The fact you are ignorant of vector calculus and theoretical physics and thus blind to his mistakes doesn't mean his mistakes aren't there.
He claims all extra dimensions are time dimensions. Anyone who knows about metric and signatures knows he's wrong. It follows immediately from the symmetry of space-time. SO(9,1) is the symmetry of 10 dimensional space where 1 of the directions is special, which we call time. This breaks to SO(3,1) x SO(6) upon compactification. There's still only 1 special direction, the 6 seperate directions have metric signature equal to the 3 others in SO(3,1) and thus are still spacial.
It's understandable to anyone who has done the fundamentals of special relativity. You haven't. Kaiduorkhon hasn't. And obviously Mathis hasn't.
That's a glaring mistake made by someone whining about a theory he obviously doesn't know. He's critiquing a pop science book. Why isn't he critiquing the string theory published papers written by Green instead? Why is he not going direct to the source? Because he, like you and Kaiduorkhon, is a hack.
Although this statement (The series of quoted paragraphs, above) was specifically directed at QuantumWave, it's ostensibly intended for and specifically aimed at three people - Q_W, Miles Mathis and myself.
Don't see how you can proclaim that Mathis is 'critiquing a pop science book', when in fact he's
categorically addressing Greene's,
The Elegant Universe. Part of my motive for posting (copy & pasting) excerpts from Mathis' book now proves out to reveal your equivocation in saying that Mathis is 'critiquing a pop physics book' - whereas, the transfer of verbatim excerpts from Mathis' paper (addressing Greene's book), for all to see and read in this thread, proves otherwise.
Perhaps I misunderstand, maybe you mean that Dr. Greene's best seller is a 'pop physics book' - have I misunderstood something here?
As previously and candidly clarified,Truly Yours (out of ignorance of math) cannot speak for QW or Mathis regarding any kind of mathematical debate, whereas it's clear that I have placed my confidence in Mathis' math over yours.
It appears that what we have generated - among other subjects - in this thread is a baseline for comparative measurement of the value of your representative declarations, vs those of Mathis. Integrity has to do with it.
There's no way for me to know what or how much you know of Miles Mathis, while I would guess that if you haven't been studying your herein appointed nemesis in the past, there are good reasons for considering that your awareness of Mr. Mathis - and that of a lot of others on either side of this ongoing rhubarb - will dilate somewhat, from now on.
A list of his achievements can be accessed at
http://milesmathis.com/ - and time will tell whether or not you and your quasi cabalistic, innercircle peers find an enhanced curiosity - if not a necessity - to learn more about this man's work. In the tentative interim you afford to alternately ignore and berate him. You presently content yourself with calling Mathis a 'hack'.
A time may well be upon you to regret that.
Can't speak for QW or Mathis, while my opinion is that QW's scientific
intuition alone, guides him to move away from string 'theory', and string 'theorists' in general. There's something about a recent frost having iced over a pond with far too many recreational and professional skaters testing it's capacity to hold them all up. Speaking for myself, since no small number of critics have accused me of vainly attempting to displace Einstein, I decided to clear up that 'misunderstanding' by not altogether flippantly referring to myself as the 'world's #1 Einstein groupie'. I am also uneasy with any
motions to eliminate history from the past.
And yes, there are others who have made my list of 'modern' champions, including Marie Curie, Nicola Tesla, Bertrand Russell, Bondi, Gold & Hoyle, Barbara Lovett Cline and though there are others - more recently, Miles Mathis, who dares ask questions and certainly demonstrates that there's plenty to talk about - outside the guarded parameters of what is 'scientifically appropriate' - if you want to keep your job - in today's revisionist occupied academia. Exceptions to the rule, granted where found...
True authority
invites questions, because genuine authority dares to ask questions, and, stands up under questioning, often - as is generally understood - learning even more even as it teaches. I am in step with Mathis regarding his disappointment that Greene has directly implied that theorists may take - or already have taken - precedence over experimentalists. In Mathis' introduction on his web page (list of achievements/contents), he relates the parable of the world - or universe - balancing on the back of a turtle; when the question of what the turtle is standing on arises, the answer comes back, 'more turtles' ('It's turtles all the way down, my son'.) I have no argument with the method and motive of thought problems (be they conjured by a Zen master, a student, or a professor), until the pursued answers become 'thought problems all the way down'... That's not elegance, that's specious reiteration of redundancy. And, until it proves itself to be otherwise, that also appears to emerge as the central method of string 'theory'.
I have known of string 'theory' long before I learned of Mathis and his work, but what I have learned since learning of Mathis, is, that neither of us, along with a heck of a lot of others,
trust string theory. My mistrust of it began as soon as I learned the thither and skelterism of determining 'dimensions', and,
how a one dimensional line can even curve, let alone curve into a 'loop'. You say you can explain this, then you say that you can explain that, and then you say that you can explain the other things about strings - things that stand between ponderable reason and feral speculation, usually in the guise of defiantly brandished 'higher mathematics'.
All of this continues to be done without a single quantified prediction, or even a pragmatic setting for experimental verification. Much of the very vocabulary of string theory is an insult to the science of philology as well as the dignity of humanity. And yes, I have Miles Mathis to thank for expanding my thresholds of understanding not only what string 'theory' is, but, what it is not. And yes, I am grateful to Mathis for that. Neither am I the only one.
My work is more along the lines of theoretical physics for talented truck drivers: an everyday, people's unified field. It is already abundantly commended as a comprehensive remedial primer to a better understanding of what was formerly beyond the parameters of a high school education. As I have said before, because it is based on the foundations of theoretical physics, it's disqualification isn't likely, but, even if a nullificaion of its central theme(s) should occur, the lessons learned redeem themselves, on the way to that disqualification - contributing all that much more to understanding.
If you, or one - or a group - of your cabalist peers consider my work so unworthy of your higher education, what prevents you - or anyone else - from making a recreational example of it, by way of disqualification? Tens of thousands of people are not many in the larger scheme of things, yet, there are at least that many acolytes who advocate my translation, and contribution(s) to Einstein's work, and the work of many others, without whom I would not even have the ability to write, let alone a reinstatement of the presently abandoned cosmological constant and steady state theories. The residuals of which are already returning to classroom slates and papers, via 'quintessence', and 'dark matter'.
- K.B. Robertson, aka, Kai.