Hi Richard,

Someone famous once said something like "If you can't explain what you know in simple language that the ordinary person can understand, then you don't know what you are talking about".

I am an ordinary person, and quite frankly, some of what you say sounds like utter nonsense. It might sound that way to me because of my ignorance. It could also be because it is indeed nonsense. I would like to have a conversation with you to determine which case it is.

The two ideas you have expressed that I consider to be nonsense are 1) the idea of "seeing" dimensions, and 2) the idea that "compactifying" a dimension somehow makes a dimension less visible.

Since I am not an expert, I would like to discuss the issue with you using non-technical terms if possible. On the other hand, since I am not an expert, you may not be willing to waste your time discussing the issue with me. The latter may be the reason you have not responded to my attempts to engage you in a conversation on this very topic.

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/12565.shtml

and my post following it were my attempts to pose the question to you at my level of language. If you would care to discuss the questions, I would sincerely appreciate a response.

Warm regards,

Paul

• My apologies for not previously responding - yanniru - November 24, 2001 - 19:56 UTC
  • No apology necessary; Thanks for responding - pmartin - November 24, 2001 - 22:52 UTC
    • No good answers - yanniru - November 25, 2001 - 18:15 UTC
      • Just as I suspected: Kaluza - 1, Klein - 0. - pmartin - November 25, 2001 - 19:46 UTC
        • I take it on faith - yanniru - November 25, 2001 - 21:28 UTC
          • I sort of agree - pmartin - November 25, 2001 - 21:49 UTC
            • So, how do you explain inverse square then? - alexander - November 26, 2001 - 20:37 UTC
              • Because our 3D space is a manifold - pmartin - November 26, 2001 - 21:50 UTC
                • So, why do we need them (large dimensions) then? - alexander - November 26, 2001 - 23:25 UTC
                  • In order to bend space-time - pmartin - November 27, 2001 - 00:52 UTC
                    • Extra large dimensions are being pursued - yanniru - November 27, 2001 - 15:42 UTC
                      • In addition - yanniru - November 27, 2001 - 15:50 UTC
                        • I hope they are. - pmartin - November 27, 2001 - 17:49 UTC
                          • So, how to explain inverse square law then? - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 00:19 UTC
                            • Two answers - yanniru - November 28, 2001 - 15:12 UTC
                              • Richard, I peronally contributed in dismissal of - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 20:42 UTC
                                • Reference please to your publication - yanniru - November 29, 2001 - 15:20 UTC
                                  • For Richard (about gravity on mm scale). - alexander - December 1, 2001 - 02:27 UTC
                                    • Casmuir effect - yanniru - December 1, 2001 - 19:10 UTC
                                      • Way far. Casimir is 10^-6 or so. nt - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:39 UTC
                            • Alex = Priest! - luis_hamburgh - November 30, 2001 - 01:00 UTC
                              • Luis, stupidity continues? - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 18:47 UTC
                                • Alex = 1st non-religious person on my ignore list. :( - luis_hamburgh - December 2, 2001 - 21:15 UTC
                                  • - luis_hamburgh - December 3, 2001 - 18:26 UTC
                                  • Luis, if we have inverse square, space is 3-D (for gravity). - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:42 UTC
                            • The explanation of Inverse Square Law - pmartin - November 30, 2001 - 18:43 UTC
                              • Paul, don't you see the obvious? - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 19:01 UTC
                                • No. At least it is not obvious to me. - pmartin - December 1, 2001 - 01:28 UTC
                                  • If our space were "imbedded" inverse square would fail. - alexander - December 1, 2001 - 02:07 UTC
                                    • Not necessarily - pmartin - December 1, 2001 - 05:01 UTC
                                      • I think, mathematicians did that 100 years ago or so. - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:48 UTC
                    • Right analysis. Wrong persuasion. - luis_hamburgh - November 28, 2001 - 16:36 UTC
                      • So, Luis, where is 1/r^3 law then? (If 4th dimension is there). - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 20:47 UTC
                        • I answered this yesterday, but - luis_hamburgh - November 30, 2001 - 14:30 UTC
                          • Luis, either 4d or inverse square, they do not mix. - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 21:17 UTC
                      • accuse Hawking et al of "crackpottery." - yanniru - November 29, 2001 - 15:23 UTC
                      • Depends on what I'm trying to persuade whom to do. - pmartin - November 30, 2001 - 18:51 UTC
    • Paul, thanks for that Nov 24 post - dolphin - November 28, 2001 - 05:16 UTC