do throughout my works. To highlight what i have said previously,

''Might it be then, in a simpler way to explain this that our minds are ''aware'' of the actual timelessness, so it must invoke a new sense of time? If this be the case, then the time we experience is actually grown from the soil of the absurdity of the frozen featureless changes of
the general relativistic solutions. Our minds are very efficient when concerning how to deal with the world without causing us the insanity which would follow from a frozen world where nothing changed.''

[2] - Whilst i like it however, i must admit allegience to a single universe theory at any time. I would entertain the birth of a universe from this one, so long as they do not exist side by side. (This is not the same as the cyclic universe but relatively-similar in some aspects, such as birth, death, and a ''rebirth''). I also have personal problems in believing we should be dealing with more dimensions than what is experienced and objectively knowable. If anything, any more dimensions, and i feel the theory becomes superfluous.



 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #3 on: 16/09/2009 19:57:12 »
How many alphanumeric characters needed for Midsummers nights dream, my guess is about about half a million hence the monkeys would need to type 256^500000 characters (ASCII).
No hope in 13.4 billion years
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #4 on: 16/09/2009 23:19:47 »
If brevity is the soul of wit, play on MacDuff.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
String theory?
« Reply #5 on: 17/09/2009 13:49:14 »
Unless Mr.Scientist is just cut 'n pasting, he's going to need a new keyboard soon, methinks.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #6 on: 17/09/2009 19:04:56 »
Unless Mr.Scientist is just cut 'n pasting, he's going to need a new keyboard soon, methinks.

Monkey assistants, perchance?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #7 on: 18/09/2009 02:46:29 »
I finally twigged. Copenhagenist! It IS the Prince of Denmark.

(Wait a minute - Didn't he hang out at Elsinore?)
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #8 on: 18/09/2009 03:36:20 »
How many alphanumeric characters needed for Midsummers nights dream, my guess is about about half a million hence the monkeys would need to type 256^500000 characters (ASCII).
No hope in 13.4 billion years

That can be changed.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #9 on: 18/09/2009 03:37:30 »
How many alphanumeric characters needed for Midsummers nights dream, my guess is about about half a million hence the monkeys would need to type 256^500000 characters (ASCII).
No hope in 13.4 billion years

Challanged i mean. Not changed.

That can be changed.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #10 on: 18/09/2009 04:22:03 »
Mr S

You can edit your posts after you post them. No need to send another post to make a correction. (I do it a lot because I make lots of errors.) Click on the Modify icon on the RHS of your post, and an edit window will open.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #11 on: 18/09/2009 15:17:44 »

I want you to know however, i am a Copenhahenist.


Just what is a Copegistenhausermannengesiet ???? - well what ever this word is

 

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #12 on: 18/09/2009 15:27:32 »
Sounds like a group my mum joined...
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #13 on: 18/09/2009 15:40:43 »

I want you to know however, i am a Copenhahenist.



Just what is a Copegistenhausermannengesiet ???? - well what ever this word is


It is an interpretation of quantum mechanics - and by those who follow such an interpretation. It is decided among scientists that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #14 on: 18/09/2009 15:41:18 »
Mr S

You can edit your posts after you post them. No need to send another post to make a correction. (I do it a lot because I make lots of errors.) Click on the Modify icon on the RHS of your post, and an edit window will open.


Thank you.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #15 on: 18/09/2009 17:11:44 »
JimBob,

Even I knew that one  :D

Geez
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #16 on: 18/09/2009 17:21:08 »
JimBob,

Even I knew that one  :D

Geez

D'oh - Ok so I am not as well read in physics as I am in Other fields of science. I just never could get vectors when in uni - I do now, but then ......
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #17 on: 19/09/2009 01:45:55 »
JimBob,

Even I knew that one  :D

Geez

D'oh - Ok so I am not as well read in physics as I am in Other fields of science. I just never could get vectors when in uni - I do now, but then ......


Who made you think a question was stupid, for, it is not!
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #18 on: 19/09/2009 02:41:02 »
I appreciate your concern, but this exchange above is an exchange between friends - it is called  "humor."

I hope that you recognize it in the future.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #19 on: 19/09/2009 03:07:43 »
Oh, like the cocnern i had to help others... and perhaps enticing them or however to ask questions? The same kind of questions you made the other user here feel stupid over?

Who made you a mod... this was a big mistake. You have no understanding into intentions, never mind humor. If i was the other guy here, i would have felt slightly embarrassed by your remarks.

I will make this publically-known a moderator should not act upon with such unprofessionalism.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #20 on: 19/09/2009 03:09:51 »
(by the way... by enticing, it's meant to mean the opening new post i made in this subforum which you have unjustifiably removed from answering to. If anything you have not helped anyone but your own conducts.)
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #21 on: 19/09/2009 04:05:09 »
Mr S,

Hold on a mo. I'm not sure anybody called anybody else "stupid" or even inferred that they were. Was it my comment to JimBob where I said "Even I knew that one."? If it was, JimBob knows quite well that I'm pulling his leg. We regularly trade "insults", and if he wants to defend himself, he is quite capable of doing so.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #22 on: 19/09/2009 04:33:24 »
Mr S,

Hold on a mo. I'm not sure anybody called anybody else "stupid" or even inferred that they were. Was it my comment to JimBob where I said "Even I knew that one."? If it was, JimBob knows quite well that I'm pulling his leg. We regularly trade "insults", and if he wants to defend himself, he is quite capable of doing so.

Thank you, Old Git - er, Geezer.
 

Offline G-man

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
String theory?
« Reply #23 on: 19/09/2009 10:50:07 »

Hi Jimbob;

Are we talking about the string theory here?

 
And, yes before the string theory we use to see four forces in the atomic system,

[1] the strong force

[2] the weak force

[3] the electro-magnetic force

[4] and some where there was the gravitational force

   Then Steven showed us that the weak force became the electro-magnetic force when it was force to polarize and propagate out of the atomic system. All mass / or element become magnetic at very low energy levels, usually well below -200° K

   The key is to understand that it is the electrons that spin out a loping string of flux that becomes polarize and propagate out, that becomes the magnetic fields.

   The key is to understand that it is the proton in the nuclei that spin out a loping string of flux that becomes polarize and propagate out, that becomes the graviataional fields. This can only happen at high energy levels such as in the plasma state of the mass.


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
String theory?
« Reply #24 on: 19/09/2009 14:59:34 »
Mr S,

Hold on a mo. I'm not sure anybody called anybody else "stupid" or even inferred that they were. Was it my comment to JimBob where I said "Even I knew that one."? If it was, JimBob knows quite well that I'm pulling his leg. We regularly trade "insults", and if he wants to defend himself, he is quite capable of doing so.

No, i stated its not stupid to ask questions. I never inferred a personal remark on what may make someone potentially-feel like questions are frowned upon.

Come on guys, read what i am saying please.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

String theory?
« Reply #24 on: 19/09/2009 14:59:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums