[cpu68 (OP)]

Below paragraph comes from a bigger work New horizons in physics:

Mainly rubbish fills present physics, for example - cosmical branes giving beginning to big bang and creating other universes, multidimensionality, strings existing in 10 dimensions, string theory, microbubbles, hyperspace and so on. They are products of exuberant speculation completely detached from reality. We need to get out of the nonsense of current physics. Today's physics is dominated by pathological speculations such as string theory and hyperspace.

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2014

[Zer0]

Cosmic Branes is probably ruled out.
Or maybe not.

Multidimensionality as a Hypothetical seems Legit.
Associated quantum phenomenons can be explained with it.

String Theory, M-theory & what not, my guess or your guess is as good as anybody elses.
Verification is a major problem.

Nobody will give ' HyperSpace ' a serious thought.
On second thoughts, they might, but won't say it out loud, cause of fear of being called a crackpot.
I'd like to discuss this, but we both will be tagged as loonies!

Btw, what is MicroBlisters?

[cpu68 (OP)]

Multidimensionality as a Hypothetical seems Legit.

The point is that multidimensionality is speculation divorced from reasonably understood reality. And you could say it's bullshit.

String Theory

The point is that string theory is bullshit.

Btw, what is MicroBlisters?

should be microbubbles

[Origin]

On second thoughts, they might, but won't say it out loud, cause of fear of being called a crackpot.
I'd like to discuss this, but we both will be tagged as loonies!

Don't worry about it, I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks you're a crackpot.

[Zer0]

Multidimensionality as a Hypothetical seems Legit.

The point is that multidimensionality is speculation divorced from reasonably understood reality. And you could say it's bullshit.

lol
Well, on the quantum scales, maybe that is the only thing we have which could help us make sense of the phenomenon by a logical pattern.

String Theory

The point is that string theory is bullshit.

lol
But it's cheap, all you need for r&d is pieces of paper n a pencil.
Besides, nobody can dare to prove/disprove your hypothesis.

Btw, what is MicroBlisters?

should be microbubbles

Yep!
That's what i thought, good to reconfirm or reverify.

ps - nyc 2 c u back!
: )

[Zer0]

On second thoughts, they might, but won't say it out loud, cause of fear of being called a crackpot.
I'd like to discuss this, but we both will be tagged as loonies!

Don't worry about it, I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks you're a crackpot.

On second thoughts, they might, but won't say it out loud, cause of fear of being called a crackpot.
I'd like to discuss this, but we both will be tagged as loonies!

Don't worry about it, I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks you're a crackpot.

I cannot respond to this.
I'd be marked down as being condescending & possibly banned.

Favouritism & Bias is Applicable everywhere so...

Besides, i do not think u even have a bit of a clue as to what the hell it is that u are dealing with in here.

ps - Peace Out!

[cpu68 (OP)]

Such a scale of speculation in modern physics leads it completely astray.

[Origin]

I'd be marked down as being condescending & possibly banned.

Oops!  I'm sorry, I screwed up and thought I was responding to cpu68 (who's definitely a crackpot).  You generally ask good questions and seem reasonable to me. 

[Zer0]

Such a scale of speculation in modern physics leads it completely astray.

The Blind Men and the Elephant --
John Godfrey Saxe's (1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend:

It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[Zer0]

I'd be marked down as being condescending & possibly banned.

Oops!  I'm sorry, I screwed up and thought I was responding to cpu68 (who's definitely a crackpot).  You generally ask good questions and seem reasonable to me.

i guess perhaps once again, it is a simple case of Misidentification.
& as usual, We shall let it pass.

i was quite fond of your " don't be Sillies " .
But i do not suppose anyone online/offline enjoys being tagged a troll, loony, crackpot & whatnot.
(i personally prefer Cl0wn, who juggles his own ballz)

At times i feel like asking U if U are okay n doing good.
But always fall short, thinking it would be a personal query & i should be better off just minding my own business.

i do not mind anyone spitting or taking a gibe at me.
i can handle it.
if ever U feel like Venting Off, then i am ur Man!

This kid from Poland(cpu) is kinda Unique.
We all at some time or the other require a lil bit more of " Handle with Care " attitude.
Anywhichways, WE are All Specials!

Donno who out here on this forum is going thru a misfortunes patch in their lives.

All we can do is Be Supportive.

Just for a moment, imagine if i had got up on the wrong side of the bed, n read crackpot, & responded with Crippled Commode.

ps - Love grows Exponentially.
while Hatred in Tetration.
plz tc!

[cpu68 (OP)]

You can also add parallel universes to the list from the first post.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Current physics is wallowing in exuberant speculations, and as it turns out, philosophical analysis can warn against this. This shows a certain usefulness of philosophy.

[cpu68 (OP)]

In this, I believe, one can see the essential value of philosophy, even today.

[Kryptid]

You're no stranger to exuberant speculations yourself. You even said that you galactical model couldn't be tested with modern technology.

[cpu68 (OP)]

You're no stranger to exuberant speculations yourself. You even said that you galactical model couldn't be tested with modern technology.

I could partly agree with you, and partly not. My galactical model or TOE seem to have a more solid foundation than string theory or extra dimensions.

[Kryptid]

My galactical model or TOE seem to have a more solid foundation than string theory or extra dimensions.

In what sense?

[cpu68 (OP)]

In what sense?

The basis of my TOE, i.e. the square microgrid of space, was actually an object of observation. And the galactic model is justified by the planetary model of the atom, which turned out to be true.

[Kryptid]

The basis of my TOE, i.e. the square microgrid of space, was actually an object of observation.

When was such a thing ever observed?

And the galactic model is justified by the planetary model of the atom, which turned out to be true.

First of all, the planetary model of the atom is wrong. Electrons are not like solid little balls that move in defined orbits around the nucleus. They are quantum mechanical. Electrons have defined energy levels, but they don't move like planets at all.

Secondly, analogies only go so far. You need actual evidence that things work the way you claim they do (at the very least mathematically) before they are something we can consider "solid".

[cpu68 (OP)]

When was such a thing ever observed?

Using quasiparanormal perception ("psychic sight").

First of all, the planetary model of the atom is wrong. Electrons are not like solid little balls that move in defined orbits around the nucleus. They are quantum mechanical. Electrons have defined energy levels, but they don't move like planets at all.

Bohr model is called the planetary model, and it turned out to be correct.

[Kryptid]

Using quasiparanormal perception ("psychic sight").

Since when is that an acceptable means of scientific observation?

Bohr model is called the planetary model, and it turned out to be correct.

No. No it did not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

The Bohr model is a relatively primitive model of the hydrogen atom, compared to the valence shell model. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics or energy level diagrams before moving on to the more accurate, but more complex, valence shell atom.

Select portions underlined by me.