I've come up with a theory that explains why the space is 3-dimensional. You can read it at spaceparticles.net .
The only 'coolness' of the BS served up at spaceparticles.net is that of brain death. Why is it even allowed to be posted here?
It can it's true be ok to humor people at times. But never feed oxygen to an oxy-moron.I was just playing on "cool story bro".
As long as one emphasizes 'a bit' in this case - as in 'a very very little bit' . Anyway I expect this thread will soon move to a new home. :m:If you overlook the explanation on why space is 3-dimensional, whatever he's saying sounds a bit like string theory.
That is an epic pun.But never feed oxygen to an oxy-moron.
We can say that Kainat's theory resembles String theory in the "Planck scale" Oh yes, the Cesspool.As long as one emphasizes 'a bit' in this case - as in 'a very very little bit' . Anyway I expect this thread will soon move to a new home. :m:
PS; To give one example of the BS nature of 'spaceparticles theory': Basic premise is that these space particles - of zero size, constitute and 'explain' space. Not reside in a per-existing space. So to start off talking about arranging said zero-sized space particles to form cubes or whatever, one immediately requires a per-existing 3-D space in which such particles are arranged with a spatial separation! A contradiction at basic level. And that's not getting into the problem that quantum behavior is nowhere hinted at. This 'theory' can explain or even accommodate say double-slit interference pattern? And on it goes.
Thanks. I'd like to claim originality but in truth it's just a slight adaptation of someone else's wit.That is an epic pun.
Yep. The one good thing about his 'treatise' is it's extreme brevity. We are mercifully spared wading through reams of something approximating to an actual theory with attendant math of some extent at least.Even if this buffoon manages to devise an experiment, we have no idea what his theory means so we can't determine if the experiment verifies his theory.