String Theory Discussion Forum
[ String Theory Home ] [ Forum Index ]

What is Different about this post Kx21?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Extra Dimensions XII ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by sol on June 12, 2003 at 17:51:57:

In Reply to: M Physics 21: *** The 'M' Species of Black Holes *** posted by kx21 on June 11, 2003 at 22:54:22:

Kx21

This information you are supplying is ole stuff that we had talked about before here in the forum. Mooreglade and John(from down under) brought this to our attention.

Mooreglade said:The initial fluctuation though?

Osher today asks us to keep focused on the undertanding of dimension

What I have not written yet to Osher, is that he is right, but also the understanding of the Geomtry must be understood, and Mooreglade reminds us of this as well.

I have asked Mooreglade to look at what I have spelt out here(smaller font), and see if his understanding matches the expressions I have laid out?

What has been spelt out in this post of yours, and your link to another edition then the one it was originally linked too, matches what I am saying in that small font in my post.

RTH is very close to describing this.

RTH said:The shortest distance from the observer to the plane is the unit length, and the line along which it occurs is the first basis line. The point in the plane closest to the observer is then the origin from which the unit circle is evolved. The observer then must choose which point on the unit circle to mark, so as to form the second basis line, through the origin. You see, no matter which point on the unit circle is chosen, a line is evolved. Once these choices are made, the spacetime structure as described follows necessarily.

RTH has done a excellent job here. He has made basic assumptions and preceded from there. If we had said that the grvaitational waves always existed then we would ahve asked how sucha cyclical universe ever came into being. I think in string we can assume, the grvaitational waves are always present. But if I then proceed to expalin U(1)I have pointed out what is immediate apparent and real in what Rth is saying.

So I have define first principles, and again, Mooreglade is quick to point out in the question above. RTH speaks to first principles, and Osher reminds us of the beginning(dimensionally).

It does not matter that they say first principles, but that they all reocgnize a beginning. Do you see now? I have detailed this explanation to TonyC.

Now, I will only respond to your posts, if I see you do not have the kx21.com present and why I responded to your post today. I believe you can help many people here, by your insights, but not if you are going to recognize yourself as ownership.

I wish to move positively forward from this point on with you. What other people do is their business, but I will only respond to the signatures post, like you have here today. I will not link another post of yours like I did today either, but you have changed your style in terms of posting the picture I had used, and then added a different article.( we could get into the legal mumbo jumbo, but I am not going to do that)

I know what you were sayng, that the theory is still not proven and I respect this. But I am not concerned other then to understand the model they(historical figures of the past and present) have demonstrated for us, here in strings.

The logic of it must be understood, and then we will see if the maths can be forwarded. Like Mooreglade is asking of Pelastrian, in the example of a Calabi Yau.

Sol




(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)


Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:


(The following are optional.)

Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Extra Dimensions XII ] [ FAQ ]