Alex,

You assume too much. First, that our math could properly describe in higher dimensions the inverse relationships of forces we understand via 3 spatial dimensions. Second, that models such as Kaluza-Klein are incorrect (we must conclude that you merely assume, since you never produce proper citation). Third, that gravity works very well with six more compactified dimensions, with which this 'inverse' business is rectified. Fourth, the Reimann/large-4d model has never been suitably disproved and therefore removed from theoretical physics.

I'm no physicist, but I'm able to recognize enough of these things from the stuff I read (Lederman, Hawking, Feynman, etc.). Here's a link if you wish to explore some of these ideas online:

http://www.bright.net/~mrf/

Incidentally, here is a quote from the above-mentioned website: "It's almost impossible to become a bona fide member of the cosmological 'priesthood' these days without believing in (the Euclidean Model)."

WOW! Alex is indeed a religious man.

• 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