W
this page contains cool physics. Don't bother
with it, dear surfer,
but... I did insert
no less than two gratuitous jokes about
Catherine
Zeta-Jones for you to skim read to.
The true elementary constituents of matter,
the quarks, electrons etc, are called the "fundamental
particles". And they have sex.
Science is finding out more about the properties
of these elementary particles all the time.
But our picture is incomplete. The goal is to
be able to describe the elementary particles
and the forces of nature perfectly using a single
theory, the "
Theory Of Everything".
Such a theory would tell us much about the Universe,
the "Big Bang" and who knows what
else. Finding the
Theory of Everything
is the holy grail of theoretical physics and
is the most ambitious endeavour of man, besides
trying to cop off with Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Hurrah!
This amazing undertaking is not well known because
it is intensely mathematical and abstract. But
enough about Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Fundamental particles are incredibly small
but not infinitely small. This is because
there exists a minimum size, the Planck Length.
Nothing in the known Universe is smaller. A
photon (particle of light) with a wavelength
of the Planck Length would be so energetic it
would distort the surrounding space like a black
hole. Fundamental particles are believed to
be the size of the Planck Length, this length
is roughly 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001
cm. This length is as wide to an atomic nucleus
as the nucleus to Mount Everest.
According to "String Thoery", which has since been proven to be mumbo jumbo nonsense,
the fundamental particles are said to be
twelve-dimensional entities. They can possess
up to twelve dimensions (a sphere has three)
and they can vibrate in up to the same twelve
dimensional directions. For example a particle
could hypothetically be a one dimensional string
vibrating in 6 dimensions or a five dimensional
"sphere" vibrating in say 11 dimensions.
What is more weird is that they could be the
"same" particle, one being indistinguishable
from the other. An x-dimentional particle vibrating
in y dimensions could be considered to be a
z-dimensional particle oscillating in w dimensions.
No wonder they're good in bed.
According to string theory, we only perceive 3 space dimensions
and 1 time "dimension" (time isn't really a dimension by the way) because all the other dimensions
are only perceptible on the the tiny scales
of the fundamental particles. This can be shown
by an analogy. Think of the hidden dimensions
as like sperm. To the naked eye, sperms are
not perceptible merrily swimming around in the...
ahem... where ever, but just because you can't
see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Sperm,
like most of the dimensions of the universe,
are so tiny that our senses are unable register
their existence. Indeed, the hidden dimensions
may be coiled up as small as the Planck Length.
You are moving in these extra dimension, but
don't feel it.
These strange vibrations, in a swarm of dimensions,
putatively bestow the fundamental particles with their
properties, such as mass, charge and the ability
to have sex. The laws of physics themselves
depend on how the surplus eight dimensions invisible
to us are coiled up into such tiny lengths.
The laws of sex ditto.
Sadly it has transpired that "string theory" has failed spectacularly. It makes no testable predictions, with no prospect of doing so. The mathematics is ugly. The theory shows no promise whatsoever.
Yet this sham theory lives on due to some mafia-like control by crooked profs whom have their failing careers at stake.
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
Drexlus, POEE High Priest, KSC | Subject: | 2001-06-23 23:21:11 |
| | | | |
| From: |
ThatFatMoogle / Justin Dynda | Subject: | 2001-09-01 21:47:23 |
| | | | |
| From: |
jarnie | Subject: | 2002-07-06 15:52:17 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Mike | Subject: | 2003-09-03 23:05:28 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Michael | Subject: | 2003-09-07 01:04:08 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Clayton Carter | Subject: | 2005-05-23 01:30:12 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 6758
| |
Jim
reads the talkback comments |
|
|
|
In reply to Drexlus, I'm not saying
I can "prove" there is no
god(s). But then again I can't prove
there are no cross-dressing unicorns
adept at dwarf tossing either.
In reply to ThatFatMoogle, that site
you recommend is entertaining, but sooooooo
misleading that I have devoted a whole
page to an insane rant debunking it!
See Anti-Relativity
Site Debunked
Thanks
for the talkbacks so far,
- Jim.
|
|
| |
|
|
