Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?

Well, my theory is safe so long as they take these routes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I took a different path though. I started from scratch. Take Dark Flow for example, I was talking about it in 2004, I don't know if it was known about then, because I hadn't studied science. I predicted about 10 things that weren't known, and about 20 more things that I never studied.. people tell me were known. So to me I have 30 proofs, but to science I might have 10. All that says to me is that I have something that predicts things that you don't know, even if science does know some of this stuff. For example the halo around the Galaxy. I had never heard of it, but drew diagrams of it for years. I did better for myself than I did for science. And if it's a delusion, I learned a lot from it. Now I'm working on Neural Networks, and all sorts of things that I couldn't do before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still fooling yourself and still trying to fool others I see, Pincho.

 

I posted the pictures, they are still around, I don't know if telling the truth is fooling people.

 

Yep, that's the "fooling" part. Especially of yourself.

 

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 skimmed through her paper a long time ago when you asked me to check if it was at a level that could be understood by a layman. As you might recall, I opined that it wasn't, especially for someone wanting to critique the hypothesis or properly explore its implications.

No, I dropped by to explain why Mersini-Houghton wouldn't be considered a crank, because she has a proper understanding of the conventional views and can thus mount a reasonable defense of her hypothesis against challenges from the conventional mainstream. All the same, there are thousands of theorists around the world performing this kind of research, and rarely does it lead to any significant breakthroughs. The most useful aspect of this kind of work is to cross out some of the options and alternatives in order to help focus future lines of research.

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 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.

Buy she is not saying that she buys Eternal Inflation at all. She does not seem to think it is the whole story. What I read into her paper may be completely wrong, but I think she is positioning for a greater universe that has always existed. Can you see how I could draw that conclusion? I like that position and so maybe I am just seeing what I want in it, lol.

Please note the work that I have documented throughout and the links I have offered center on reading, going through the paper, searching, and reviewing each reference; I even compiled a list of the detail of each footnote to help anyone who was interested save time by using my notes.

On to unnecessary babble; I don’t try to fool anyone about my level of education or my understanding about the Lambda-CDM model. I simply refer to it as the consensus, the Big Bang with Inflation, General Relativity, and the Cosmological principle and I search and read about it and the problems with it all the time. I review the work being done in the field that is made available to me and delude myself by thinking that I can fathom it. You concluded our earlier discussion by saying that I, as a layman, couldn’t understand papers like Mersini’s and I assume you meant that to apply to science in general beyond the college level Science 101, lol. You don’t want to waste your time with an ungrateful pea brain do you?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Even in your example of my assertions you quoted you made a clear amateur mistake. I qualified the particular boost that establishes an event horizon. I said such a boost is actuated by the light speed acceleration of the new bubble. The event horizon is established if the Lorentz boost is at light speed.

I can stand to be criticized but if you can't drop the deceitful techniques your criticisms are meaningless.

 

The Lorentz Boost has had its definition modified over time, and that is why both of you are visualizing two different aspects of it. Quantum Wave is thinking back to the Aether being a propagator of energy, and the Lorentz boost being an outcome of Aether interactions. CptBork only reads the final attribute given to it from General Relativity, which was actually a bodge when the Aether couldn't be found. The Aether version creates the Lorentz Boost, General Relativity barely manages to cope with it, or explain it properly. What you are seeing is the medium that creates flow through what is supposed to be a vacuum, but it isn't a vacuum, its a medium, and that medium has observable data, like the Lorentz Boost, and the Bow Shock, and the halos.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He and I have been through what you and he are doing now. His ideas are nonsense, vapid and laughable but he honestly thinks he's doing something worthwhile. He's a slightly less batshit crazy version of Pincho, which is like saying someone 3ft tall is slightly taller than someone 2ft 11 inches, they're both still short as ****.

q_w, you've made it obvious you won't look at actual science even when you're led to it or have it put in front of your nose. Whining Cpt isn't explaining mainstream stuff to you is like a man who poked both his eyes out complaining he can't see someone's painting.