The Space Particles Theory

[Kainat]

I've come up with a theory that explains why the space is 3-dimensional. You can read it at spaceparticles.net .

 

[eram]

I've come up with a theory that explains why the space is 3-dimensional. You can read it at spaceparticles.net .

Cool theory bro.

But is it able to reductionally explain existing phenomena, and can you devise an experiment to test it?

 

[Q-reeus]

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?

 

[eram]

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?

I was just playing on "cool story bro".

If you overlook the explanation on why space is 3-dimensional, whatever he's saying sounds a bit like string theory.

 

[Q-reeus]

I was just playing on "cool story bro".

It can it's true be ok to humor people at times. But never feed oxygen to an oxy-moron.

If you overlook the explanation on why space is 3-dimensional, whatever he's saying sounds a bit like string theory.

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.

 

[eram]

But never feed oxygen to an oxy-moron.

That is an epic pun.

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:

We can say that Kainat's theory resembles String theory in the "Planck scale" Oh yes, the Cesspool.

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.

That's why I said to overlook it.
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.

 

[Q-reeus]

That is an epic pun.

Thanks. I'd like to claim originality but in truth it's just a slight adaptation of someone else's wit.

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.

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

We've got a forum for alternative 'theories', so this thread is getting moved.

 

[James R]

The opening post appears to be an advertisement. Time to close this thread. Perhaps one day we'll hear from the advertiser again.