OT: The 10th Demention

[Azselendor]

GuyOfDoom said:
That doesn't mean we're totally wrong, we just don't know enough yet.

Which, in itself, is a good reason to help promote the sciences. We need to know more.

[Phoenix-D]

Anything that proposes to replace -everything- sets off all sorts of alarm bells. You have to have one hell of a weight of evidence for that to work.

Well, this is fun. He's setting off the bull**** detectors left and right even discounting that (example- if protons naturally cluster in the nucleus and are stable, why the !%@ do high-proton count atoms become unstable? Example 2: he doesn't get why we don't use Einstein's theories- which is simply because at low speeds they turn into Newton's, and the effective MEANS of gravity doesn't matter, just the way it acts).

[Raapys]

I see his point, though. Much of what we "know to be true" is just based on vague and unproven theories, and these hole-riddled theories are the base for which new scientific work is done.

Sort of like putting all your already-broken eggs in a basket that's also about to break.

I'm really curious as to how he goes about explaining the universe, though. Have anyone read the full book?

[Phoenix-D]

Example 3 from the skim, and this one is REALLY amusing:

d = �at2. Constant acceleration equation. He claims this doesn't have any relationship to gravity at all. No physical forces at all. Except, oh, a. Which is...drumroll please...acceleration due to gravity.

I can guess what his theory would be from all this: crap, and more crap. Scientific theories are used to describe the world, and they do have problems, but they aren't anywhere near as problematic as you're implying, Raapys.

[Raapys]

Well, my knowledge in the area of science isn't exactly staggering, so I wont try to defend my perhaps rash statement.

However, isn't it true much of what he says? One example; how can the law of conservation of energy( "Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another" ) and the laws of gravitation exist both at the same time; aren't they massive contradictions?

[AngleWyrm]

The whole book is on P2P for download as a pdf.

While he does raise important questions in the first chapter, his answers are defended with "thought experiments"--a concept attributed to Einstein--which is in my opinion poor science.

"If the earth were to suddenly disappear..." does not have anything to do with the universe in which we live. And understanding the universe in which we live is a big part of it.

[GuyOfDoom]

Thought Experiments are nice examples to show people and serve as the framework for actual experiments, which the man seems to be greatly lacking.

[Raapys]

I found an interesting review of the book over here.

http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf

[GuyOfDoom]

Wow. With a review like that you might as well call it a counter-novel.

[Raapys]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of this stuff. He goes on about his own theories and thoughts more than the actual stuff in the book he's reviewing. And he really likes metaphores.

Pick a desire, especially a nice little addiction. Say you like chocolate. Notice how
you feel about chocolate. Do you have a certain amount of attention fixated on
chocolate? Go find some chocolate. Feel how it is when you approach the chocolate.
Put some in your mouth and enjoy the momentary pleasure of tasting and chewing and
swallowing it. That is how gravity works.