tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38348798.post1274727265244496940..comments2024-01-20T10:36:55.082+02:00Comments on Aquila ka Hecate: Infinite Field, Endless LightAquila ka Hecatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00725237187718174157noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38348798.post-19973165089646520732012-04-20T01:23:34.553+02:002012-04-20T01:23:34.553+02:00Hi Terri, thank you so much for your reply. Quite ...Hi Terri, thank you so much for your reply. Quite thoughtful about the 2 theories. I'll have to read more. I can see how infinite fields would be preferrable to the various n=# solutions suggested by ST. And it's so fascinating to think about spin in the terms as you've described. Relates to everything, doesn't it? :) peace, and thanks again for your resonant posts, zmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38348798.post-34863282242311542612012-04-19T04:42:15.445+02:002012-04-19T04:42:15.445+02:00Hey zm,
Thanks for commenting!
Admittedly, I was s...Hey zm,<br />Thanks for commenting!<br />Admittedly, I was schooled in most of the theoretical physice I've internalised at a time when String Theory was not widely taught, and thus have the deep distaste for it that entrenched older-school physicists often have.<br /><br />But I think that the Vasiliev theory would negate the necessity for seeing the universe in terms of branes and particles-as-strings, as it posits a potentially unlimited number of spin fields with whch to account for phenomena both observed and as yet unobserved.<br />'Spin'is just a name for the number of times we have to rotate a particle to get it back to its originally observed state. Vasiliev theory seems to be making Strings an unnecessary encumbrance in our description of the cosmos- and seems to be limting the number of fields available as well.Also - well -that ungainly curling-up of dimensions necessitated by String Theory has never sat well with me!<br /><br />Love,<br />Terri in JoburgAquila ka Hecatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00725237187718174157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38348798.post-36018308572426358042012-04-18T18:03:41.420+02:002012-04-18T18:03:41.420+02:00Thanks for the cite. Will read up on it. Just curi...Thanks for the cite. Will read up on it. Just curious, how do you see V&F's theory precluding String Theory. I've read a lot of Haramein, and the gravity-spin approach in Unified Field Theory dovetails with what you're saying here. But I don't know that it necessarily excludes String Theory. Picture say, the skirt on a Whirling Dervish as one of the vibrating strings (that is both particle - as a skirt - and wave - as the fabric has folds) add to that the spin and voila, the two approaches are saying similar things. How else do you see this? I'm just a hobbyist, so I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks ~zmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com