Well, my theory is safe so long as they take these routes. I suppose the big problem is that from this distance, and from our limited capabilities to magnify tiny particles these theories can be proved based on maths. Which is annoying.
If you will excuse me saying it, we are all deluded to some degree by whatever it is we hold to be true, and annoyed by whatever it is that keeps our cherished truths from being irrefutable. Mathematicians are not immune from those frustrations and even math that works perfectly is not equal to proof of the theory it supports. Math alone can lead you down the rabbit hole just as easily as it can reveal true nature, probably easier, lol.Well, my theory is safe so long as they take these routes. I suppose the big problem is that from this distance, and from our limited capabilities to magnify tiny particles these theories can be proved based on maths. Which is annoying.
Still fooling yourself and still trying to fool others I see, Pincho.
Yep, that's the "fooling" part. Especially of yourself.I don't know if telling the truth is fooling people.
The important thing is our personal views and opinions based on what can be observed (most forum critics have never started a thread to share and discuss their own views). If we are so bold as to have an opinion and take a stand , to write about our views, especially to do the math and submit papers like Mersini-Houghton does, and to present our case for discussion as she does, we must live with the burden of frustration. But the high spots do come along as in Mersini's case with the evidence documented in her paper and the accompanying footnotes.
Nice of you to find some merit in Mersini-Houghton's credentials. You could have read the paper and commented about the content. It almost seems like you just dropped by to drop the "crank" word. What a thrill, right? Really, that seems below someone of character and intelligence, unless your ego needs that kind of self aggrandizement.Mersini-Houghton will still receive a measure of respect and consideration from the community, because she spent the requisite time to acquire the necessary technical background and flesh out the details in her model to a sufficient level where it can be compared and contrasted with other competing models. Instead of being dismissed as an ignorant crank, she'd be regarded as a legitimate theorist with an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately, she'll most likely find herself hindered by a lack of hard conclusive evidence and enough predictive success to rule out other models and alternative explanations. Those who pontificate about the universe without having the technical background to outline specific details and predictions, or to compare their predictions with established models, are the ones who get dismissed as cranks.
Nice of you to find some merit in Mersini-Houghton's credentials. You could have read the paper and commented about the content.
It almost seems like you just dropped by to drop the "crank" word. What a thrill, right? Really, that seems below someone of character and intelligence, unless your ego needs that kind of self aggrandizement.
I would walk you back through and mention specific posts but if you find nothing of interest here except that I mentioned Lorentz boosts and you feel that you might be able to tell me if my layman’s description is on the right track, I’ll say this; what I understand is that Lorentz boosts tie the standard cosmology (maybe you call the consensus the Lambda-CDM concordance model) to the current views of the multiverse. The current consensus is an inflationary model which, in the alternatives discussed by Mersini, is one bubble in the multiverse. Lorentz boosts initiate the bubbles and each boost nucleates from the initial conditions which are discussed in the Eternal Inflation model. She explains that the current multiverse models differentiate the bubbles from the inflationary spacetime landscape by referring to them as ‘true vacuum’ of lower energy while the inflating background is called the ‘false vacuum’ and is of higher energy....
For your own part, you've already made it clear you don't intend to acquire a technical understanding of the subject, so as long as you're not trying to make assertions as to which theories are right or wrong or what additional implications they may have, you're totally in the clear by my book. I'm glad you're interested in the works of certain theorists, and I hope you continue to enjoy them for a long time to come.
BTW, while I admit I haven't yet found anything of personal interest in this particular discussion, I noticed you made mention of Lorentz boosts a few times but didn't provide a simple definition for them in layman's terms. You should first describe what you understand to be a Lorentz boost in layman's terms, and then explain how it ties in to what you're saying about multiple Big Bangs- that way I could at least tell you if your layman understanding of this concept is on the right path.
I’ll say this; what I understand is that Lorentz boosts tie the standard cosmology (maybe you call the consensus the Lambda-CDM concordance model) to the current views of the multiverse. The current consensus is an inflationary model which, in the alternatives discussed by Mersini, is one bubble in the multiverse. Lorentz boosts initiate the bubbles and each boost nucleates from the initial conditions which are discussed in the Eternal Inflation model. She explains that the current multiverse models differentiate the bubbles from the inflationary spacetime landscape by referring to them as ‘true vacuum’ of lower energy while the inflating background is called the ‘false vacuum’ and is of higher energy.
I agree it is simple and I gave a Wiki link in post #35 and a simple statement in my own words of how it applies in post #39 and in my last post. I'm not confused by how it is used in the paper and my invitation to discuss it was more an attempt to get someone interested in the paper and to join the discussion. Why not point out what I got wrong and clear it up for me and I can decide if you are interested in the topic even though you say you have no interest in what I have said so far, hmm.That doesn't in itself explain what a Lorentz boost is. It's a very simple concept which is rather straightforward to describe in layman's terms, and it doesn't require any knowledge of cosmology to explain, so I'm inviting you to take another shot at defining it. Your answer would be a means of gauging how well you can personally understand papers like this without digging into the math and technical background.
I agree it is simple and I gave a Wiki link in post #35 and a simple statement in my own words of how it applies in post #39 and in my last post. I'm not confused by how it is used in the paper and my invitation to discuss it was more an attempt to get someone interested in the paper and to join the discussion. Why not point out what I got wrong and clear it up for me and I can decide if you are interested in the topic even though you say you have no interest in what I have said so far, hmm.
I think the posts I gave explain how it applies to the multiverse cosmology discussed in the paper. Since you are intent on making the point that if I don't explain it to your satisfaction I don't have the slightest chance of understanding anything in Mersini's paper then lay it out as you think it should be said. You may not be able to do that and if not, just make some disparaging remarks as you exit in a huff. I'll just go my own deluded way, remaining a pea brain. Nothing of interest here, move along.Your Wiki link in post #35 didn't define what a Lorentz boost is, and your post #39 doesn't say anything about how it applies to Mersini's hypothesis, except to say that each newly created universe "gets its own Lorentz boost". So how about you define Lorentz boosts for us in simple layman's terms using a simpler, more general context which doesn't depend on cosmology? If you want to have even the slightest chance of understanding anything in Mersini's paper, it should be absolutely no trouble for you to do this.
I think the posts I gave explain how it applies to the multiverse cosmology discussed in the paper. Since you are intent on making the point that if I don't explain it to your satisfaction I don't have the slightest chance of understanding anything in Mersini's paper then lay it out as you think it should be said.
You may not be able to do that and if not, just make some disparaging remarks as you exit in a huff. I'll just go my own deluded way, remaining a pea brain. Nothing of interest here, move along.
You failed to point out anything wrong with how I described Lorentz boosts. You failed to show how you conclude that my statements were in error in regard to how the term is used in Mersini's paper. You passed on the opportunity to enter the discussion long ago and instead started by dropping in the "crank" word. You never mentioned your altruistic concern of setting the general public straight on how I was deceiving them until I challenged you to set us straight. And your last post is full of disdain instead of any sign of an interest in the thread. You have set the general public straight on my foolishness and I'm sure you have saved many unsuspecting knowledge seekers from my clutches. You could have done all of that without coming across as an ass by claiming I was making assertions. You actually need to quote the assertions, otherwise your claim is a strawman. Otherwise, good work big boy.A Lorentz boost is the operation of converting the description of a system from one observer's coordinate frame to the frame of another observer moving at some velocity relative to the first observer. Boosting a system to some velocity literally means you take the description of the system in some initial "rest" frame and then calculate what that description would be if the system were moving with said velocity relative to the chosen initial frame. I don't see anything resembling such an explanation in your previous posts, despite your assertions to the contrary.
Well I don't think this forum or any subsection visible to the public was ever intended to function as a personal blog with no negative feedback, so if it's gonna be "move along, nothing to see here", then you have no need to post it here in the first place. As long as you're posting here, if you're going to use certain well-defined scientific terms in ways that obscure their original meaning, then it's perfectly fair and reasonable for someone like myself with more knowledge in the subject to come along and give a proper explanation of the term to the general public. It's not about flexing math muscles or making you look stupid, but if you're going to make assertions involving Lorentz boosts, then the reader should have some assurance that you actually understand the concept, and you passed over your chance to do so.
You failed to point out anything wrong with how I described Lorentz boosts.
You failed to show how you conclude that my statements were in error in regard to how the term is used in Mersini's paper.
You passed on the opportunity to enter the discussion long ago and instead started by dropping in the "crank" word.
You never mentioned your altruistic concern of setting the general public straight on how I was deceiving them until I challenged you to set us straight.
And your last post is full of disdain instead of any sign of an interest in the thread. You have set the general public straight on my foolishness and I'm sure you have saved many unsuspecting knowledge seekers from my clutches. You could have done all of that without coming across as an ass by claiming I was making assertions. You actually need to quote the assertions, otherwise your claim is a strawman. Otherwise, good work big boy.
quantum_wave said:Her reference to Lorentz boosts corresponds to the event the represents the initial conditions of a new bubble universe. Correspondingly, I equate her use of the term Lorentz boost to the concept of multiple big bangs. Using that interpretation each Big Bang gives a Lorentz boost to the new bubble (or arena in my terminology) that establishes an event horizon actuated by the light speed acceleration of the new bubble (Big Bang).
There is so much misrepresentation in what you say that it all boils down to the strawman you are creating about the fundamental definition of Lorentz boost.You didn't make any effort to describe them. As far as I can tell, all you've said about boosts is that they involve some process to create separate bubble universes, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental definition.
You never showed how they were relevant in the first place, since you quoted the term "Lorentz boost" from Mersini's paper without giving any explanation of its meaning.
You were lamenting that people with alternative viewpoints get brushed off and dismissed as cranks by the mainstream, and I corrected you by pointing out that such disregard is not given to people who can demonstrate an understanding of the mainstream viewpoint, demonstrate a shortcoming in the mainstream viewpoint which justifies the search for alternatives, and demonstrate how their chosen alternative can potentially help to fix the shortcomings.
I've said multiple times that I'll happily step in any time I feel someone is confusing or misrepresenting some aspect of modern science, as I feel you have done with your mention of Lorentz boosts absent any reference to the actual basic meaning of the term.
Ok, here's an example of an assertion on your part, from post #39:
Your implication was that Lorentz boosts relate in some way to the creation of multiple universes; that implication has absolutely nothing to do with the actual definition of a Lorentz boost, and Lorentz boosting a system does not cause an event horizon to form around that system.
If you can't stand the idea of having your views and assertions inspected and criticized, then you shouldn't be posting them here. If you post something with the implication that you have some understanding of the subject about which you post, and I feel you've said something which indicates a total lack of such understanding, do you expect me to just shut up about it and do nothing? Tell you what, if you ask the mods to send this thread to the cesspool and they comply, I will cease to challenge anything you write here even if I think it's full of crap.
Careful Cpt, if you dare stand up to q_w he'll accuse you of being obsessed with him and are unable to leave him alone.If you can't stand the idea of having your views and assertions inspected and criticized, then you shouldn't be posting them here. If you post something with the implication that you have some understanding of the subject about which you post, and I feel you've said something which indicates a total lack of such understanding, do you expect me to just shut up about it and do nothing? Tell you what, if you ask the mods to send this thread to the cesspool and they comply, I will cease to challenge anything you write here even if I think it's full of crap.