Hi Richard,

You make a lot of sense. I, too, am in awe of the few geniuses I have talked with. And I recognize that it is presumptious of me to think that I might see something they have overlooked. As a result, I don't put a whole lot of energy trying to communicate with the geniuses.

On the other hand,...I can't reconcile that with what seems to be a lock-step acceptance of Klein's proposal, always (at least in the publications for general audience) using the same inane reasons for doing so. In some of these books, they go to great lengths to explain in layman's terms concepts that are much more difficult to grasp than the notion of manifolds in hyperspace. I still can't shake the nagging feeling that they are missing something important.

Warm regards,

Paul

• 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