Multiverz is a multiplicity and represents "dark" matter in the minds of those who believe in it. Does any of these enthusiasts think of their originating disappearance? Here I claim that the matter arises from the high vibrations of Aether, induced by the SEU, and this takes place in three spatial directions, in which the strands form the matter in two "aggregate states": solid state 3kg cesica-3 quark and 3 gluon binders and a "liquid" state, which are free gluons, formed by annihilation of two particles formed in these strings, with their own opposite rotations.
This is the energy state of the matter that causes magnetism with the connection with Aethero. The "solid" state with Aether causes the phenomenon gravity. When many consciousness rises to a higher level you must accept the existence of a SEU. Now we will have to don our white robes and beg forgiveness at the altar of SEU, the farmers just nailed a sign to his farm gate saying, don't feed the multiverse's.
What you say, what the interpretation of the universe looks like, looks like the universe is completely crazy and unconnected, and without end and beginning, without law, with complete chaos that can not be understood. And you experts take everything you take as something you've seen going on a trip through the universe packed in your heads. Belief in their existence, both are entities of ethereal beings and complement each other. Long after we have moved on to a better world, Multiverse and SEU philosophies will continue to battle with each in Aether of the internet.
SEU cannot manage without Multiverse and visa versa! SEU is not what you are mocking of, you will feel it, but it can be late. But this does not have anything to do with religion, because this is a universal doctrine, without which it can not be alive, as matter can not exist without Aether. Remember this, you'll need it in the future. This is valid for all of us, especially for those who have descended and neglected their origins. But this does not have anything to do with religion, because this is a universal doctrine, without which it can not be alive, Milnik, I am the founder, sole member and sole representative of "The 1st Church of the Living Universe".
You can see proof of that in a number of my early posts on PO. How's that for SUE? Hey, can I join Do I get a free 'T' shirt, Journal Seriously though, how do you, as a scientific artist I hope that's correct visualize multiverse and holgraphic ideas and then put it paper? Whydening Gyre Hey, can I join I don't like fees. I prefer donations via participation your time. Oh, and it had better be fun for everyone or it's not a church, it's a business And you'd better bring your own vice of choice i prefer Crown Royal Do I get a free 'T' shirt, Well, as soon as I can design an appropriate one one, you can have it for cost.
Your protection is the knowledge that they are trolls and you're not. Powerful mojo in that Seriously though, how do you, as a scientific artist I hope that's correct visualize multiverse and holographic ideas and then put it paper? I think I might be on my own. With this one Thanks, Golden Earring By, example, lets start with numbers To the Universe, everything is a 1. So if our 3 is a 1, it's 2 would be our 6. And so on, except that the Universe still only sees - another 1 that equals 6 of our 1's Sounds crazy, I know, but it's what keeps me sane sort of May 04, Crap, I edited over my second comment.
Damn, why do they put the quote button so close to the edit button? Ok, again. The "multiverse" situation; It's a matter of perception. We process the Universe through our brain through the "sensors" and processing tool, evolved through billions of years of, basically, the same environment - a planet in a solar system.
All of us generally do it the same Now I don't mean perception as in interpretation, I mean it as raw data and subsequent processing based on our experience in our environment IE - How does a rock perceive the Universe? And before you say "A rock doesn't think or perceive", consider all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains. In different patterns, sure, but still in predictable patterns More after I meditate on it a bit Just like in our own brains Have we just insulted as daft as a brush, there is an art to writing philosophies Whydening Gyre.
Take a leaf out of Albert's book; he was a professional at the art. Instead of it he proposed, that the vacuum is formed by very dense fluid in Maxwell's way instead. So that the aether model has been considered clueless and not having physical background and the relativity gained credit instead. If the superfluids would be observed in Oliver Loge's times in similar way like the superconductors, then the whole situation with aether concept acceptation could look quite differently by now.
Get to it, woo boy. Whydening Gyre' And before you say "A rock doesn't think or perceive", consider all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock Strange as it may seem I've been telling folks for years that though we classify some things as inanimate that doesn't mean they're inert Rocks etc.
Indeed there is a lot more information about the past in a rock. And then of course there black body radiation too. So you carry on, you've got my interest. You would have done well with the ancient scholars If there is such a space, what is your vacuum? If the vacuum is an absolutely empty space, could anything be formed from that empty space? If it is, it means that anything can be obtained from nothing. According to many, this is how the universe was formed BB , not everything was created.
If this is right for you, then these theories were made out of nothing. My theory: the universe is two entity. The universe is a sphere of infinite diameters and is filled with the Aether substance. This substance is neither matter nor energy, because matter is formed from it, and from matter all kinds of energies.
There are no muptivers, nor can the universe expand. Space and time have nothing in common, and they are formed: the space for the accommodation of matter and its movement, and time only as a measure of that movement. Discard the stupid theories of Einstein and Lorenz's transformation. Aether with two aggregate states of matter causes gravity and magnetism. Gravitation has the task of bringing matter back to the form of Aether black hole , and magnetism is the basis of the energy state of matter all forms of waves and interaction of particles and their formation. Anywhere you find energy it seems you also find turbulence.
Or so it seems. Hey we're talking about our local universe. Mine changes every day. So they say gravity just emerges from some other natural laws? Gravity relieves the tension between different rates of expansion between different regions of spacetime. That is it attempts to minimize the surface area bordering regions of different spacetime expansion. Well, Alex. Since I'm trying to create for myself a reality, I don't like to call it a "philosophy". I prefer "Plan of Action" As far as insults go, not sure what you are trying to say Nope, dummy.
It isn't a piccy I can look at. You are just inferring its existence. It could be magic electrickery dust. Get on it. It's that smug feeling the brush gets knowing no one is dafter; an insult to the brush if anyone can be dafter. Albert Einstein got writing theories down to such a fine art his thought experiments are difficult to surpass, it doesn't mean there's any truth in them, that's where Albert's skill lay, he made them believable. Yes, this is the logic created by the understanding of the structure of the universe and the formation of matter from Aether.
This Aether that I am talking about, he is in close connection with the activity of the Spiritual Entity SEU , none of you is aware of it, because you neither respect nor can understand it. If I gave a detailed explanation of this, then I would disenfranchise many of the Nobel Prizes that were obtained on the basis of fictional theories that delude civilization. An example of how magnetism occurs: A "liquid" aggregate state free gluons is formed from Aether. These gluons are the energy state of matter and they form neutrons. This is my copyright.
Remember, there is no magnetism without a neutron. Proof: Every chemical element, which has more neutrons than protons, is magnetic! E, this explanation is not for this level of discussion, as there are several Nobel Prizes. Too bad that modern people are sorta separated from reality and practical experience, which Thompson, founder of electron routinely had. The electron beam inside the vacuum bulb bounces around walls of vessel Errm, I think this has gone over your head a bit.
I am asking Benni for observational evidence of electrons, as that, by his own words, is his test to decide if things are actually real. He thinks neutron stars aren't real, because he can't see a picture of one. We can detect GWs from them, Hubble has actually imaged one. We can detect their presence in other ways, at various wavelengths.
We can see the EM afterglow, and subsequent r-process nucleosynthesis from the merger of two of them. All of this fits theory as well as the existence of electrons do. Yet neither Benni, nor anybody else, has ever seen an image of electron. I am merely placing the same burden of proof on him, as his woo beliefs place on others. In other words, he is an idiot. I was under the impression benni was from the generation where TV dinners were considered the pinnacle of technology and culture.
Now hes calling people old men? I suppose age is relative though. It's difficult to decide who holds the Crown for the Evil Troll King, the standards to high; maybe we should hold a competition. Uh, oh, yet another old man still on the loose with his fantasies because he can't come up with pics. Hey, loony tunes, where is your pic of an electron? Otherwise I'm calling BS on this whole 'electron' woo. No such thing. Prove it. Show me a pic. Off you go, woo child. Now you're telling us that because you've never seen a pic of an electron that it too must exist? Have mommy toss another bag of potato chips into the basement for you.
We've seen an image of a neutron star. We've seen GWs from them. We see r-process nucleosynthesis from them. Every observation of them matches theory. And what has your IQ deficient, scientifically illiterate brain come up with? Back to mopping the floors, you muppet. Let us know if and when you graduate grade school, and we'll see what can be done for you. I don't hold out much hope, though.
Still no science, eh woo boy? Told you; get back to the mopping. You're saying my thought experiments are not believable That's okay, because the only person that I ask to believe them, is myself If anyone else does, then that's their concern That said, my thoughts on this matter are a WIP - still hashing it out.
No claim to be right - they're just my thoughts. Liebig's law of minimum: The quality of every online discussion is determined by the IQ of its dumbest member. Anyone taking bets on who that might be? Our "processor" is conditioned via both nature and nurture to see only certain aspects of the total Universe. A certain defined for and by our "sensors" set of "patterns", if you will. It is an interpretation of our combined sensory input. Other states of being - not "alive" by our definition - have other sensory avenues to the Universe.
Browse more videos
Those avenues might provide different interpretations than our own. Or - none at all According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real. It's no coinkydink that post followed immediately after a jonesdumb post. According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real Oh dear. More idiocy. You are NOT seeing electrons. Nobody has ever seen an electron. Therefore, there is as much proof for electrons as there is for neutron stars.
- OpenText Business Network;
- Should Internet Monopolies be Tamed? - Project Syndicate?
- Taming Big Data | IBM Big Data & Analytics Hub!
You can decide how much that is. And it was Pauli's work that explains the electron structure of atoms, and therefore the periodic table, stability, chemical reactions, etc. Due to quantum. It was the same Pauli whose quantum description of such leads to electron degeneracy in white dwarfs and neutron stars. You want to throw it out? Better tell the genius Thornhill that he needs to start rewriting chemistry, pronto. Comparing the hands on science involved in the discovery and confirmation of electrons to the highly speculative pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of neutronium and the claimed neutron stars is the height of stupidity and ignorance of science.
Not everybody is as thick as you, woo boy. Chandrasekhar built on the idea a couple of years later. Bell-Burnell discovered pulsars in '67 for which her boss got a Nobel. They got the Nobel in ' Meanwhile, all these observations were confirming theory that went back decades before their discovery. One of those predictions was the formation of GWs when two NSs merged. And that we would see r-process nucleosynthesis.
ALL of this has been achieved by real scientists, doing real science. If you think otherwise, please point to the peer reviewed material that says they are all wrong. Not the idiot Scott on frigging Youtube. I'm still waiting for cantthink69 to explain why, if neutrons always decay after 15 minutes, there are stable atoms with neutrons in their nuclei that appear to last for at minimum billions of years without decaying.
I bet those GW's are created when neutronium and "strange matter" gets mixed together by the leprechaun in his pot 'o gold, and of course he uses an alicorn to do so. Like I have said for a long time - you will never get any science out of these loons. It is beyond their capabilities. They merely parrot idiotic nonsense from their Velikovskian overlords, who are barely more scientifically literate than themselves. That is why they are a complete irrelevance, and have no influence whatsoever on real science. Thickos, the lot of 'em. Neutronium and strange matter are actual types of matter proposed in highly speculative NS, it's utterly laughable.
No, you are just an uneducated idiot. Please tell us who is saying that such things are impossible. That electron and neutron degeneracy are impossible. Lend some weight to your argument, bozo. Nobody is interested in anything you say, or the idiots Thornhill or Scott. Back your crap up, or STFU. So basically cantthink69 said something really stupid- that neutrons always decay after 15 minutes- and cantthink69 what to say now, so the troll is just avoiding it.
Run away and hide, cantthink69 troll. Grow a pair. May 05, It's not only possible, but it is highly likely you are a degenerate jonesdumb. Right on par with Ellen Degenerate. See, this is how people can tell you're lying, cantthink You don't have the courage to admit it when you said something stupid.
If you'll lie about that, you'll lie about anything. And you do. So, we can take that to mean that nobody of any scientific note has questioned the formation of white dwarves or neutron stars due to degeneracy pressure. As expected, it is only the scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. Given what they believe, then they can be safely ignored. And are. The only thing to match the hypothetical density of neutronium or strange matter LOL is jonesdumb.
Einstein, Chandrasekhar, and Baade are apparently not "of any scientific note" according to cantthink Just another lie. Do you ever stop lying? Then going back in time there appears a state of curvature fluctuations as large as particle field fluctuations. But Planck showed that eternal inflation is most likely non-chaotic [see the Planck legacy archives, IIRC especially the relatively recent paper that weighs in BICEP2 data], and never reach a breakdown or even need an initial state as classical quantum fluctuations will keep sufficient inflating volumes that they grow exponentially in relation to non-inflating volume i.
It seems to me not a cosmologist that this work is unlikely to be useful. Continuing speaking of useful, this: "But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. Cosmologist Weinberg showed already in the 80's that it is testable on the cosmological constant by a local test of having stars, despite the presumed mathematical problem of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" infinite number of infinite distributions.
As an irony here I note that essentially the same idea is often levered against string theory despite that it comes out with a finite but large number of states. Something that can be traced in Hawking's formulation I think, re "large" vs "infinite" scale. It is the absence of pinning remaining parameters that irks many, I take it. But it is the same situation as in - the testable [!
Its contingency will not allow unique traits, just guarantee a set of survivable ones or not, i. So if biology makes contingency against a potentially infinite number of sometimes large scale trait distributions work, why cannot cosmology? Which takes us back to Weinberg again, it seems to work the same.
Want a list? Perhaps you could do yours first, as it will be considerably shorter! So, what are you waiting for? Or do your 'scientists' only include Velikovskian woo merchants? It was a veritable troll feast involving EU or criticism of cosmology, big bang, inflation, multiverses, standard particle model and string theory here used mainly as mathematical tool, I think ; I noticed now after posting.
Not much to do except downvoting, thanks to heroic work from DS, JD and others to show the trolls for what they are. As currently becoming a couch physicist and instead bioinformatician I note though that articles from BBC, Science and individual cosmologists such as Ethan Siegel criticizes the relevance - but not the physical model details - in much the same manner as I did. FWIW using Peter Woit as source is problematic since he is a couch physicist too, managing computers in a student lab last I heard.
If the criticism is valid it does not matter what is its source. Which takes us back to the downvote feast; trolls are useless. I think if he'd try quantum fluctuations he might have a snowball chance. Certainly wouldn't harm his credibility. I think the retina was designed to pick up photons. That is electrons in the retina are excited to a higher energy level and send signals off to the optic nerve. Anything which sufficiently excites the optic nerve may be seen as a flash of light, particularly cosmic rays.
Such an assumption therefore rises more questions than answers and as such it violates the Occam's razor. Best rhetorical argument I've heard so far for the existence of the deity. Occam's razor. Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road. Quantum fluctuations are OK, but we can still ask, where they come from?
Where that comes from I'm uncertain except it's just one of the laws of nature. Where they come from I'm uncertain. True to form I guess. Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road And the Big Bang doesn't? The BB is over-rated. Highly over-rated. You add up all those quantum fluctuations in some particular form every 10 or 20 billion years and you're going to get some pretty strange results. Good thinking! Big Bang primarily faces number of problems increasing with exponential rate If you have problems with naturally occurring events that's your problem - not the BB.
After torbjorn speaks, the trolls grow excited and caper for attention. I won't contaminate a response to you, torbjorn, with troll responses. More innaminnit. You're essentially saying, that our universe itself is such a giant quantum fluctuation.
Too bad that normal vacuum fluctuations never grow that large. What made our Universe fluctuation so special? While Hertog talks about tests for their conjectures, I think a rigorous analysis to show what tests are unique to them might be useful, and will no doubt happen. Hubble's constant was already subject of false consensus expectation bias in the past.
[PDF] Taming the Giant Corporation Read Online - video dailymotion
The physicists are just repeating it again. Could the physicists just be discovering natural variability? Also, Hertog misspeaks in the video; the theory of a multiverse doesn't allow just anything in the universes created. It's a large number but it's not infinite. There are still constraints. Nobody ever accused me of being a religionist. Emergent force, partly. But I don't see any undiscovered relationships. Between regions of spacetime expanding at a different rate. A form of relaxation, actually. But there is more to it than that, namely the differential forces of pressure and spacetime density due to different expansion rates or pressure and energy density.
Nothing in common except matter, the stuff that moves in space and time. Not saying that energy doesn't move in space and time also, notably photons. So just hand over your weapons, put your hands over your head, and follow your new leader! Belief in science depends whether its religious science. Excluding religious science, are whole edifices will come crumbling down as Georges Lemaitre an ordained priest wrote the rules for our very existence. The statement it doesn't mean there's any truth in them is two pronged!
Another way to look at it What if you "processor" only processed odd numbers or only even numbers? Or maybe only counted by Fibonacci or even primes? THAT universe would sure look different May 06, Sorry, and with all due respect for this great man, but this theory is just scratching the surface, with some good assumptions.
Our own tiny universe is currently still in expansion mode lasting Scientists have still no clue of what happened before the big bang, they don't know about the immaterial belts of our own universe, they don't know about our universe's twin universe. They don't know about the vast number of other universes of the same maturity level as ours existing in our neighborhood. They don't know about the subsequent development stages of universes, once done with their material form of presence.
Hey physicscranks!! Advertise your woo here! In characters or less, let us know all about your unpublished, unreviewed fantasies! After all, this is what Phys. Who needs the scientific literature, when we have sites such as this, and the wonderful Youtube, on which to promote your favourite pseudoscience? Come one, come all, it's free woo promotion week every week at Phys. Sign up now! Albert Einstein with his thought experiments are specifically responsible for what you are now observing jonesdave, when you let priests rewrite the rule of the universe, undo the work of Michelson Morley bringing back Aether you get Fritz Zwicky and darkmatter then darkenergy then theirs Heisenberg's uncertainty which opens up a whole plethora of obnoxious possibilities which are now being refuted and to top it all we have LIGO spinning gravity as warped vacuum of space.
What can you expect. You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths or if you want to be picky: "bigger lies", because we're certainly not at an end with our knowledge of the universe. Sir Isaacs Newton's Laws of Motion are not taught as little lies, the fact that its been stated to teach the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics is a state of mind indicating "relativity and Quantum Mechanics" are problematic and you are noticing the consequences.
Einstein was a very resourceful man, who took two concepts and phenomena in the universe, which have neither the end nor the beginning, and that is space and time. He "screwed up" that couple and invented the phenomenon of gravity, in a completely unconscious way, as Lemetr invented BB and thus entangled both science and religion, inventing something totally unknown to our consciousness. Einstein's theories formed on the claims of Lorenz's transformations completely erased the awareness of most scientists who, therefore, wander through the spaces of multiverse, dark matter and energy, of the expanded universe.
Why yes it is, and Phys. If you agree, then you understand what many will never understand. Start listing the tests that relativity and quantum have been subjected to, and failed. I'll give you singularities as a starter. Anything else? Don't be shy. No word salad, just a numbered list will be fine. I'll start working on a list of tests that they've passed, but may have to post it elsewhere, as it'll never fit in the character limit. Your list will.
I've just done it for you. I'm always agreeable.
Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
Sorry about the mockery. Collaboration then becomes impossible until one set of beliefs is relativized or abandoned entirely. Research over the last two decades has shown the value of computer-assisted argumentation techniques in improving the effectiveness of cross-stakeholder communication.
In "Wholesome Design for Wicked Problems", Robert Knapp stated that there are ways forward in dealing with wicked problems:. The first is to shift the goal of action on significant problems from "solution" to "intervention. Examining networks designed to tackle wicked problems in health care, such as caring for older people or reducing sexually transmitted infections , Ferlie and colleagues suggest that managed networks may be the "least bad" way of "making wicked problems governable".
A range of approaches called problem structuring methods PSMs have been developed in operations research since the s to address problems involving complexity, uncertainty and conflict. PSMs are usually used by a group of people in collaboration rather than by a solitary individual to create a consensus about, or at least to facilitate negotiations about, what needs to change.
Some widely adopted PSMs include soft systems methodology , the strategic choice approach, and strategic options development and analysis SODA. Russell L. Ackoff wrote about complex problems as messes: "Every problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a set of interrelated problems, a system of problems I choose to call such a system a mess. Extending Ackoff, Robert Horn says that "a Social Mess is a set of interrelated problems and other messes.
Complexity—systems of systems—is among the factors that makes Social Messes so resistant to analysis and, more importantly, to resolution. According to Horn, the defining characteristics of a social mess are: . Schumacher distinguishes between divergent and convergent problems in his book A Guide for the Perplexed. Convergent problems are those for which attempted solutions gradually converge on one solution or answer. Divergent problems are those for which different answers appear to increasingly contradict each other all the more they are elaborated, requiring a different approach involving faculties of a higher order like love and empathy.
In , DeGrace and Stahl introduced the concept of wicked problems to software development. The design and integration of complex software-defined services that use the Web web services can be construed as an evolution from previous models of software design, and therefore becomes a wicked problem also. Kelly Levin, Benjamin Cashore, Graeme Auld and Steven Bernstein introduced the distinction between "wicked problems" and "super wicked problems" in a conference paper, which was followed by a journal article in Policy Sciences.
In their discussion of global climate change , they define super wicked problems as having the following additional characteristics: . While the items that define a wicked problem relate to the problem itself, the items that define a super wicked problem relate to the agent trying to solve it.
Global warming is a super wicked problem, and the need to intervene to tend to our longer term interests has also been taken up by others, including Richard Lazarus. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Main article: Problem structuring methods. Australian Public Service Commission. Retrieved 9 November West December Management Science.
Policy Sciences. Archived from the original PDF on 30 September Chichester, England: Wiley Publishing. Rittel Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Heidelberg, Germany. Organization Studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Public Sphere Project. Retrieved 8 November In Gass, Saul I. Encyclopedia of operations research and management science 3rd ed. New York; London: Springer Verlag.
Cornell Law Review. Ackoff, Russell Redesigning the Future. London: Wiley. Camillus, J. Harvard Business Review. Conklin, Jeff In Kirschner, P. B; Carr, C. London: Springer. Conklin, Jeff b. CogNexus Institute. NextDesign Leadership Institute Journal. Courtney, James F Decision Support Systems. Horn, Robert E.
Strategy Kinetics L. DeGrace, Peter; Stahl, L. Hulet