Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Shachar Shemesh<shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote:
I read the link you gave, but have not found why it does not prove it.
You will, I hope, agree with me that the fact that you have not found
it there does not actually mean that R^-2 => N=3... ;-)
All I said was that if you assume N=3 then you get R^-2, but this does
not mean that the reverse is also true.
You state that, and then you delve on to prove the opposite. You lost me.
The way I know science, we have:
- A mathematical model saying that neither galaxies nor atoms are stable
if N!=3
- Empirical evidence that both galaxies and atoms are stable
The way I know how science works, pending further changes in the whole
way laws of physics are understood (but it would have to be a pretty
fundamental change, that pretty much scraps everything and starts from
scratch), we can say that the Universe is three dimensional. Being as it
is that the above is as close to certainty that any physicist might hope
to get (make that - any scientist), it is usually phrased "it is proven
that the Universe is three dimensional".
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
