NationStates Jolt Archive

And in other news today, The Federal Research and Development Department announced that it has discovered an interesting aspect of the Space-Time Continuum.

"Apparently," according to one unnamed physicist, "The Space-Time Continuum is an eleven-dimensional Mobius Strip. This new-found understanding of the universe will open the door to many new technologies."

Another unnamed physicist claimed that, "With our current level of technology, we have done extensive damage to our enemies. Now, with this new discovery, our Fleets will be da*ned near unstoppable!"

This has been another Federal News Broadcast, brought to you by the Federal News Network.

Bump

And in other news today, The Federal Research and Development Department announced that it has discovered an interesting aspect of the Space-Time Continuum.

"Apparently," according to one unnamed physicist, "The Space-Time Continuum is an eleven-dimensional Mobius Strip. This new-found understanding of the universe will open the door to many new technologies."

Another unnamed physicist claimed that, "With our current level of technology, we have done extensive damage to our enemies. Now, with this new discovery, our Fleets will be da*ned near unstoppable!"

This has been another Federal News Broadcast, brought to you by the Federal News Network.
YEAH! YEAH! um what did you discover?

Lol. Something about the universe. Have a nice day. :D

Ebolania congratulates you on your epic discovery and is sure it will make the universe better.

OOC: okay, now what?

ooc: Okay. According to Einstein and all those other great physicists, the STC is either spherical, or hyperboloid in shape. Now, by claiming that the STC is eleven dimensional, as well as being shaped as a Mobius Strip, basically says that all of them are wrong. Also, seing as string theory goes on the idea that seven of 10 spatial dimensions are curled up into strings, by saying the STC is eleven-dimensional essentially says that they are wrong too. So, this is actually quite a contraversial statement if you think about it...

Therefore, this solves alot of my tech problems... :D

I'd like to remind all of you that, before you even begin to ponder whether he may or may not have anything backing up his bullshit, he is a 13 year old just entering his first physics course. In fact, he's arguing with me right now that he's right an this 30-some physicist and his collegues are wrong.

And yes, I'm pissed enough to be making this post. His egomanicism has gone way too far.

Why, thank you for that little tirade, IE. And I suppose you and everyone else in the scientific field are never wrong... even though theories are revised soooo often...

Did you just call me 13?

Why, thank you for that little tirade, IE. And I suppose you and everyone else in the scientific field are never wrong... even though theories are revised soooo often...

Oh, but that's the thing, we have this little ability of admitting when we're wrong.

By the way, he brings up a very good point. Just so you know, he isn't actually 13, it's meant as an insult. I may be pissed, but even so, I would not compromise my morals enough to admit something someone told me in confidence (his age).

Yes, because you're always wrong. (note to any mods: This is a friendly little conversation between us)

Yes, because you're always wrong. (note to any mods: This is a friendly little conversation between us)

Oh yes, I know. Never been right in my life.

By the way guys, did you know that GZ is one of the smartest people I know?

Oh yes, I know. Never been right in my life.

By the way guys, did you know that GZ is one of the smartest people I know?

Well, I guess you've been right once... After all, I am one of the smartest people you know...

Well, I guess you've been right once... After all, I am one of the smartest people you know...

*Whoooooosh*

That's the sound of that post going right over GZ's head ;)

*Whoooooosh*

That's the sound of that post going right over GZ's head ;)

Right over my head, eh? But you forget, I'm one of the smartest people you know.

Y'know, you really shouldn't change your position on things... You'll be as bad as John Kerry.

Right over my head, eh? But you forget, I'm one of the smartest people you know.

And now it just flaps around his ears as comprehension still fails to dawn...

Don't compare yourself to an elephant. Bad for self-esteem.

"When I see an elephant Flyyyyy..."

...

When that makes sense, I'll get back to you.

...

Oh well, see you when pigs fly.

You're a regular Dumbo... Hint Hint...

Heh, so how's that in any way related to what we were talking about?

My turn:

*whoooosh*

That was the sound of the post flying right over IE's head.

My turn:

*whoooosh*

That was the sound of the post flying right over IE's head.

Leave the damned strawman alone, you've beaten the hay out of him enough already.

*whooosh*

Sound of IE's post flying over my head.

What?

But I still stand by my statement that you guys are wrong.

O IE...... Come out and plaaaay......

-OOC-
Any support for this, or shall I go ahead and denouce it as absolute bullshit and add another point to the "GZ-Ignore-o-Meter"?

OY!

Actually, there's 16 dimensions, the only problem is that 6 of 'em are null, so they don't count, so that makes 10.

Now, consider the following four basis which describes modern spacetime:

XN

X0= time
X1= length
X2= height
X3= depth

Kay? That's an important thing when it comes to relativity.

Now, in order to determine the number of actual dimensions related to such a thing (because for some odd reason relativity involves a whole dang bunch of derivative dimensions), one simply follows this simple equation.

N(N+1)/2

In the case of a four-basis (current spacetime) that is (4)(4+1)/2 = 4x5 / 2 = 10.

That's why there's 10 dimensions.

Please don't make me say how we get the ones that don't count.

OY!

Actually, there's 16 dimensions, the only problem is that 6 of 'em are null, so they don't count, so that makes 10.

Now, consider the following four basis which describes modern spacetime:

XN

X0= time
X1= length
X2= height
X3= depth

Kay? That's an important thing when it comes to relativity.

Now, in order to determine the number of actual dimensions related to such a thing (because for some odd reason relativity involves a whole dang bunch of derivative dimensions), one simply follows this simple equation.

N(N+1)/2

In the case of a four-basis (current spacetime) that is (4)(4+1)/2 = 4x5 / 2 = 10.

That's why there's 10 dimensions.

Please don't make me say how we get the ones that don't count.

...

There are most certainly 11 pertanent dimensions of spacetime in modern M-theory. Look it up if you need to.

Mekanta, IE's and my dialogue is simply for entertainment purposes, spurred by a little disagreement. No need to add to the "GZ-Ignore-O-Meter".

EDIT: Null space? :D Godular brought it up... :D

-OOC-
Bah. I'm distrustful of string theory in general. Too many inconsistancies.

Meh, what ever. I just wanted to see GZ explain it. No, Kid, I wouldn't put another point on the ignore-o-meter for this.

... Especially not with the Azimovian crap I'm going to be pulling with Project CITADEL...

See? The Great Mekanta acknowledges the problems with String Theory!

M-theory of string theory... NYEARGH!

I'll take occam's razor anyday thankyas.

M-theory of string theory... NYEARGH!

I'll take occam's razor anyday thankyas.

So you'll take the older, flawed theory and then call it wrong without addressing the newer theory that patches up the holes in the old theory?

I love your logic...

EDIT: By the way, which string theory do you so quickly object to?

IE, you are so... bound... by the "rules" that many, in their ignorance, have set.

Dude, IE, it hasn't crossed your mind once that Einstein, Newton, Hawking, could have been wrong, or, their equations incomplete? Maybe Ignorance was too harsh a word... but, nonetheless, why do you take it so seriously?

IE, I am not an egomaniac, I am simply asking you whether we could all be horridly wrong. You have not questioned once the doctrines of Theoretical Physics in your studies? You follow and adhere to them without question?

Fun Fact of the Day: Due to the subject nature of IC reality, I could postulate that the entire space-time continuum is contained within a small dog's lower intestinal tract, and you could not conclusivly prove me wrong in an IC context, while at the same time such would not invalidate anyone else's concept of the universe.

Multipule co-existing realities? Funky laws of physics? Or proof that God created the universe during the 60's? You decide.

One response: Heh.

Dude, IE, it hasn't crossed your mind once that Einstein, Newton, Hawking, could have been wrong, or, their equations incomplete? Maybe Ignorance was too harsh a word... but, nonetheless, why do you take it so seriously?

I question their correctness all the time. However, I very much frown upon just dismissing their work with no proof whatsoever.

Just out of curiosity, what year physics are ya? Graduate? Post-Doctoral?

And I ain't talking about rejecting string theory (what made ya think I was? I was mainly saying M-theory seems a tad too out there fer my current level of physical understanding, looking through the referencing articles, even without any mathematics tacked on to show their work, my eyes were glazing over.)

P.S. what holes? All the articles seemed to carry the gist of "This will help us out, but we have NO clue how."

-OOC-

Fifteen points to Kanuckistan for that response.

Eh... I have some proof, as you could call it... but... if you'd get back on AIM... Well, maybe not proof, but, alot of theories that work...

Godular, he isn't there yet...

This funny thread. Me bump. Bump.

Just out of curiosity, what year physics are ya? Graduate? Post-Doctoral?

And I ain't talking about rejecting string theory (what made ya think I was? I was mainly saying M-theory seems a tad too out there fer my current level of physical understanding, looking through the referencing articles, even without any mathematics tacked on to show their work, my eyes were glazing over.)

P.S. what holes? All the articles seemed to carry the gist of "This will help us out, but we have NO clue how."


It wasn't addressed to me but I'm a first year Physics Major at the University of Winnipeg. You?

And it seems you're talking about popular science articles (by which I mean articles on science for the general public, not articles from the magazine Popular Science) which are hardly good for understanding what actually is involved in a theory.

And GZ, why I don't just dismiss Einstein. Because his ewuations work, they work again and again. That's why I trust Einstein. If something new comes along that explains it better I'll trust that just as much as I trust Einstein. The same way I trust Newtonian gravity to still work in General Relativity.

ooc: Okay. According to Einstein and all those other great physicists, the STC is either spherical, or hyperboloid in shape. Now, by claiming that the STC is eleven dimensional, as well as being shaped as a Mobius Strip, basically says that all of them are wrong. Also, seing as string theory goes on the idea that seven of 10 spatial dimensions are curled up into strings, by saying the STC is eleven-dimensional essentially says that they are wrong too. So, this is actually quite a contraversial statement if you think about it...

Therefore, this solves alot of my tech problems... :D

so to sort out your problem you make something up and try and look smart....mmm i think i will go with Kanuckistan Theory on the STC.

oh and on anther note people the meaning of life is 42, yep 42 now prove me wrong.

so to sort out your problem you make something up and try and look smart....mmm i think i will go with Kanuckistan Theory on the STC.

oh and on anther note people the meaning of life is 42, yep 42 now prove me wrong.

Actually, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, is 42.

Tho the question to that answer eludes scientologists to this day.

Actually, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, is 42.

Tho the question to that answer eludes scientologists to this day.

All hail the great Douglas Adams.

Reading through further...

I notice that the M-theory only uses the 11th dimension finding as a part of a smaller whole. It seems that M-theory can have any number of additional "dimensions" tacked onto it ad infinitum. This is quite interesting stuff, and its depressing that I hadn't heard of it until this very post.

And me being a 3rd year, too...

Well, M-Theory is only to patch up the problems with the Kaluza-Klein theory, where they had only 6 extre dimensions... But, Xessmithia, you know how in math, you can perform decidedly different operations, but still produce the correct answer? Well... think about it...

Bumpers

"you do know that you cant prove you Statment at all its impossible to prove any of the thoerys give me hard facts or be classed a nut case like all the other" CorpSacian Reporter