At 12:20 AM -0800 2/15/03, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 07:55 AM 02/14/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
As one approaches the plank length,
I'm getting kind of board with this.
(Alternatively, Bob Hettinga can make some kind of pirate comment here...)
It's non M, I'll tell ye that, matey...
At 12:20 AM -0800 2/15/03, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 07:55 AM 02/14/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
As one approaches the plank length,
I'm getting kind of board with this.
(Alternatively, Bob Hettinga can make some kind of pirate comment here...)
It's non M, I'll tell ye that, matey...
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens
have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees
when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from
a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal lengths...
Oh.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 12:20:12AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens
have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees
when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from
a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
As one approaches the plank length, the structure of space time
will become more like fractal quantum foam,
It isn't 'fractal' at all, it does cease being continous. Not the same
thing.
--
At 07:55 AM 02/14/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
As one approaches the plank length,
I'm getting kind of board with this.
(Alternatively, Bob Hettinga can make some kind of pirate comment here...)
TD Hell, Witten himself said something like The development of General
TD Relativity probably
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 12:20:12AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens
have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees
when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from
a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens
have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees
when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from
a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal lengths...
Oh.
--
On 13 Feb 2003 at 16:51, Eric Cordian wrote:
If the small scale structure of the universe isn't
manifold-like, then a theory which says it is an
11-dimensional manifold is not a great leap over a theory
which says it is a 4-dimensional manifold.
As one approaches the plank length,
Eric Cordian wrote...
Perhaps it is so friggin' hard because you are trying to do the
equivalent of modular exponentiation with Roman numerals.
Well, you're kind of missing my point. You said that 'M' was for Moron, and
I was pointing out that the Morons working on this theory are in
Tyler Durden Wrote:
Well, you're kind of missing my point. You said that 'M' was for Moron, and
I was pointing out that the Morons working on this theory are in some ways
some of the most mathematically proficient people on the planet (and some
are just plain old great physicsts).
Well,
--
On 13 Feb 2003 at 16:51, Eric Cordian wrote:
If the small scale structure of the universe isn't
manifold-like, then a theory which says it is an
11-dimensional manifold is not a great leap over a theory
which says it is a 4-dimensional manifold.
As one approaches the plank length,
Eric Cordian wrote...
Continuous math is a dead end. So are strings.
Yo! Superstring theory is only continuous math because the proper
mathematical theory describing strings didn't exist. In the past, physics
has sometimes lagged (ca 1900) sometimes led (Newton) the development of the
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
The M in M-Theory stands for Moron.
I always thought it stood for Mescaline. ]:
Tyler Durden opines:
Yo! Superstring theory is only continuous math because the proper
mathematical theory describing strings didn't exist. In the past, physics
has sometimes lagged (ca 1900) sometimes led (Newton) the development of the
needed mathematics. If Superstrings ends up
Eric Cordian wrote...
Perhaps it is so friggin' hard because you are trying to do the
equivalent of modular exponentiation with Roman numerals.
Well, you're kind of missing my point. You said that 'M' was for Moron, and
I was pointing out that the Morons working on this theory are in
Tyler Durden Wrote:
Well, you're kind of missing my point. You said that 'M' was for Moron, and
I was pointing out that the Morons working on this theory are in some ways
some of the most mathematically proficient people on the planet (and some
are just plain old great physicsts).
Well,
Tyler Durden opines:
Yo! Superstring theory is only continuous math because the proper
mathematical theory describing strings didn't exist. In the past, physics
has sometimes lagged (ca 1900) sometimes led (Newton) the development of the
needed mathematics. If Superstrings ends up
Eric Cordian wrote...
Continuous math is a dead end. So are strings.
Yo! Superstring theory is only continuous math because the proper
mathematical theory describing strings didn't exist. In the past, physics
has sometimes lagged (ca 1900) sometimes led (Newton) the development of the
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
The M in M-Theory stands for Moron.
I always thought it stood for Mescaline. ]:
20 matches
Mail list logo
