Unfortunately, it's as far as I can tell pure fantasy. Sure, you can throw in fancy words like "string theory" and "extra dimensions", but it doesn't make it any more true. For one thing, there's little if any experimental support for string theory yet. For another, what this webpage says doesn't line up with anything, really, leading me to think this is complete bullshit. The jumping through time and possible worlds stuff is made up.
This guy could probably be a decent science fiction writer. He's certainly not a physicist. Read the two first reviews at amazon.
Unlike Hawking, who is a real physicist who not only has a brilliant grasp of current physics but has contributed to it, this guy is nothing but a pretender. He presents his work as though it's popular science while in fact it is the author's understanding of popular science sprinkled with pure fantasy.
I've seen this website pop up in web forums from time to time, and it never fails to astonish and impress lay readers. I'm nowhere near a scientist, yet I can clearly see that this is bunk. Why can't you?
Unfortunately, it's as far as I can tell pure fantasy. Sure, you can throw in fancy words like "string theory" and "extra dimensions", but it doesn't make it any more true. For one thing, there's little if any experimental support for string theory yet. For another, what this webpage says doesn't line up with anything, really, leading me to think this is complete bullshit. The jumping through time and possible worlds stuff is made up.
This guy could probably be a decent science fiction writer. He's certainly not a physicist. Read the two first reviews at amazon.
Unlike Hawking, who is a real physicist who not only has a brilliant grasp of current physics but has contributed to it, this guy is nothing but a pretender. He presents his work as though it's popular science while in fact it is the author's understanding of popular science sprinkled with pure fantasy.
I've seen this website pop up in web forums from time to time, and it never fails to astonish and impress lay readers. I'm nowhere near a scientist, yet I can clearly see that this is bunk. Why can't you?
maybe you are right and this guy isn't a real physicist, anyway the theory of multiple dimensions is promoted, and even modified by Stephen Hawking, he supports the theorie of membrane universes and the cord theorie, gives so much sense to the existense of multiple dimensions.
Yes i have noted that this guy is some wrong because according to Hawking theories, there may be 11 dimensions
Unfortunately, it's as far as I can tell pure fantasy. Sure, you can throw in fancy words like "string theory" and "extra dimensions", but it doesn't make it any more true. For one thing, there's little if any experimental support for string theory yet. For another, what this webpage says doesn't line up with anything, really, leading me to think this is complete bullshit. The jumping through time and possible worlds stuff is made up.
This guy could probably be a decent science fiction writer. He's certainly not a physicist. Read the two first reviews at amazon.
Unlike Hawking, who is a real physicist who not only has a brilliant grasp of current physics but has contributed to it, this guy is nothing but a pretender. He presents his work as though it's popular science while in fact it is the author's understanding of popular science sprinkled with pure fantasy.
I've seen this website pop up in web forums from time to time, and it never fails to astonish and impress lay readers. I'm nowhere near a scientist, yet I can clearly see that this is bunk. Why can't you?
maybe you are right and this guy isn't a real physicist, anyway the theory of multiple dimensions is promoted, and even modified by Stephen Hawking, he supports the theorie of membrane universes and the cord theorie, gives so much sense to the existense of multiple dimensions.
Yes i have noted that this guy is some wrong because according to Hawking theories, there may be 11 dimensions
The idea of unseen dimensions comes from M/String theory, and since we have yet to find much experimental support for them, they remain conjecture.
Either way, the idea is that the dimensions are either really small (much too small to see even in a microscope) or we're embedded in a larger-dimensional object. If any of these theories are right, what this guy says is bullshit. If they're wrong, what he says is bullshit. The only thing they share is the mention of extra dimensions.
So, even if string theory were true, and we don't have any compelling evidence to think so yet, what this guy says is completely false.
And hence the problem with this theory. The main problem right now is the fact that it really isn't more than a very fancy math equation. Absolutely zero evidence for it.
Its very dubious too because it predicts that an astronomical amount of energy is needed to probe that distance, far beyond our present capabilities, which implies that we will never be able to see it.
Pretty much, the people who promote this "theory" should just as well have said that "God did it" simply because the conditions and experimental constraints are just plain ludicrous and impossible. Plus, its easy to create any equation that describes phenomena, but the question becomes whether it is the correct representation of our universe. MOND vs Dark Matter theories are a good example.
I really enjoy your posts. The creator of this site seems to accept both string theory and the multiple universes theory. Do not most multiple universe folks accept brane theory (Lisa Randall)? Or, are the two theories completely separate? I get them confused, although I believe that the Multiple Universe theory is mainly a result of the uncertainty principle, whereas branes are a little vague to me. I accept string theory more than I do multiple universes (or branes), since I am skeptical of that interpretation of quantum theory allowing all probabilities to be happening at the same time. I admit to having theological/philosophical qualms about Multiple Universes that many of you might deem "unscientific."
A True Monotheist
Hillel says, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14