But I've been gone for a few hours now. Still gotta do stuff. See you later — Vincent

Bye fur noo!

For your return:

If you know that, then thinking you know a lot is the dumbest thing there is. — Vincent

Who you calling dumb? :rofl: Only Kidding. I assume you meant 'we' rather than 'you' as a reference to me personally.

People really think we've accomplished something. That we have already discovered everything. We don't know anything yet. — Vincent

But you are being equally inaccurate with 'we don't know anything yet!' I think the opposite is true, I think we have gained incredible knowledge of the Universe in the 'as you and I agree,' very short amount of cosmic calendar time we have been seeking knowledge.
Knowledge enough to convince you that human immortality is immanent.
If you believe that then it contradicts your claim that 'we don't know anything yet"

Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory? — universeness

Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space.

Suppose space was apparently 1d. This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.

We could do the same for an apparently 2d space which is actually4d and the circle becomes a direct product of two circles. If we do this for an apparently 3d space we need the product of three circles, S1xS1xS1. Like that, the particles can be packed without forming an actual singularity as in black holes and the start of the universe ain't no singularity either! On top of that, the Planck length is Lorenz invariant as the three extra dimensions are perpendicular to the three large dimensions. Ain't that great! Them gods were ingenious bastards!

I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY. — universeness

Yes, that's the usual argument. But not everyone agrees. Not being detectable is not equivalent to not being real. And it offers a nice mechanism for the appearance of real particles out of the the vacuum during inflation . The negative curvature pushes them into real existence. The vacuum is filled with virtual particles and in a sense, space can be said to be constituted by them. It's the medium for particle interactions.

Professor Harari in Israel actually gave me a friendly reply to my questions and not even asked s dime! Unlike Carroll, of which it's not even sure if he answers!

It's strange. There is a "beyond the standard model" section on physicsforum. So I thought to give it a try. But the section is as conservative like hell, and even suggesting substructure is a sin. Speaking of dogma...

I think starting such a site is a good idea.

Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?' — universeness

because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do.

Science was struggling for any answers prior to the big bang. Now, science
or some scientist says correctly that space preceded the big bang. Science can never arrive at the question of God; it is beyond the paradigm.

Science was struggling for any answers prior to the big bang. Now, science
or some scientist says correctly that space preceded the big bang. Science can never arrive at the question of God; it is beyond the paradigm. — val p miranda

Space did not precede the Big Bang.

Additionally, I think the philosophy of sience is a verision of materialism; God is not material. Science can prove the non-existence of God as follows: All that exists is the material, but God is not material; therefore, God does not exist. All one has to assert is that God is immaterial.

because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do — SpaceDweller

What do you mean by 'terrible'? Do you mean it terrifies you or it does not satisfy you?
We know absolutely nothing of ANY THEIST first cause posit whereas Roger Penrose suggests his team has evidence of 6 hawking points in THIS Universe that provide evidence that THIS Universe started due to the ending of a previous one. Which sends any first cause into a previous time epoch. The Penrose bounce suggests there may have been many other 'bounces.' and time epochs.
How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless.
How much do you need the god fairytale to continue to sate your primal fears?

How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless. — universeness

First cause is logical explanation, otherwise you must accept "eternal existence" is real.
There is no way out of this dilemma.

But I'll be permissive with you and say that "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" has exactly one logical explanation, which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today.
This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value.

Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space. — Hillary

But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me.

Suppose space was apparently 1d
This is commonly used in cosmology. It's called lineland. 2D is flatland.

This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.
You cant have a cylinder or a radius or a circle in 1D space (lineland) You can 'mathematically parameterise' a ID space into single variable points on a circle or cylinder. In other words, if you zoomed into a circle section then it 'LOOKS LIKE' a straight line but this is a mathematical concept, not a physical reality of a 1D space! So we CANNOT place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d. This particle cannot exist IN REALITY to turn a 1D space into a 2D space or lineland into flatland, so you cant continue the process and turn 2D into 4D.
I don't mind mathematical modeling, it's an essential tool but I need to understand that your model here does not break any actual rules of physics. It may be that I don't understand the 'valid logic,' involved here. If I don't then direct me to a site with one or more examples that demonstrate the model you are using here and then if I am convinced that the maths and physics you are employing here are valid, we can move on towards your modeling of virtual particles.

First cause is logical explanation — SpaceDweller

Ok fine, so first cause...mindless spark.....no significance....move on.

which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today. — SpaceDweller

You create unnecessary emotive BS with the 'god' label and the 'sacrificed' label.
These suggest beneficent intent which is much more about your ego and emotional needs than it has to do with truth. So NO I reject your stealth tactic to invoke the 'supernatural sacrifice' imagery installed in you based on your past exposure to the Christian doctrine.

This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value. — SpaceDweller

God is not dead, as the anthropomorphic entity you are attempting to conjure never ever existed and therefore if it never 'lived' then it cannot be dead. I am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
You can have a new spark to make a new universe if you like but that also gets used up.
The very first spark to start the whole process is just that, the first mindless spark. That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you.

I think starting such a site is a good idea — Hillary

You should so do that! Becoming a webmaster is quite easy today. You can quickly learn HTML. WML and CSS very quickly using a site such as code academy or by buying a few books.
That way you could create and maintain your own websites easily. If you invite others to join your site and discuss your ideas in cosmology, you could get your T.o.E out there amongst the physics and cosmology community. Have you looked at @Angelo Cannata 's site at http://www.spi.st
You could set up something similar. You could PM him about it.

That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you. — universeness

Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion.

Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion — SpaceDweller

:roll:

But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me. — universeness

In string theory, the 10d structure is a static one. The partiicles themselves are strings and branes moving through it, and that's where the trouble starts. Just imagine the 5d Kaluza -Klein case...

You cant have a cylinder or a radius or a circle in 1D space (lineland — universeness

Imagine a cylinder. From afar it's 1d. A circle in it has only one direction to move in. Same for an S1xS1xS1 structure in 3d : three directions to move in. So the particle is a tiny geometrical structure. Which can be filled with charge.

A mindless first spark? :chin:

am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone. — universeness

Which is equivalent to the gods believe. It's a believe. Do you have proof for this spark, magically appearing out of nowhere?

Well, the 6d structure is static too and the 3d particles move through it, but it offers a naturally appearing Planck scale, Lorenz invariant (which is sought after in modern physics).

Two particles never can get closer than a Planck length. What's the distance between two circles on top of each other?

In string theory, the 10d structure is a static one. The partiicles themselves are strings and branes moving through it, and that's where the trouble starts. Just imagine the 5d Kaluza -Klein case.. — Hillary

My detailed knowledge of string theory just is not there but I know it only proposes 1 type of string.
It's the way strings vibrate in 10D that creates all the 'particle' states we see in 3D.
By static, do you mean not expanding?

Imagine a cylinder. From afar it's 1d. A circel in it has inly one direction to move in. Same for an S1xS1xS1 structure in 3d : three directions to move in. Si the particle is a tiny geometrical structure. Which can be filled with charge.

A mindless first spark? — Hillary

No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture.
I dimension means an extent which has forwards and backwards only with no thickness or height, no up/down, no side to side. So you cant have a circle in it as a circle needs two dimensions. Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model.

I see no relation between your description of a particle and my 'mindless first spark,' first cause suggestion. I do not conjecture regarding any attributes of my suggested first spark like charge for example or spin or mass or any other such attribute.

am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
— universeness

Which is equivalent to the gods believe. It's a believe. Do you have proof for this spark, magically appearing out of nowhere? — Hillary

I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational.

Well, the 6d structure is static too and the 3d particles move through it, but it offers a naturally appearing Planck scale, Lorenz invariant (which is sought after in modern physics).

Two particles never can get closer than a Planck length. What's the distance between two circles on top of each other? — Hillary

So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then!
for Lorentz invariance, I found:

Lorentz invariance expresses the proposition that the laws of physics are the same for different observers, for example, an observer at rest on Earth or one who is rotated through some angle, or traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer at rest. It is the pillar of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and every experiment conducted to date has verified it. But if new, far more sensitive experiments could detect a very faint field pervading the cosmos, one that exerts a force on electron spin, that would topple Lorentz invariance

That just takes us back to the proper length and proper time measures of the isolated reference frame used to help exemplify special relativity.
What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again.

No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture. — universeness

If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? If the particle is a circle around the cylinder, it can move in one direction only. The circle goes around the cylinder (while being on it.

What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again. — universeness

If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant.

So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then! — universeness

Like the 2d cylinder gives a way for particles (circles) to be embedded in, so the 6d space a means for 3d circles to be embedded in. The particles don't have to move trough a 6d space also, like in string theory.

I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational. — universeness

Friend, you indeed don't need a proof, but a definition would suffice, however unfortunately you don't have that either.
You're talking about something that is a complete unknown.

Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model. — universeness

Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference.

You're talking about something that is a complete unknown. — SpaceDweller

As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely.

If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? — Hillary

This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d.

If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant — Hillary

From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended. There are two types of waves: bosonic waves and fermionic waves. Bosonic waves can overlap. Fermionic waves cannot. In one case the waves are always touching (they are spread out and they overlap); in the other case they can never touch

Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference — Hillary

You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane. You can have a 1d curvature but you cant have a 1d circle. I have no idea what you mean by 'small string on it' strings are vibrational states, they are not ON anything as they are posited as the fundamental component of everything.

As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely. — universeness

If a "Mindless Spark" created the universe and the creatures in it in it's own image, then the atheist is the living proof!

You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane — universeness

Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension.

From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended — universeness

Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles?

This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness

Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer.