Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?

[CptBork]

Again you have failed to come out and say something. Don’t hide it behind some philosophizing about LSD which I have never tried and so I don’t know if one can or can’t divine anything that way; I’ll leave that for you to decide for yourself.

Well you said someone here was bound to face repercussions for pointing out the disconnect between your speculation and what science actually says, and that it could tie into their "bragging" about drug usage, and that this person knows who they are, so if it's not about LSD tripping, maybe you can tell me how your comment actually ties into the subject, because it seems to me like nothing more than another ad hom attack to deflect from the lack of substance here. Has zero relation to the topic, sounds somewhat threatening and contains overtones of stalking behaviour too, unless you want to clarify the nature of your comment. As for my part, I can assure you I'm not worried anything I say here landing me at Gitmo, nor do I have any intention at the moment of sharing my real identity here with the ordinary users precisely because of the danger one of them might try to stalk me and the people I work for.

All I'm doing is simply noting that your usage of scientific buzzwords has absolutely no connection to their meaning, and that without the math tools you're just as unqualified to make "reasonable speculation" involving such buzzwords as I would be to perform dental surgery with a toothpick. If you find that offensive then tell me what part isn't true and why it's offensive. I've tried to say that you're unqualified in a very respectful manner, and in response you just keep asking me to just lay it out for you, then lashing out at me when I do. So tell us how someone should make note of your lack of qualifications, how one should make note that substituting "dishwasher" for "Lorentz" doesn't change the underlying structure of your hypothesis in any meaningful way.

But when you say, “one shouldn't brag as if they had all the answers beyond what real science already says”, you seem to want to say that is what I am doing. Come out and say it, you think I am bragging about having all the answers beyond what real science already says”.

Well we actually do have someone here who brags about having all the answers, and it's not AN nor myself, and we have at least a couple others here who think the universe gives a crap about what makes sense to their personal intuition, yourself included (if I were wrong about this last point, you wouldn't be calling your musings "reasonable and responsible"). That you take offense when I note the disconnect between your speculations and anything that's been observed or mathematically deduced from observables, suggests to me that you want some of your postulates to be taken for granted and discussed as if they'd one day be of use to a theoretician in real science. If that's not what you're here for and you just want to blog or find common cause with various people who disregard conventional science, you're in the wrong place as I've told you repeatedly before. No one's stopping you from posting your speculations, but the ad hom attacks on those who ridicule such speculations need to stop. Attacking the substance of an argument is not the same as attacking the person, and I guess you still haven't figured that out.

I’m really beginning to worry about your grip lately. First you say, “If you're going to scoff at mystics who attempt to divine the nature of the universe based on the assumption that the universe thinks like an emotionally unstable human being”, which I didn’t do, and now the LSD, yikes, what is going on in your crazy world these days.

What's going on is that you don't know how to accept or ignore criticism without getting . You keep saying purple flying unicorns/insert deity here/etc. are forms of irresponsible speculation, but your speculation is somehow superior and different. If someone honestly believed in purple flying unicorns creating the universe, or Zeus doing it, or whatever it is, your own speculation has about the same zilch chance of giving us useful information about the universe, and your definition of "reasonable and responsible" is itself completely unreasonable and irresponsible.

Like I say, this isn't a site for blogging (as far as I know), but I do hear that Google has an excellent system set up for that purpose.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well you said someone here was bound to face repercussions for pointing out the disconnect between your speculation and what science actually says, and that it could tie into their "bragging" about drug usage, and that this person knows who they are, so if it's not about LSD tripping, maybe you can tell me how your comment actually ties into the subject, because it seems to me like nothing more than another ad hom attack to deflect from the lack of substance here. Has zero relation to the topic, sounds somewhat threatening and contains overtones of stalking behaviour too, unless you want to clarify the nature of your comment. As for my part, I can assure you I'm not worried anything I say here landing me at Gitmo, nor do I have any intention at the moment of sharing my real identity here with the ordinary users precisely because of the danger one of them might try to stalk me and the people I work for.

All I'm doing is simply noting that your usage of scientific buzzwords has absolutely no connection to their meaning, and that without the math tools you're just as unqualified to make "reasonable speculation" involving such buzzwords as I would be to perform dental surgery with a toothpick. If you find that offensive then tell me what part isn't true and why it's offensive. I've tried to say that you're unqualified in a very respectful manner, and in response you just keep asking me to just lay it out for you, then lashing out at me when I do. So tell us how someone should make note of your lack of qualifications, how one should make note that substituting "dishwasher" for "Lorentz" doesn't change the underlying structure of your hypothesis in any meaningful way.



Well we actually do have someone here who brags about having all the answers, and it's not AN nor myself, and we have at least a couple others here who think the universe gives a crap about what makes sense to their personal intuition, yourself included (if I were wrong about this last point, you wouldn't be calling your musings "reasonable and responsible"). That you take offense when I note the disconnect between your speculations and anything that's been observed or mathematically deduced from observables, suggests to me that you want some of your postulates to be taken for granted and discussed as if they'd one day be of use to a theoretician in real science. If that's not what you're here for and you just want to blog or find common cause with various people who disregard conventional science, you're in the wrong place as I've told you repeatedly before. No one's stopping you from posting your speculations, but the ad hom attacks on those who ridicule such speculations need to stop. Attacking the substance of an argument is not the same as attacking the person, and I guess you still haven't figured that out.



What's going on is that you don't know how to accept or ignore criticism without getting . You keep saying purple flying unicorns/insert deity here/etc. are forms of irresponsible speculation, but your speculation is somehow superior and different. If someone honestly believed in purple flying unicorns creating the universe, or Zeus doing it, or whatever it is, your own speculation has about the same zilch chance of giving us useful information about the universe, and your definition of "reasonable and responsible" is itself completely unreasonable and irresponsible.

Like I say, this isn't a site for blogging (as far as I know), but I do hear that Google has an excellent system set up for that purpose.

Lol, you are a funny critic. Do you actually want your complaints to boil down to the fact that I use words to mean things that they don’t mean in the mainstream, that I’m not qualified to speculate because I’m not a professional, that you believe I want my speculations to someday be real science, that I am the one who started the ad homs, that I use ad homs because you ridicule my speculations, and that you say purple flying deities are just as reasonable as the idea that there were preconditions to the big bang?

I specify the meanings of words that I use and if I don’t, I will if you have an example.
You don’t have to have advanced degrees to follow and learn science or to speculate.
I specify that I am speculating and include a disclaimer in almost every post.
I never start the ad hom exchange but I give back in kind.
I challenge people like you when they aggressively criticize me without ever pointing to anything that I speculate about that they disagree with.
Which speculation did you ridicule; I must have missed where you ever mentioned one of my speculations specifically.

What you are saying boils down to the fact that I rub you the wrong way. Oops, sorry.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You're changing the subject.

I said the Lorentz transform of a sphere is a sphere.

You said relativity doesn't say that.

I said Yes, it does, here's the linear algebra.

You said But what about MD's box?!

I said Here is an explicit walk through justifying my original statement.

Talking about your box is muddying the waters (which is precisely why you bring it up). I've used a Lorentz transform which is in relativity and I've applied it to the definition of a sphere. There's nothing else which needs to be considered. If you think it's wrong then explain where the fault is, don't just ignore it. Please refute what I've provided, because what I've provided is justification for what I originally said.

I'm not changing the subject or muddying the waters, MD's box is the very definition of a light sphere. So I'll ask you again, what are the times to the x and z receivers as measured from within the box? How can an observer in the box measure two different times to two different receivers, which are an equal distance from the source at the center of the box, and conclude the light expands spherically in his frame?

 

[quantum_wave]

I was in the process of distinguishing between QWC and the legitimate papers that discuss the various multiverse theories mentioned in Mersini-Houghton’s paper. I talked about time and the freeze frame concept here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816371&postcount=88

I would entertain any comment about the freeze frame idea as a way to define how time passes in QWC.

Also a major distinction is the difference between the cosmological principle applicable to the multiverse papers and the perfect cosmological principle applicable to QWC which I mentioned here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816465&postcount=91.

Though I want to ask if anyone made note of that distinction and has any thoughts on the topic, getting anyone to discuss my pea brained delusions doesn’t happen too frequently and in lieu of any discussion, the funny critics like CptBork prefer to paint all this crazy talk as a blog. The truth is that he would prefer that there be no Pseudoscience forum at all. He won’t deny that. But until that happens I’ll just offer my threads for discussion and respond to anyone whose posts have a hint of discussion of the topic.

I am putting the question out here again before I continue the one sided discussion, lol. Does anyone want to acknowledge that they understand the difference between the Cosmological Principle that is characteristic of many cosmological theories, and the Perfect Cosmological Principle that is characteristic of QWC?

 

[CptBork]

Though I want to ask if anyone made note of that distinction and has any thoughts on the topic, getting anyone to discuss my pea brained delusions doesn’t happen too frequently and in lieu of any discussion, the funny critics like CptBork prefer to paint all this crazy talk as a blog. The truth is that he would prefer that there be no Pseudoscience forum at all. He won’t deny that. But until that happens I’ll just offer my threads for discussion and respond to anyone whose posts have a hint of discussion of the topic.

Well I will deny your claim, so there- nothing wrong with the pseudoscience section IMO, only that I'm going to point out why your pseudoscience is no more scientific or applicable or rational or "reasonable and responsible" than the next guy's, if and whenever I feel so inclined. That's how it works around here, you post stuff and it gets criticized or praised depending on the merit other members see therein. I promised I would stop posting here if you agreed to ask the mods to send this thread to the cesspool, so that's your ticket out if you want one.

BTW it's not about formal education at all- I wouldn't give a crap if you got a math and physics education from the School of Hard Knocks, as long as it consisted of an education in math and physics. Sorry, but even Isaac Newton himself was more qualified to speculate on the nature of the universe from extrapolations of existing science than you would be, unless you want to claim you do indeed have a detailed understanding of classical physics (yes, including the math)- Newton was in a vastly better position to connect whatever he speculated on to the experiments and calculations he was performing, which might be nothing next to our modern understanding, but at least he had the ability to describe, model and predict things which were known to actually exist in real life and use these models as a basis for speculation on the underlying workings.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Lol, only someone suffering significant self deception could respond like that to a sincere attempt to help you.

What a complete cop out. You spew vitriol and then proclaim you're trying to help? You invented, with no evidence, claims about my personal life. How does that 'help' me? How does lying about me help me? How does 'advice' (and I use that in its vaguest sense) based on your self deception and lies help anyone?

You accused me of having suffered some personal set back, hence why I'd 'changed'. I pointed out that in fact I was giving you some room out of politeness and to demonstrate another one of your lies, that I was obsessed with you. I pointed out that not only have I not suffered a set back but my life is actually going very well. People, profession and property, all on the up for me. Obviously you weren't expecting that. It's a bit like when Farsight made the sarcastic comment "Got a job yet? Got one in physics?" as he expected my string theory PhD would act like a black mark to employers. He wasn't expecting "Yes and yes" to be the answer.

As I said before, your posts say more about you than they do about me. The fact you jump to inventing narratives about people, as you've done (but to a lesser extent) with Cpt, making analogies to escalating criminals and even eluded to threats about people's jobs etc shows a lot about your character. I criticise you for what you say here, the nonsense you waste time on and the delusions you have about it. I don't invent stories about your home life.

You clearly realised you'd put your foot in it because you couldn't come back with anything.

You don’t have to have advanced degrees to follow and learn science or to speculate.

Except you don't follow science, nor do you learn it. Nor do you, by your own admission, speculate about science. So why bring such things up? You aren't doing them, mpc isn't, Pincho isn't, Sylwester isn't, Farsight isn't, Magneto isn't. None of you are learning science, reading it, studying it, doing it. So don't pretend you're doing any of those.

The truth is that he would prefer that there be no Pseudoscience forum at all. He won’t deny that.

Can you provide a link to a post of his where he says that? Can you justify that?

Considering he's since replied categorically saying the opposite it would seem this can be yet another example of you having no problems simply fabricating things about your detractors. Do you think you do yourself any favours by repeatedly lying? Do you think no one will call you on it, especially when the people you're lying about are in the conversation?

I'm not changing the subject or muddying the waters, MD's box is the very definition of a light sphere. So I'll ask you again, what are the times to the x and z receivers as measured from within the box? How can an observer in the box measure two different times to two different receivers, which are an equal distance from the source at the center of the box, and conclude the light expands spherically in his frame?

No, the very definition of a light sphere is the one I gave. The definition of a sphere in $$\mathbb{R}^{N}$$ centred at $$\mathbf{x}_{0}$$ and of radius R is $$(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})^{2} = R^{2}$$. Thus if a Lorentz transform maps such an expression into another one of the same format then it maps spheres to spheres. In the case of a light sphere R = ct.

If you deny this is a light sphere and a Lorentz transform applied to it please explain where. If you can demonstrate what I've done is not correct, is not describing a Lorentz transform on a light sphere, then I'll address your version of things. Until then I'm not going to play your game of "Let's convert everything into my version of things and avoid addressing what the mainstream says". Remember, you're claiming relativity doesn't say something and I'm telling you what relativity says, what the textbooks say. You need to address what the textbooks say, as that's what the issue of contention is about.

Where have I made a mistake and why is it a mistake? Answer the question or admit you can't find one. If you answer the question and demonstrate a mistake then I'll address your version. Until then it is put to one side.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well I will deny your claim, so there- nothing wrong with the pseudoscience section IMO,

I'll accept that then.

only that I'm going to point out why your pseudoscience is no more scientific or applicable or rational or "reasonable and responsible" than the next guy's, if and whenever I feel so inclined.

Take your time. Until then you are on record that purple flying deities are just as reasonable as there being preconditions to the big bang.

That's how it works around here, you post stuff and it gets criticized or praised depending on the merit other members see therein. I promised I would stop posting here if you agreed to ask the mods to send this thread to the cesspool, so that's your ticket out if you want one.

You want it in the cesspool? That just shows your disdain for pseudoscience. It is within your rights to ask the mod to move it.

BTW it's not about formal education at all- I wouldn't give a crap if you got a math and physics education from the School of Hard Knocks, as long as it consisted of an education in math and physics. Sorry, but even Isaac Newton himself was more qualified to speculate on the nature of the universe from extrapolations of existing science than you would be, unless you want to claim you do indeed have a detailed understanding of classical physics (yes, including the math)- Newton was in a vastly better position to connect whatever he speculated on to the experiments and calculations he was performing, which might be nothing next to our modern understanding, but at least he had the ability to describe, model and predict things which were known to actually exist in real life and use these models as a basis for speculation on the underlying workings.

You are a vocal critic of those who bring speculation without the background or credentials to have a clue. Yet you aren't up to the task of addressing the speculations and logically showing how even in a cursory evaluation why they are only worthy of the cesspool. You are an empty shirt until you justify why speculation about preconditions to the big bang makes me so unworthy to offer a thread in Pseudoscience.

 

[quantum_wave]

What a complete cop out. You spew vitriol and then proclaim you're trying to help? You invented, with no evidence, claims about my personal life. How does that 'help' me? How does lying about me help me? How does 'advice' (and I use that in its vaguest sense) based on your self deception and lies help anyone?

You accused me of having suffered some personal set back, hence why I'd 'changed'. I pointed out that in fact I was giving you some room out of politeness and to demonstrate another one of your lies, that I was obsessed with you. I pointed out that not only have I not suffered a set back but my life is actually going very well. People, profession and property, all on the up for me. Obviously you weren't expecting that. It's a bit like when Farsight made the sarcastic comment "Got a job yet? Got one in physics?" as he expected my string theory PhD would act like a black mark to employers. He wasn't expecting "Yes and yes" to be the answer.

As I said before, your posts say more about you than they do about me. The fact you jump to inventing narratives about people, as you've done (but to a lesser extent) with Cpt, making analogies to escalating criminals and even eluded to threats about people's jobs etc shows a lot about your character. I criticise you for what you say here, the nonsense you waste time on and the delusions you have about it. I don't invent stories about your home life.

You clearly realised you'd put your foot in it because you couldn't come back with anything.

Except you don't follow science, nor do you learn it. Nor do you, by your own admission, speculate about science. So why bring such things up? You aren't doing them, mpc isn't, Pincho isn't, Sylwester isn't, Farsight isn't, Magneto isn't. None of you are learning science, reading it, studying it, doing it. So don't pretend you're doing any of those.

Can you provide a link to a post of his where he says that? Can you justify that?

Considering he's since replied categorically saying the opposite it would seem this can be yet another example of you having no problems simply fabricating things about your detractors. Do you think you do yourself any favours by repeatedly lying? Do you think no one will call you on it, especially when the people you're lying about are in the conversation?

Denial is not going to ever help. Try to address the topic. You are always the first to get us off onto tangents and I have always said I would respond in kind. So address the topic or call in the moderator and whine.

 

[quantum_wave]

It is understandable that no one gives a hoot because this is pretty much one man’s view on a topic that very few are interested in and in threads where some of the valued members from the hard science forums are disparaging the ideas that I want to discuss. That is fine as long as I’m not hurting our youth and as long as all I’m doing is annoying a few professionals. I should be able to post away without much dispute of anything “on topic” and so I will move on to mention how the QWC multiverse is compatible with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP) discussed in post #91 and how the bubble multiverse of Eternal Inflation is not compatible with the PCP. These differences are open for discussion and anyone who has a better understanding of Eternal Inflation than I do is welcome to chime in.

The first distinction is that according to the Perfect Cosmological Principle the universe on a grand scale looks approximately the same from all points in space and at all points in time. That describes the speculative view of QWC. The commonly applied Cosmological Principle use in spacetime multiverse cosmologies is the same except for the time element; there is an assumed beginning in the Eternal Inflation model for example, and that model would have existed for only a finite length of time. So QWC is infinite and eternal the way I speculate it, and Eternal Inflation had a beginning and Mersini-Houghton disputes if it can be eternal.

 

[CptBork]

Take your time. Until then you are on record that purple flying deities are just as reasonable as there being preconditions to the big bang.

This is precisely why I think you'd make a horrible record keeper, taking me completely out of context. I'll correct you though- I'd like to go on record as saying that purple flying deities are as reasonable and responsible as your speculations or attempts to speculate on preconditions to the Big Bang. Both have essentially zero chance of being relevant or accurate as far as I see it.

You want it in the cesspool? That just shows your disdain for pseudoscience. It is within your rights to ask the mod to move it.

I think it should be cesspooled because you can neither accept nor ignore criticism (yes, ignoring me certainly is an option for you, although I'm generally aiming my posts at a slightly larger audience). Your resorts to personal attacks and apparent veiled threats are especially deserving of a cessing, but I'm content to continue criticizing here without asking any mods to get involved. I'm going to keep beating this drum- if you want to do something of even the slightest relevance/connection to real science and the real world, you need to learn math, math, math. Math. Learn it, learn it well, spend years and years acquiring a strong understanding in it rather than just blindly speculating on which sci-fi show our universe should most closely mirror. Best advice anyone will ever give you on the subject, really.

Without learning the math and all the annoying little technicalities, your understanding of existing science will never be more precise than a Zulu warrior's understanding of Shakespeare. Black holes/event horizons are just words for you- a region of space that's stuffed with enough mass so that its gravity is apparently inescapable (without the math, I doubt your understanding of mass/energy is that well-formed either). This I think is the bulk of all you could possibly know/understand about a black hole without looking at some of the math, whereas there's an enormous amount that's been said and predicted and speculated on regarding black holes by either direct observation or mathematical extrapolation. You shouldn't bother telling me about black hole entropy or whatever else you might find on Wikipedia, because you would still need a strong math background to understand entropy in the first place, never mind applying it to that situation as Hawking did.

You are a vocal critic of those who bring speculation without the background or credentials to have a clue.

So when someone who openly admits not having the background or credentials to have a clue is calling their speculations "reasonable and responsible", I'm a vocal critic eh? Well in that case, good on me! And IMO you put way too much emphasis on credentials, really- I don't care what your credentials are nor where you received them, and if you claimed to have a Ph.D. in physics from Cambridge but were completely unable to indicate any functional knowledge in the area, I'd merely consider you a fraud.

Yet you aren't up to the task of addressing the speculations and logically showing how even in a cursory evaluation why they are only worthy of the cesspool. You are an empty shirt until you justify why speculation about preconditions to the big bang makes me so unworthy to offer a thread in Pseudoscience.

I keep telling you I think blind speculation is perfectly ok in the pseudoscience forums, I think it's ok in other areas like philosophy and religion as well. Resorting to personal attacks when someone argues that your beliefs have no real substance to them is what deserves to get this thread cessed. You want a specific example of how/why I think your speculations are near worthless, so I'll throw the ball back into your court here: How about you explain what relation Lorentz invariance has to anything you've said here. If I changed it to "dishwasher invariance", in what sense would your hypothesis lose its meaning and self-consistency?

 

[quantum_wave]

This is precisely why I think you'd make a horrible record keeper, taking me completely out of context. I'll correct you though- I'd like to go on record as saying that purple flying deities are as reasonable and responsible as your speculations or attempts to speculate on preconditions to the Big Bang. Both have essentially zero chance of being relevant or accurate as far as I see it.

So your criteria is relevant and accurate when it come to speculation? But you opinion is that my speculations are not, and they have zero chance of relevancy? I disagree. Next opinion please.

I think it should be cesspooled because you can neither accept nor ignore criticism (yes, ignoring me certainly is an option for you, although I'm generally aiming my posts at a slightly larger audience). Your resorts to personal attacks and apparent veiled threats are especially deserving of a cessing, but I'm content to continue criticizing here without asking any mods to get involved. I'm going to keep beating this drum- if you want to do something of even the slightest relevance/connection to real science and the real world, you need to learn math, math, math. Math. Learn it, learn it well, spend years and years acquiring a strong understanding in it ...

Why, because you claim to have done that and no one is worthy of a pea brained deluded opinion but you? Next opinion please.

... rather than just blindly speculating on which sci-fi show our universe should most closely mirror. Best advice anyone will ever give you on the subject, really.

Thanks, but I suspect you have a lot more "best" advice. Bring it on.

Without learning the math and all the annoying little technicalities, your understanding of existing science will never be more precise than a Zulu warrior's understanding of Shakespeare. Black holes/event horizons are just words for you- a region of space that's stuffed with enough mass so that its gravity is apparently inescapable (without the math, I doubt your understanding of mass/energy is that well-formed either). This I think is the bulk of all you could possibly know/understand about a black hole without looking at some of the math, whereas there's an enormous amount that's been said and predicted and speculated on regarding black holes by either direct observation or mathematical extrapolation. You shouldn't bother telling me about black hole entropy or whatever else you might find on Wikipedia, because you would still need a strong math background to understand entropy in the first place, never mind applying it to that situation as Hawking did.

Empty opinion with no connection to anything I have said.

So when someone who openly admits not having the background or credentials to have a clue is calling their speculations "reasonable and responsible",

You have made one of those AlphaNumeric statements that put words in my mouth in a context that you want to be true to fit your agenda.

I'm a vocal critic eh? Well in that case, good on me! And IMO you put way too much emphasis on credentials, really- I don't care what your credentials are nor where you received them, and if you claimed to have a Ph.D. in physics from Cambridge but were completely unable to indicate any functional knowledge in the area, I'd merely consider you a fraud.

And on the basis you are the fraud. I spout speculation based on the inconsistencies in consensus theories. My shtick is that the standard cosmology avoids the issue of a beginning or preconditions.

I keep telling you I think blind speculation is perfectly ok in the pseudoscience forums, I think it's ok in other areas like philosophy and religion as well. Resorting to personal attacks when someone argues that your beliefs have no real substance to them is what deserves to get this thread cessed. You want a specific example of how/why I think your speculations are near worthless, so I'll throw the ball back into your court here: How about you explain what relation Lorentz invariance has to anything you've said here. If I changed it to "dishwasher invariance", in what sense would your hypothesis lose its meaning and self-consistency?

Read the thread and give your opinion. The thread contains mine. You are not someone who I am interested in jumping through your chosen hoops for to prove the obvious.

 

[quantum_wave]

Continuing on topic, which right now is about how the QWC multiverse is compatible with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP) discussed in post #91 and how the bubble multiverse of Eternal Inflation is not compatible with the PCP, let me go on to the second distinction.

IN QWC the landscape of the greater universe, that potentially infinite space beyond our own arena is speculated to consist of a potentially infinite number of arenas in various stages of formation, expansion, overlap, collapse and bounce. The speculation is that all space is filled with matter and energy being orchestrated by the process of arena action. To contrast that with the eternal inflation multiverse in the Mersini-Houghton paper, that multiverse had a beginning and regardless of the rate of bubble nucleation, there are a finite number of bubbles.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

You accused me of having suffered some personal set back, hence why I'd 'changed'. I pointed out that in fact I was giving you some room out of politeness and to demonstrate another one of your lies, that I was obsessed with you. I pointed out that not only have I not suffered a set back but my life is actually going very well. People, profession and property, all on the up for me. Obviously you weren't expecting that. It's a bit like when Farsight made the sarcastic comment "Got a job yet? Got one in physics?" as he expected my string theory PhD would act like a black mark to employers. He wasn't expecting "Yes and yes" to be the answer.

I'm glad to hear that AN and I hope all goes well for you. It doesn't change my opinion of your character and it won't change your opinion of mine. That is the nature of individualism, ego, and the personal defenses everyone has which cannot be considered criticism, it is just fact.

 

[quantum_wave]

Continuing on topic, right now I want to finish up on how the QWC multiverse is compatible with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP) discussed in post #91 and how the bubble multiverse of Eternal Inflation is not compatible with the PCP. Let me summarize the first two distinctions and then go to the third distinction.

First is the matter to time being finite in the eternal inflation models. Any duration between the beginning and now is a finite length of time. Any duration between the beginning and any point, no matter how far out in the future, is a finite length of time. Therefore eternal inflation models are finite in time and I speculate that QWC had no beginning and is infinite in time.

In order for there to be a beginning there would be an explanation for the beginning like “God did it”, or “Something from nothing”. The “God did it” explanation invokes the supernatural and so therefore would not be accepted for discussion under the scientific method. As for the other option, “something from nothing”, it is my personal opinion that “the universe has always existed” is an easier concept for my pea brain to comprehend, even though I will agree that both are difficult concepts. Which option do you prefer?

Second was the matter of the number of arenas that have existed and now could exist in QWC vs. the eternal inflation models. QWC is characterized by the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, the eternity of time, and by the speculated presence of energy density at all points in space along with the speculation that there is a natural limit to the maximum energy density that can occur and big bangs result when that limit is reached. In QWC that makes the number of arenas potentially infinite. In the eternal inflation models having existed for only a finite duration, no matter what the bubble nucleation rate is, there cannot be a history of an infinite number of bubbles and so the potential number of bubbles is finite.

On to the third distinction; the inflating false vacuum, as it is referred to in eternal inflation models, fills a finite volume of space, and over time the landscape has changed drastically in appearance from a single inflating landscape that came to exist without initial preconditions, to a landscape characterized by bubbles of true vacuum within the false vacuum. This evolution from the false vacuum of the initial inflation to the landscape of a finite number of bubbles of true vacuum nucleating from their own initial preconditions changes appearance over time and so though at any point in time it looks essentially the same from any vantage point as prescribed by the cosmological principle, the look itself changes over time which violates the PCP.

In the speculation of QWC, the look never changes on a grand scale and has had the same “arena landscape” look to it forever. Arenas come and play by overlapping, and new arenas form in the overlaps from the galactic remnants and energy of previous arenas but from any vantage point the QWC landscape never changes in overall appearance (on a grand scale).

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Denial is not going to ever help.

Then why do you avoid facing up to your hypocrisy? You claimed to be trying to help but you've invented things about both Cpt and I. How does that help?

Try to address the topic.

Sorry but since you are the one who simply invented claims and narratives about myself and another poster I'm not going to sit idly by and not say anything.

You fabricated things about both Cpt and myself. Do you deny that? I asked you to provide a link to a post of Cpt where he said Pseudo should be removed. You ignored my request. Is it too much to ask for you to justify your claims? This isn't even a claim about QWC, it's a claim you made about another poster. It's one thing to make up nonsense about science, it's another to lie about other members.

You are always the first to get us off onto tangents and I have always said I would respond in kind.

Where did I invent a narrative about your life? Where did I make claims about events in your life? Where did I make comparisons between your actions and those of criminals? Where did I lie about other posters?

You talk about denial but you're the one avoiding facing up to the fact you aren't 'responded in kind', you went much much further than myself or Cpt. I might think you're delusional about the worth of your work and you're a hack but I don't say things like "Clearly your worthless life has been made worse by some horrible recent event. Karma's a bitch!".

You need to stop being in denial.

So address the topic or call in the moderator and whine.

Yes, perhaps calling in a moderator to highlight the fact you lie about other posters and then refuse to face up to those lies when called on them would be a prudent course of action.

I'm glad to hear that AN and I hope all goes well for you. It doesn't change my opinion of your character and it won't change your opinion of mine.

Do you admit to fabricating, without any justification other than your 'wishful thinking' about me, a narrative about my life?

That is the nature of individualism, ego, and the personal defenses everyone has which cannot be considered criticism, it is just fact.

Where's the 'fact' in saying that because I'd given you space, something I told you I was going to do to highlight I wasn't (as you wanted to believe) 'obsessed' with you, that surely some horrible thing had happened to my personal life? Please explain that, as you keep ducking the issue.

There's a difference between saying "I don't like you, I think you're a jerk" and "Your ego has obviously led to some backlash in real life and you're paying for your arrogance!". The first is opinion based on interactions, the second is utter fabrication based on dislike and the, I imagine, hope such a thing had occurred. Like I said, the fact you thought a bad thing had happened to me because I was polite enough to leave you alone for a while says a lot more about you than it does about me.

You need to look up what denial, hypocrisy and fact actually mean. Look up 'projecting' too.

 

[quantum_wave]

Then why do you avoid facing up to your hypocrisy? You claimed to be trying to help but you've invented things about both Cpt and I. How does that help?

Sorry but since you are the one who simply invented claims and narratives about myself and another poster I'm not going to sit idly by and not say anything.

You fabricated things about both Cpt and myself. Do you deny that? I asked you to provide a link to a post of Cpt where he said Pseudo should be removed. You ignored my request. Is it too much to ask for you to justify your claims? This isn't even a claim about QWC, it's a claim you made about another poster. It's one thing to make up nonsense about science, it's another to lie about other members.

Where did I invent a narrative about your life? Where did I make claims about events in your life? Where did I make comparisons between your actions and those of criminals? Where did I lie about other posters?

You talk about denial but you're the one avoiding facing up to the fact you aren't 'responded in kind', you went much much further than myself or Cpt. I might think you're delusional about the worth of your work and you're a hack but I don't say things like "Clearly your worthless life has been made worse by some horrible recent event. Karma's a bitch!".

You need to stop being in denial.

Yes, perhaps calling in a moderator to highlight the fact you lie about other posters and then refuse to face up to those lies when called on them would be a prudent course of action.

Do you admit to fabricating, without any justification other than your 'wishful thinking' about me, a narrative about my life?

Where's the 'fact' in saying that because I'd given you space, something I told you I was going to do to highlight I wasn't (as you wanted to believe) 'obsessed' with you, that surely some horrible thing had happened to my personal life? Please explain that, as you keep ducking the issue.

There's a difference between saying "I don't like you, I think you're a jerk" and "Your ego has obviously led to some backlash in real life and you're paying for your arrogance!". The first is opinion based on interactions, the second is utter fabrication based on dislike and the, I imagine, hope such a thing had occurred. Like I said, the fact you thought a bad thing had happened to me because I was polite enough to leave you alone for a while says a lot more about you than it does about me.

You need to look up what denial, hypocrisy and fact actually mean. Look up 'projecting' too.

More useless off topic rhetoric.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Tell you what, I'll stop complaining about you fabricating claims about members when you stop fabricating claims about members. Are you surprised people get uppity when you out right lie about them because you don't like what they have to say? It's funny you say to Cpt and I our actions here might have repercussions when you take no responsibility for your own.

Stop lying and I'll stop saying you're a liar.

 

[Arioch]

@Quantum --

Man up, quit being such a troll, and stop resorting to personal attacks. You want people to take you seriously? Then you have to act like it first. I swear, reading some of your posts is like going back to some of what I wrote in first grade and attempting to pass it off as intellectual writing.

 

[quantum_wave]

@Quantum --

Man up, quit being such a troll, and stop resorting to personal attacks. You want people to take you seriously? Then you have to act like it first. I swear, reading some of your posts is like going back to some of what I wrote in first grade and attempting to pass it off as intellectual writing.

Do you think that I want to be taken seriously? Get serious yourself or don't read it. It is Pseudoscience and I'm a deluded pea brain meaning I take exception to the mainstream incompatible theories and those who insist they are reality. I believe there are preconditions to the Big Bang and the on topic content is about my view of possible preconditions and the nature of the universe that stem from that thinking.

I respond to personal and off-topic attacks in kind and if they continue I respond in spades. I man up by not letting people disparage me personally and I am the one, not you, who determines if I feel disparaged. I always respond politely if someone addresses the topic.

You man up and consider how you are supporting the wrong people by stepping in and calling me out and not calling out those who continually post disparaging off topic remarks. Its a jungle out there, lol.

Try a meaningful on topic post and I will show you a meaningful reply.

 

[quantum_wave]

Tell you what, I'll stop complaining about you fabricating claims about members when you stop fabricating claims about members. Are you surprised people get uppity when you out right lie about them because you don't like what they have to say? It's funny you say to Cpt and I our actions here might have repercussions when you take no responsibility for your own.

Stop lying and I'll stop saying you're a liar.

Don't stop. You bring readers and there is always a chance that someone will respond to the topic. As for you personally, your ego exceeds the US national debt, you have no self respect and you are a bad agent when it comes to representing the professional community.