Thursday, July 2, 2015
QsDyn IX General Stereonometry
Physics, Metaphysics, and Stereonometry (intuiting the lost book of Aristotle) Here in the 9th post on the quasic view I offer thoughts on our notions of complex organic and physical systems to the extent we understand what is needed for our digital and analog deeply mirrored encoding systems.
* * *
July 2... I have to admit that Lubos got my attention early on by his method of calling other physicists crackpots or worse... many I encountered on line. Surely this is no way to do real science or for that matter a non-biased objective way to develop a unified mathematics as fundamental physics. But I do not mean to put the guest scientist down as I do not know him, respect his era of training, and mind open to the problems at hand I presume. Besides, I do not know what they teach in school anyway... So Lubos, here is a memo for you my humble correspondent from someone worse you said than a crackpot... But I do this with the probably false need to defend my on-line thinkers. But it is not that I or anyone will take your bait much longer... Nor wait for something original and new that may add to our wisdom from him.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/introduction-to-double-field-theory-12.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29 Olaf Hohm of MIT is Lubos "guest blog speaker." First of all the theory presented does not cover all the "super- symmetries" involved via the geometry of the tori. While it is not aware of its narrow view is claims another view is recently and excitingly popular in the last five years that came just after string theory - but it is those alternatives that are said the narrow view. This is like Lubos to sense something possibly exciting as a breakthrough then claim the past history of its development arising from string theory. I am sure the universe does not care about the propaganda of such revisionism as much as say MIT does...Olaf, Motl has used you for his purposes! In the openning paragraph you are wrong anyway...some of this is old and some new (Sabine has a bold new take on this of which sharks rapidly go for the chub of their sinking ship) But as old this came well before string theory and is not even grounded on the ideas of six dimensional spaces from over a hundred years ago. The age of such physics is over... but will Lubos ever get over it? Does science not come together in praise when the evidence comes forth after great debate or are we forever in a loop of our grandfather's ideological preoccupations? PS, you cannot claim you are heirs to the quantum theory either.
* * *