Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?

These following posts will be “from my view” and are speculation so forgive me if I don’t mention that disclaimer in every post.

From my previous post I speculate that everything is composed of wave energy so matter should contain wave energy. I speculate that matter forms from spherical wave energy of a specific and compatible wave length and at a specific period in the arena process. It contains wave energy through a “standing wave” process that maintains the presence of matter, emits spherical wave energy of the right frequency to maintain the presence of matter, and achieves gravity at the same time. I call it quantum action and expose it unashamedly along with the rest of my delusions in my “QWC revisited 2011” thread where it has been open for disparagement most of the year.

The multiverse cosmologies discussed in Mersini-Houghton’s paper and QWC, my view of cosmology, all contain areas that can be differentiated from each other by their respective energy densities. In the reputable multiverse cosmologies bubbles nucleate from initial conditions in their respective backgrounds within the landscape of the greater universe. In QWC new arenas are their counterpart and they form from the overlap of older arenas.

In the current multiverse cosmologies the bubbles are said to be true vacuums and the eternally inflating landscape is said to be a false vacuum. In QWC arenas start with extremely high energy density at the core of a big crunch, they collapse, then bounce and expand into, converge with, and incorporate the low level energy that is already thermalized in the surrounding background.

In QWC that convergence of new arenas with and into the space occupied by the background and with the gravitational and electromagnetic remnants of old arenas provides the right conditions for quantum waves to form and for matter to reform as the arena boundary inflates, filling the arena with the ingredients for particle formation and leading to the composition of the known big bang universe as we observe it today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, it is, as shown by experiments. Secondly, MD didn't ask about that, he claimed relativity said something else. I just demonstrated it doesn't.

No, they have different metrics, ie different measurements of distance. A (pseudo)Riemannian manifold is a vector space (ie something with points and directions) and a metric (ie a way to measure distances). Euclidean and Minkowski space-times have the same underlying topological structure, that of \(\mathbb{R}^{4}\), but they don't have the same metric.

I take it from your laughable attempt to do mathematics and your complete avoidance of my post which proved you wrong that you don't have anything to justify your claim relativity says something else or any retort to my post.

At least be honest and admit it. Skipping over a detailed response which proves you wrong is dishonest and extremely obvious to anyone reading the thread. You obviously know you do it, else you'd have responded to my post but with nonsense. Instead you just ignored it.

Your dishonest shines through MD.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good question, and I wanted to ask the same question but I considered that it is useless.

Your math involved in SR is very naive, no matter how complicated you try to present it.
How many decades, it is necessary for you to fully develop the math involved?.

When will you realize that speed is a vector? So the relative speed between two objects is given by vector decomposition rate on the trajectory between two objects. (Vector calculus)

When you realize that there is no point objects. Objects have dimensions.

How looks your theory, if the speed vector is decomposed given the different points on the same object? How looks the length contraction in this case ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In other words, it's "reasonable and responsible" if it would sound good in a Star Trek plot. Most scientists would only call something unreasonable and irresponsible if it has no basis in existing knowledge- that would certainly include fairy dust, but it would also include attempts to intuit the entire universe without an observational understanding of nature.

I think he's been pretty clear about his POV from the very start- his personal view of the universe is apparently the only way a universe could possibly be, hence he feels fully entitled to throw out whatever aspects of theoretical physics don't make sense to him, and then laugh at the absurdity of the remainder in the absence of the portions he discards.

 

I don't disagree with that, but you need to be more direct if what you mean is that I don't have an observational understanding of nature. Say it like this if you mean it, "You, QW, don't have an observational understanding of nature".

 

Ok then, you don't have an observational understanding of nature. By this I mean you don't have an understanding of nature based on the scientifically confirmed observations to date, at least not in the area of cosmology- you couldn't ever dream of having such an understanding if you don't understand the advanced mathematics implicit in these observations. I don't have an observational understanding of cosmology either, because it's not something you pick up from just taking a couple of grad level courses on the subject, and this is why you won't see me trying speculate on it, as I only discuss what vastly more knowledgeable scientists have already said about it.

 

Yes a parrot does that too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know... your avatar looks a bit like a pirate... where are you? Is that a parrot on a perch at the top?

 

Cpt, then your intention here is to save the poor unsuspecting children from my evil agenda, right? :smirk:

 

Certainly if you or Pincho or mpc etc present your random musings as somehow justified, supported coherent work then you may well convince uninformed and/or unsuspecting people into believing you, which would damage their learning.

If someone comes to this forum wanting to learn some science and they read the posts of someone like Magneto, which are peppered with mathematics, they might think "He knows what he's talking about, I'm gaining an understanding of general relativity by reading this". Hell, he presents his 3 volume book as precisely a way to learn about relativity and extensions of it. Except that you wouldn't be learning GR, you'd be learning nonsense because Magneto is a dishonest, delusional hack.

This forum's name, 'pseudoscience', lets people know what is in here isn't considered valid but that doesn't stop you, Pincho etc trying to claim your work is worth listening to. If you just wanted to post work you'd get a blog. Instead you're on a discussion forum and you keep posting your thoughts, which suggests you hope at some point people will take your work seriously, that there's an aim to all of this. Cpt and I (and others) tell you why your approach isn't going to get anywhere so this is both an attempt to get others to see why you're not going anywhere and an attempt to get you to see. We're actually providing relevant feedback but it seems you don't want to listen, which makes me ask the question what you plan to get from all of this. You obviously want feedback but only if it supports your preconceptions, but then such an attitude will never get you anywhere. It's like you enjoy wasting your own time doing nothing.

 

I note a change in your style. If you look at my posts you will note a change in my style too. But in this post I see the same old AN lurking there, not in just lumping all the zoodoscience animals into one group for communal disparagement which in itself shows your insincerity, but for using the threat to the learning of uninformed and unsuspecting people as the outlandish self righteous egocentric justification for the disdain. That is why I point out that you have no self respect and are a poor agent for the professional community. Pseudoscience has a built in disclaimer and all of my musings carry a disclaimer to protect the children every since you first pointed out the danger to me. You are a low life for not acknowledging that and in fact you started with the ad homs in my threads because I chatted with someone you had already branded with your vile torch, unbeknownst to me. You never changed until very recently and I suspect that something happened in your sad life like I warned you would if you kept up the egotistical antagonism.

The only reason I am not just replying to you in cryptic mutual hate speech is because I DO note a gradual change in your approach and responding to it in detail is a fair way for me to acknowledge that.

You should offer your services to the hacks who want to have their work reviewed before they publish, make a few pounds on the side. I have no disdain for that aspect of your persona.

Pseudoscience is not considered valid in professional circles and should, like you say, let people know it is not accepted science. But the sentence you used to say that includes the statement that I claim my work is worth listening to. Liar. Not only do you and Cptborg misrepresent my pea brained delusions by saying I claim it is science or that it is something other than my personal views about things that science does not yet answer and a hobby to me, you say the same about all people who use pseudoscience to carry on discussions that they find interesting. We are chatting in the forum set aside for those discussions and you are a waste of human protoplasm for using such a forum for your own egotistical aggrandizement.

This again is your imagination or what you would like to be true to justify your self righteous indignation. It is dishonest and an example of your low self respect and poor character. Keep it up, it is your trademark in these forums and you may not care because you think your true talent in the hard science forums overshadows your clear faults when it comes to honest and sincere layman like me.

But you should step up and realize that SciForums and especially the Pseudoscience forum is not a place for professionals to do trade talk; there are more professional places for that. No, to you it is a place for the low life professionals like you and CptBork to ridicule sincere laymen with an interest in science to share delusions in a place set out for that and in a forum that condones both the interested laymen chatting and allows the bad agents from the professional community to wallow out here and shoot stun darts. Just because it is permitted does not mean it is of any value aside from the ego stroking it gives you when you do it.

This is self righteous crap and you know it. You telling us we aren’t going anywhere supposes we have intentions to go somewhere. I have already gone the professional places that I set out to go early in life. I don’t have delusions of GOING PLACES with my pea brained delusions. You on the other hand should have some plans to go somewhere and your voluminous posting will follow you. People that will someday play an important role in your future will be well aware of your character or more appropriately lack of character. You may even make some enemies among the very people who will play those roles and you won’t know it until it adversely affects your future. Bragging about how you smeared someone is as stupid as bragging about drug use online like ... he knows who he is. Mark my words because I tell you and Cpt this because I'm trying to help you understand that there are repercussions and unintended consequences for everything we do.

This is one of your grand lies and justifications for acting like lord of the cranks. It is untrue in many cases but I will reference my case in particular. I do listen. I hear the critiques and I change based on what value may be there. You don’t acknowledge that fact and I have tired saying it to you every time you use it. That is one of the reasons you generally get cryptic responses to your hateful and egotistical ramblings that carry no connection to the content of my posts and threads. Like I say, low character, obvious low self respect, coupled with an ego you put on over it all to cover the poor self image. Just think about it for once instead of firing back with hateful indignation.

This is dishonesty to the max. Don’t pay any attention to the facts or the truth in the intent of you targets. Make up for them what you want them to be like and attack with all the same old rhetoric in any way which lets your invisible cloak of extreme ego paint someone, anyone, with disparagement and disdain so you can get the thrill of the killing of innocent laymen posting in pseudoscience. Get help before it is too late; seriously.

Actually I was thinking the same thing about you and your wasted time unleashing the pent up hostilities on unsuspecting laymen in a pseudoscience forum. Get some class like rpenner, and numerous others in the hard science forums who don’t stoop to the low life antics out here in Pseudoscience of you and CptBork who BTW aspires to rise to the level of complete disrespect and false self righteousness that you have risen to.

You have shown some change for the better but this post is clearly back to the old you. Too bad because I was going to give you credit for the improvement, so if you want to paint me as being wrong again, you can paint me as wrong about that. How you respond and I hope it will be thoughtful and meaningful, will be responded to in kind if I decide to waste the effort of helping you again.

 

Exactly. You understand where I'm coming from. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. You gain respect points from me in that regard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It isn't just a matter of agreeing with you about the universe works, you claimed "Relativity says....", which is not a matter of perspective, opinion or even experiments, it's a matter of fact. You said relativity says something I've proven it does not. Are you going to at least admit you were wrong about what relativity says?

 

I said, and I quote:

I stand by that quote. You are quick to call people names and label them, when you don't even understand what is being said. Go read "The Relativity of Simultaneity" thread.

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101682&page=53

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If the sphere in question were a solid object whose size was constant, you'd be right. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a sphere whose radius is time dependent and not only that but its radius is related to the speed of light.

If the sphere is a solid object of radius R in its rest frame then in the rest frame coordinates (t,x,y,z) it satisfies \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}=R^{2}\). Apply a Lorentz boost to a frame moving at relative speed v in the x direction, with new coordinate (t',x',y',z'), and you'll end up with an ellipsoid, a squashed sphere.

However, if the radius in the rest frame is ct then the sphere is defined by \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = (ct)^{2}\). Apply the same Lorentz boost to that in the x direction, to give new coordinate (t',x',y',z') and you'll find you end up with the equation \((x')^{2}+(y')^{2}+(z')^{2} = (ct')^{2}\), the equation of a sphere.

I explained this to you and you obviously didn't bother to try it for yourself nor try to explain where I might be wrong. Either you can't do it yourself or you don't want to, either way it seems you just assume if it's now explicitly shown then you must be right it seems. As such I'll do the calculation explicitly.

As can be confirmed by Wikipedia's Lorentz transform page relativity says the following relationship between coordinates exist for the aforementioned Lorentz boost along the x axis :

\(t' = \gamma(t-vx)\), \(x' = \gamma(x-vt)\), \(y'=y\), \(z'=z\) where \(\gamma = (1-v^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\) (I'm using c=1 units).

That is the component by component form of the \(\Lambda\) matrix I mentioned in my previous post. Now I have claimed relativity says \((x')^{2}+(y')^{2}+(z')^{2} = (ct')^{2}\) becomes \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = (ct)^{2}\). It's more convenient to write these as \(-(t')^{2}+(x')^{2}+(y')^{2}+(z')^{2} = 0\) and \(-t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = 0\), setting c=1. This amounts to saying that if (t',x',y',z') and (t,x,y,z) are related by a Lorentz transform then they satisfy \(-t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = -(t')^{2}+(x')^{2}+(y')^{2}+(z')^{2}\).

We are considering a specific Lorentz transform, a boost along the x axis, thus we can ignore the y,z terms, they don't change. As such I claim relativity says \(-(t')^{2}+(x')^{2} = -t^{2}+x^{2}\) under such a transform. So let's apply the transform relativity says occurs.

\(-(t')^{2}+(x')^{2} = - (\gamma(t-vx))^{2} + (\gamma(x-vt))^{2} = -\gamma^{2}(t^{2}-2vxt+v^{2}x^{2}) + \gamma^{2}(x^{2}-2vxt+v^{2}t^{2}) = \gamma^{2}(-t^{2}(1-v^{2})+x^{2}(1-v^{2})) = -t^{2}+x^{2}\)

Therefore under the Lorentz boost given relativity says \(-(t')^{2}+(x')^{2} = -t^{2}+x^{2}\), precisely as I claimed it did.

In the original frame we have \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = (ct)^{2}\), an expanding sphere of light and under the boost this becomes \((x')^{2}+(y')^{2}+(z')^{2} = (ct')^{2}\), which is precisely the same thing, an expanding sphere of light. It's the fact the radius is ct which is important. If it were 0.5ct or 1.5ct or \(ct^{2}\) or just a constant R it wouldn't work. The ct transforms in just the right way to combine with the transformed x to combine to make the equivalent expression in t',x'. This is why the photon sphere is special, no other construct does it. It's an example of a counter intuitive result.

There you go MD, proof you were mistaken about what relativity says. Remember, I don't give a crap what you think happens, you made a claim about what relativity thinks happens, a mistaken claim. I've just applied the transform relativity says to the defining equation for a sphere. No need for a calculator, no need to give values of things to 20 decimal places like your picture has. No need to consider a specific value of v or pick units, it is identically true for all values of v<c.

I wasn't quick to call you names, you've been spouting nonsense like this for years. You and Geist have shown time and again you don't know what relativity says, you can't do relativity and you can't accept/admit you can't do relativity. What I just went through is stuff I've taught to 1st year undergraduates, it's very basic stuff. If you'd ever learnt special relativity you'd have covered it almost immediately, so the fact you didn't grasp what I said and you didn't work it out for yourself illustrates how little of relativity you've got experience with.

Why is it you hacks always think you've have got some silver bullet for killing special relativity which always turns out to be on a level of understanding worse than an freshman undergraduate? Jack_ was the same, thinking he'd constantly vexed people when all he'd done is be incoherent. Ironically the issue he had with relativity was the Lorentz boosting a sphere of light gave a sphere of light. He readily accepted relativity said that, he just didn't like it. You don't accept relativity says it, when it's literally a short homework question to show it does.

Well done, you'd have failed the first problem sheet of the freshman special relativity course I used to help teach.

 

AN, I think what we have here is a classic case of failure to communicate.

It is really very simple. You are in the MD's Box, velocity unbeknownst to you.

How much time does it take light to travel from the source at the center of the box to the z receiver? How much time does it take light to travel from the source at the center of the cube to the x receiver?

You do realize the source is at the center of the box, and remains there, and the box has sides of length 1 light second, don't you?

In order to understand where I'm coming from you need to answer my questions without going off on a tangent.

Time to z receiver?
Time to x receiver?

 

Yes, bragging about drug use is stupid- one can't divine the nature of the universe just by taking a whole bunch of LSD, and so one shouldn't brag as if they had all the answers beyond what real science already says.

 

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.

 

My my, did you get a psychology degree in the last few months or are you trying to 'diagnose' people who disagree with you?

I lumped you and mpc and Pincho together because I see similar behaviour from you. All three of you proclaim to have some insight into how things work, that your unjustified made up thoughts are worth attention.

If you don't like being lumped with mpc and Pincho then stop acting like them.

Again with the strong words. Looks like I've ruffled your feathers by pointing out some of the vapidity of your posts.

You seem to love inventing narratives for people. I hardly interact with you and say little outside of something relevant to a physics discussion and you've got me read?

And again with the 'professional community'. I'm not here in a professional capacity. If I were then I'd be different. This is my free time. Besides, if everyone here had to be prim and proper and adhere to the highest professional standards there wouldn't even be a pseudo section, as by definition it fails to get anywhere close to those standards. Remember, when people ask me to justify myself I do, just as I did with Motor Daddy. The same can't be said for you.

You produce pages and pages of stuff which you clearly want to be taken seriously.

Ahahaha!! This shows how desperate you are to invent a narrative for me.

You have previously made accusations about me being obsessed with you. Such accusations would come if I posted more than 2 posts in the space of months in a thread, if both of those posts were to point out how much BS you spew. Basically you wanted to imagine you were getting attention. To illustrate you were wrong and to highlight how little attention you were getting I stopped even reading your posts. Remember in your QWC thread saying I'd see you round? Obviously not.

You think you know me from my posts on this forum, which says more about you than about me. If you must know, in the last 5 months things have been going extremely well for me. I bought a car, I got a raise, meeting plenty of nice people at the squash club I joined and just this week I bought my first house.

I was nice enough to give you some space and yet you still invent a slew of nonsense about me. That reflects worse on you than it does me.

I've offered that to a number of hacks. None of them have ever taken me up on it, despite making claims they're absolutely right. Funny that.

So you just start multiple threads and post page long musings at regular intervals because you don't think it's worth listening to?

It's humerous you accuse me of getting comeuppance for being all antagonistic and adversarial but you certainly love to spit the vitriolic words.

So the fact I have little patience for hacks means I have low self respect? I play nice with people who clearly understand things. I play nice with people who I consider smarter than me. Heck, I work with several. My low tolerance for dishonesty and nonsense and misrepresentation is because those things are bad.

So you admit I don't have to be here in a professional capacity then? So why do you whine I'm not here in a professional nature? You can 'play' here but I can't? You can be less formal but I can't? And this is a discussion forum. Pseudo doesn't mean "Make up any shit you like and don't get challenged". Pseudo is where you can make shit up and not get it deleted, as it would in the main forum. If you didn't want discussion don't come to a discussion forum.

I thought you said you weren't doing science and have no intention of making it science? So are you a sincere layperson with an interest in science or not?

Where have I bragged about how much I've 'smeared' someone? Really, provide a link. 'Smearing' implies knowingly saying false things about someone in an attempt to 'smear' their reputation.

I can't help but read this and your last paragraph as "Back off or else". You certainly do get vitriolic when someone doesn't agree with you.

I love how you think you can read me like an open book purely from my comments about hacks, just like you read into the fact I was nice enough to give you space as some terrible thing had befallen me in real life. :lol: I know you're desperate to invent some back story for me which will help you ignore the criticisms I've made but it just doesn't work.

Brilliant. You describe what you've been doing, making up things about me which have absolutely no relation to what I've said here, like my personal life etc and you admit it's 'dishonesty to the max' but then project it onto me. Heck, you go as extreme as using comments like 'killing of innocent' and 'get help before it's too late', a clear attempt to bring up parallels to the way serial killers escalate.

You talk about my supposed rhetoric but you're the one embellishing your replies with unjustified fabrications and suppositions. You know nothing about my personal life but you make it up and always some sort of dark miserable existence, because that's what you want to imagine, not what you can demonstrate. I suppose in that sense it's like your claims about the universe, what you want to imagine, not what you can demonstrate.

Next time you go into one of these length "You've obviously a miserable person, your home life is awful and I draw parallels to killers" rants ask yourself how much of your rhetoric you can demonstrate and isn't just your wishful thinking.

Does he? Did he say that? Did he tell you? Where's the post? Can you provide a link?

Or did you just invent that motivation for him in another one of your "I'll make up a narrative for that poster who I don't like" sessions?

So you want me to be 'thoughtful and meaningful' when you've just used language which brings up the analogy of a criminal escalating their crimes, you've made implied comments about "Back off or else" and you've said I must have problems at home, which are supposed sources of my 'poor character' and 'low self respect'? What in your post was thoughtful and meaningful? What in your post could you actually demonstrate, beyond your wishful thinking?

The fact you took me being polite enough to give you room, explicitly after I'd told you as much, as a sign some problem had happened to me in real life, says it all about you. I don't need to use any vitriolic language or choose names to call you, it speaks for itself and it speaks about you.

 

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

 

Cpt, I don’t want to even think about what is going on with you that conjures up a response like that.

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. 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”.

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.

Anyway, on to the denial, lol; I’m not bragging about having all the answers beyond what real science already says. I’m speculating about things that science doesn’t have the answers for yet, not bragging that I have the answers. Get a grip.