3 ms·

Yeah, but is an "inch" even a thing in dimension #18? And this smallness aspect wouldn't disprove what I originally theorized here anyways...these subatomic pa

• gus_massa 8y ago
  [If the theory is true ...] > Yeah, but is an "inch" even a thing in dimension #18? Yes. The idea is that locally the "distance" called "s" is -s² = -c²t² + x² + y² + z² + w² + v² + ... + q² where w, v, ..., q are the other coordinates, this are not the official names, I just made up some names because it's difficult to use subscripts. This is only local, because if you move an inch in the "w" direction you will wrap many many many times, so the distance is more complicated (like the complicate calculation to transform latitude and longitude into the distance you must walk over the Earth surface). So an inch in "w" is something clear, but moving an inch in "w" will not take you very far away, because the universe is wrapped and you will only make a gazillion of turns like in a carousel. > And this smallness aspect wouldn't disprove what I originally theorized here anyways...these subatomic particle are fucking small as shit, aren't they?????? lol....sorry The particles are punctual, the size is "0". The problem is that you can't keep them perfectly aligned in the hyperplane where w=0, v=0, ..., q=0. When you build a machine, you somewhat fix the position of the particles in x, y and z, but you have no control of the position in w, v, ..., q. So the machine is in the location 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, w=whatever, v=whatever, ..., q=whatever. [In string theory, the size is not 0 because the particles are part of a tiny string that has a tiny but not 0 size. So wait a few decades/centuries until we are sure.]
  • XalvinX 8y ago
    thanks