When there are physics mistakes in "Animation vs. Physics"

perhaps, but it never includes any labels making it overt. i have no complaints there.

i have very strong complaints over. string theory is inherently absurd, due to (somehow) requiring the sum of all natural numbers to equate to -⅟₁₂, which is nonsense. ergo, string theory cannot possibly be entertained.

but it may not be string theory! it may just be fantasy people making stringy bits out of fantasy material! so it may not be subject to your complaint!

the strings in superstring theory cannot be used as ropes though.

(unfortunately)

I really preferred Animation vs Maths. Animation vs Physics just threw arbitrary shiny concepts around without much coherence or explanation. Also, I saw at least one mistake, as you say.

caesar, it is not nonsense to give the value -1/12 to the sum of all natural numbers. It is misleading to say that it *equals* -1/12 when the method used to get that result is not specified but when it is then it can be proven. It's really just a matter of definition : under the usual definition of infinite series it doesn't exist, but under Ramanujan summation it's -1/12. It turns out that some models used in physics (not just string theory) give the same value to that infinite sum as Ramanujan summation, but they do not need the sum to *fundamentally* be equal to -1/12 and they do not imply that even if they accurately describe the world (because that *doesn't mean anything* if we can't agree on definitions), they only imply that you can get that result if you use that particular definition of what the value of an infinite sum is

please log in to reply to this thread