Space... as we know it in 2011... :)

Welcome to physics.It's an Indisputable fact that EVERYTHING is a sphere. Even you.l

hahaha, relevant to this the human body has an acoustic rebound/resonance/repercussion similiar to eggs.

Lol SDSS. I looked at their databases a while back because I was given the option to use it in my astronomy project, but ended up choosing another option.

The physics of the universe (one body revolving around another of greater mass or having a reverse electrical charge on an orbital plane) is a constant from the very big to the very small.

Except they're not. General relativity assumes that space and time are smooth and continuous, whereas the underlying quantum physics that governs subatomic particles and forces is inherently discontinuous and jumpy. This is the entire reason physicists search for a unified theory (like string theory) to tie the pieces together where they break down today.

And String Theory is so complex that even it has it's flaws too. In all I don't think a single theory really can fully explain anything. Realistically, to get a real answer, you have to work out the problem with various methods, gather results, and compare and contrast your findings from each theory basis to draw a somewhat accurate solution.

That's like Physics explains what is there and what isn't, Quantum Mechanics says how it works internally and externally, and String Theory explains how how those inner workings work with external ones and hold things together to ensure that what was there by the laws of Physics will be there by the laws of Physics.

Except they're not. General relativity assumes that space and time are smooth and continuous, whereas the underlying quantum physics that governs subatomic particles and forces is inherently discontinuous and jumpy. This is the entire reason physicists search for a unified theory (like string theory) to tie the pieces together where they break down today.

Nonononono string is a component of M not a potential M or ToE itself. AND ONLY A COMPONENT OF M AND NOTHING ELSE I MEAN COMPONENT IN WHATEVER SENSE EOS SAID I MEANT IT, NOT THE SENSE THAT IS OBVIOUS

EDIT 2: I SHOULD HAVE SAID WILL SAY, NOT SAID. I AM CLEARLY PREDICTING THE FUTURE VIA MY SHIFT KEY

Nonononono string is a component of M not a potential M or ToE itself.

Or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified.

Or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory...

act of expanding in scope; making more widely available; "extension of the program to all in need"

Or yes.

Or yes.

Whatever point you think you just tried to make failed - You said String is a subset of M when in fact M is a subset of String.

Whatever point you think you just tried to make failed - You said String is a subset of M when in fact M is a subset of String.

Nonononono string is a component of M not a potential M or ToE itself.

Or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified.

Really? Because what you're saying i said is pretty different than what i said. Let me put it out there in a different way. Without M you can still have string. Without string, there can be no M. I don't care how string->superstring is organized by topicality on wikipedia; string IS a component of M.

Really? Because what you're saying i said is pretty different than what i said.

Rather what you meant isn't what you said because what you just restated contradicted the literal meaning of what you originally said.

What You Said First	What You Say Now

What you just said "Without M you can still have string. Without string, there can be no M" contradicts String being a subset of M, and is exactly what I, and Wikipedia, just told you.

You're using component in the recipe sense, not the foundation/structural sense.

Rather what you meant isn't what you said because what you just restated contradicted the literal meaning of what you originally said.

What You Said First	What You Say Now

What you just said "Without M you can still have string. Without string, there can be no M" contradicts String being a subset of M, and is exactly what I, and Wikipedia, just told you.

You're using component in the recipe sense, not the foundation/structural sense.

Hold on let me edit my posts to make you correct. Edits in bold.

Non-time-travel EDIT: Please note the bold in the previous post is not an edit and that post is unedited. Gosh it looks like i was literally saying the exact same thing before my time-travel escapades.