String Theory Is Plausible

Everything that we have discovered about the universe is consistent with 4 dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal). Many successful theories have been built upon such foundations, and these theories have predicted consistent and correct experimental results over and over again. Yet string theory requires more than the four dimensions with which we are all familiar. In fact, at the lowest possible estimate, it requires a minimum of ten dimensions!! In the most popular book on string theory, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene explains these extra dimensions by stating that we may have small, undetectable Calabi Yau geometric constructs curled up in small areas of space. This already sounds so ridiculous, I would consider it implausible. He continues on to state that some students have discovered that the true minimum number of dimensions required by string theory is eleven! How does he get out of this one? He sticks with his ridiculous idea of Calabi Yau shapes (i.e. 6-dimensional shapes) curled up in space, and speculates on an extra time dimension. Even if there are people out there that consider this idea plausible, this still would not be enough to make string theory work. Unfortunately for Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and the countless others that have been sucked into this philosophy/religion that tries to pass itself off as science, it turns out that even eleven dimensions is not enough to make string theory work. We know from Einstein's special theory of relativity that the Lorentz transformations apply to all motion. Experiments have been performed to confirm Einstein's predictions for approximately 100 years, and the experiments have confirmed that Einstein's theories are correct. Yet, in order for string theory to be correct AND the Lorentz transformations to be correct, string theory requires far more than 11 dimensions. The following explanation of string theory seems to actually favor the theory. Yet I believe it can be used to show its flaws. http://theory.tifr.res.in... On page 24 it states: "The D boundary condition violates translation and Lorentz invariance." A violation of Lorentz invariance? But Lorentz's equations have been proven time and time again. So how does string theory correct this problem? "It follows that D = 26 so the boson string is consistent only in 26 dimensions!" (taken from page 40). What!??! 26 dimensions? Forget about any evidence for these extra dimensions. The string theorists don't even have any of their made up stories to explain it. Brian Greene is one of the biggest proponents of string theory, and he was only able to explain up to 11 dimensions! When even those in favor of string theory have not come up with any explanation of where 26 dimensions could be hiding, it is time to put this bad idea to rest. The fact that string theory requires so many extra dimensions, of which there is no evidence and no explanation, is enough to consider string theory implausible. In closing, I ask the voters to use their own senses. Your sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch have been guiding you through life. Yes, there are optical illusions and other tricks on the other senses. But using all five senses together gives us a clear picture of the universe around us. In all this time, have you had any indications of extra dimensions? The simple answer is "No." In the quest for a unified theory, string theorists have dispensed with all logic and ignored the evidence around them. Their desire to make string theory work has caused them to continually believe in things (such as 26 dimensions) that everyone with common sense knows to be untrue. Brian Greene and Michio Kaku may disagree, but I assert that string theory is definitely implausible.