Posted by
STEVE A JEFFREY on January 01, 2012 at 19:21:35
(Message posted by user "aircloud" from "")  explanation
Is that your theory is incompatable with string theory and standard physics. String theory is incompatable with relativities four dimensions of space/time. So it needs a modification to have it make sense for Einsteins theory of relativity. Also QM and GR are incompatable with each other yet we can use both theories in tandem 2+2=4. So maybe we can use this new theory in tandem with QM or GR.? I don't know how to frame this as a question I have trouble with that. But would you agree that incompatabity with the standard explaination need not rule a new theory out. Otherwise we would have no new thoeries and science would grind to a halt because you have to use the scinetific method to make predictions with a new theory and then test them. It doesn't happen in just one second.Maybe it is the test of whether string theory agrees with Einsteins 4D/space time equations if you can't convert one to the other then it doesn't work. And maybe should be disgarded since EInsteins thoery passes every test even the recent test of the speed of light and nutrinos.But you offer no proof.I have offered proof of the equation I have offered the proof of the anthropic principal that if we have stable atoms in our universe the big crunch prior to our big bang must have been unstable. Therefore there must have been higher dimensions probably 10+ 1 of time according to string theory. The dimenions would have been open and large spacial for them to be closed in our four dimensional universe. And circular orbits would mean unstable atoms. And electrons would fly off into space and be free electrons or would spiral into the nucleus and be closely associated with the protons and nuetrons we can draw an equation for that with the result the same as CERN of quark gluon plasma................ The question of thermodynamics means that the big crunch the universe increases in order and not disorder not would be a low entropy state.Of course penrose is off on his own tangent saying the big crunch would be high entropy. But it would not.
