Creation of the universe from the middle out....

[Atlan0001]

Terminology:

What you are talking about is observable universes. In a universe of infinite extent (of which, by definition, there is only one), there will be and infinite number of observable universes.

Combinations and Permutations:

You are missing the point of an infinity of universes.

For every universe out there that is identical to ours, there are uncountably more that are almost exactly the same but not quite - one atom out of place, etc. There's even more universe out there where 100 atoms are out of place. etc.

There are an uncountable number of observable universes where I flew off in my starship ten seconds later and arrived in the next universe ten seconds later.

There are an uncountable number of observable universes where I flew off in my starship ten minutes later and arrived in the next universe ten minutes later. etc.

There are an uncountable number of observable universes where I flew off in my starship ten years later and arrived in the next universe ten years later. etc.

It misses the point to concentrate on only the ones that happen to coincide.


Muons experience time dilation during a trip from the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the atmosphere. Does that count as "space travel"?



There is also no "sitting stationary not going anywhere" without time travel either. Because we are always travelling through time. So it;s kind of a truism.



This is not necessarily true. The light from the falling piano takes a little more than one second to reach him. If it takes the piano 2 seconds to fall then he will arrive in plenty of time to save the cat.



This is word salad. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Superman sees the piano falling after a 1.25 second delay. If he flies home at "infinite speed" (which he can't, but whatever) he will arrive as soon as the piano started falling. It takes a finite length of time to fall. If that time is longer than 1.25 seconds, he will arrive in time to save the cat.

You are, of course, wrong since I place the piano and cat far closer to each other (observed to be by superman on the Moon) in space and time than you do. NOT two seconds away from crash and crush. NOT one second away from crash and crush, but a space of a split second's distance. So close to happening that it has already happened when superman observes that it is about to happen "at a distance" (at the distance).

Otherwise, I gave you a 'like' because we are pretty close, reasonably close, in evaluation of the scenario. And, yes, from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom does count as space travel with concomitant time travel. All of us Earthly space travelers, in flights between top and bottom, nearly so, have experienced the verticality of the gravities and atmospheres. In my case, in my nearly 78 years, many, many, times. Which is why I, like Newton's apple, observing gravity to be an opening up of the universe, an accelerating expansion of the universe, ahead, not a closing down . . . not an accelerating contraction to a point of universe.

Your responses to my supposed "word salad," are also so much "word salad." I spent many decades racking up great performance reports for mine (one point, if you'll pardon the pun, included in the whole).

 

[DaveC426913]

You are, of course,

Well I'm not "wrong". You failed to specify the distances involved in your scenario.

I clarified that, under the right conditions (ie. the piano take 2s to fall) your conclusion was not necessarily so.

Only now, after you realize your mistake, do you add numbers:

wrong since I place the piano and cat far closer to each other (observed to be by superman on the Moon) in space and time than you do. NOT two seconds away from crash and crush. NOT one second away from crash and crush, but a space of a split second's distance. So close to happening that it has already happened when superman observes that it is about to happen "at a distance" (at the distance).

OK, so all you are saying is that light is not instantaneous. That there is a delay.

Big deal. Any school child knows this. I described it in four words: "light is not instantaneous".

Why do you have to dress it up in word salad?

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Otherwise, I gave you a 'like' because we are pretty close, reasonably close, in evaluation of the scenario. And, yes, from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom does count as space travel with concomitant time travel. All of us Earthly space travelers, in flights between top and bottom, nearly so, have experienced the verticality of the gravities and atmospheres.

No, you miss the point. Muons are travelling at relativistic velocities. They experience time dilation because they are moving a near light speed relative to the Earth's frame of reference. Humans cannot do that.

In my case, in my nearly 78 years, many, many, times. Which is why I, like Newton's apple, observing gravity to be an opening up of the universe, an accelerating expansion of the universe, ahead, not a closing down . . . not an accelerating contraction to a point of universe.

Gravity cause things to draw together. It does not cause things to "open up".

Yes, gravity is working to close and contract the universe. It's just no overcoming Cosmological Expansion.

Your responses to my supposed "word salad," are also so much "word salad."

The fact that you don't understand my use of standard physics is due to you not having read enough about it. That's not my fault.

The fact that you are not making a lot sense is due to you making up your own ideas and using scientific terms incorrectly and your ideas being mostly wrong. That's on you.

If you iwsh to communicate about science, you would do well to:
- read up on current science, and
- use established terminology -don't make up new terminolgy, or misuse existing terminology.

I spent many decades racking up great performance reports for mine (one point, if you'll pardon the pun, included in the whole).

This is alarming. You would have done much better to spend that time getting educated on what we know already.

For example: we know how fast light moves. We know there is a delay over distance. It doesn't take these bloated paragraph of flowery words - and brackets full of explanatory asides - to describe that simple concept.

 

[Atlan0001]

Well I'm not "wrong". You failed to specify the distances involved in your scenario.

I clarified that, under the right conditions (ie. the piano take 2s to fall) your conclusion was not necessarily so.

Only now, after you realize your mistake, do you add numbers:



OK, so all you are saying is that light is not instantaneous. That there is a delay.

Big deal. Any school child knows this. I described it in four words: "light is not instantaneous".

Why do you have to dress it up in word salad?

It's not a hard concept to grasp.


No, you miss the point. Muons are travelling at relativistic velocities. They experience time dilation because they are moving a near light speed relative to the Earth's frame of reference. Humans cannot do that.



Gravity cause things to draw together. It does not cause things to "open up".

Yes, gravity is working to close and contract the universe. It's just no overcoming Cosmological Expansion.


The fact that you don't understand my use of standard physics is due to you not having read enough about it. That's not my fault.

The fact that you are not making a lot sense is due to you making up your own ideas and using scientific terms incorrectly and your ideas being mostly wrong. That's on you.

If you iwsh to communicate about science, you would do well to:
- read up on current science, and
- use established terminology -don't make up new terminolgy, or misuse existing terminology.


This is alarming. You would have done much better to spend that time getting educated on what we know already.

For example: we know how fast light moves. We know there is a delay over distance. It doesn't take these bloated paragraph of flowery words - and brackets full of explanatory asides - to describe that simple concept.

You don't understand the physic of relativity, the physic of the relative histories, the physic of invariance (of invariability), including regarding muons.

I didn't fail in any part of the scenario. You failed to think, period; failed to realize the closeness on the piano / cat end that the scenario was all about! You're not as omniscient as you are always making yourself out to be around here.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't understand the physic of relativity, the physic of the relative histories, the physic of invariance (of invariability), including regarding muons.

No, I really do. What I fail to realize is why you seem to think they are novel concepts. They're a lot simpler than you make them out to be. Why don't you just talk plain?

I didn't fail in any part of the scenario.

Your initial description of the scenario did not mention how far the piano was from the ground. You asserted, nonetheless that it was impossible for Superman to get there in time.

I pointed out that that is not necessarily so - if the piano is high enough.

You realized you had forgotten to specify its height, so you followed up and specified a height.

That's your failing, not mine.

failed to realize the closeness on the piano / cat

I cannot "realize" something you forget to mention.



Again, why is light speed such a big revelation for you? We all get it. Light travels at a finite speed. That took five words for something you have been trying to describe for more than a page now.

We get it. We got it back in school. Is it perhaps that it's new to you?

 

[Atlan0001]

No, I really do. What I fail to realize is why you seem to think they are novel concepts. They're a lot simpler than you make them out to be. Why don't you just talk plain?


Your initial description of the scenario did not mention how far the piano was from the ground. You asserted, nonetheless that it was impossible for Superman to get there in time.

I pointed out that that is not necessarily so - if the piano is high enough.

You realized you had forgotten to specify its height, so you followed up and specified a height.

That's your failing, not mine.




I cannot "realize" something you forget to mention.



Again, why is light speed such a big revelation for you? We all get it. Light travels at a finite speed. That took five words for something you have been trying to describe for more than a page now.

We get it. We got it back in school. Is it perhaps that it's new to you?

Sure you can realize something unmentioned if the scenario is all about the unmentioned.

The speed of light is a big deal to me since it is an infinite constant between both ends, both (+) and (-) to ('0'), the Planck Horizon constant of 'c' ('1'). Something you appear to be totally unaware of. The finite is strictly local closed systemically relative, not all systems' absolute.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure you can realize something unmentioned if the scenario is all about the unmentioned.

Yes. Which is why I clarified my criteria. I said 'Not necessarily. If the piano takes two seconds to fall, then Superman has plenty of time.'

Again, so what?

Yes, light takes 1.25s to travel from Earth to Moon. We agree. We're on post 43. Can we move on?

The speed of light is a big deal to me since it is an infinite constant between both ends, both (+) and (-) to ('0'), the Planck Horizon constant of 'c' ('1'). Something you appear to be totally unaware of. The finite is strictly local closed systemically relative, not all systems' absolute.

Your thoughts are really mixed up. You would do well to do some reading, to pick up some of the terminology and concepts. Otherwise you're going to have a continual battle just trying to meaningfully express your thoughts to others.

It's just as well this is in Free Thoughts and not in the science forums. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Atlan0001]

Sure you can realize something unmentioned if the scenario is all about the unmentioned.

The speed of light is a big deal to me since it is an infinite constant between both ends, both (+) and (-) to ('0'), the Planck Horizon constant of 'c' ('1'). Something you appear to be totally unaware of. The finite is strictly local closed systemically relative, not all systems' absolute.

Systems, such as racing head on into oncoming Flatland's photo-frames. Systems, such as traveling future histories as opposed to past histories. Systems such as those midst and between star points of histories having no measurable ground speed, whatsoever, to that environ (powering in acceleration, a wormhole tunnel environ contracting space and time ahead, expanding space and time behind).

You've lost the cosmic physics' argument you should never have entered into in the first place, and you know it.

 

[Pinball1970]

Systems, such as racing head on into oncoming Flatland's photo-frames. Systems, such as traveling future histories as opposed to past histories. Systems such as those midst and between star points of histories having no measurable ground speed, whatsoever, to that environ (powering in acceleration, a wormhole tunnel environ contracting space and time ahead, expanding space and time behind

Pop science nonsense, you probably read Brian Green? Kaku?

That's not actual physics. It's entertainment.

 

[Atlan0001]

Pop science nonsense, you probably read Brian Green? Kaku?

That's not actual physics. It's entertainment.

They are so very stupid and ignorant in their thinking, as was Stephen Hawking . . . and, opposing, you are so very brilliant and knowledgeable in yours, say you in no uncertain terms.

 

[DaveC426913]

Systems, such as racing head on into oncoming Flatland's photo-frames. Systems, such as traveling future histories as opposed to past histories. Systems such as those midst and between star points of histories having no measurable ground speed, whatsoever, to that environ (powering in acceleration, a wormhole tunnel environ contracting space and time ahead, expanding space and time behind).

You've lost the cosmic physics' argument you should never have entered into in the first place, and you know it.

You haven't made an argument.

In fact, not one of those is even a complete sentence. Sentences are important, because otherwise they are not coherent thoughts. You are not communicating why you are mentioning these things.

"Systems, such as racing head on into oncoming Flatland's photo-frames."
What about it? Not a sentence. Asserts nothing.

"Systems, such as traveling future histories as opposed to past histories. "
What about it? Not a sentence. Asserts nothing.

"Systems such as those midst and between star points of histories having no measurable ground speed, whatsoever, to that environ (powering in acceleration, a wormhole tunnel environ contracting space and time ahead, expanding space and time behind)."
What about it? Not a sentence. Asserts nothing.


These are all mere noun phrases, like "The tall, red-haired man."
("So what? What about the tall red-haired man?") It is meaningless - unless I say "The tall red-haired man is someone you should watch out for."

So, maybe try again, and work on those complete sentences. It will greatly help you communicate your ideas better. That's what you want, right?

 

[Atlan0001]

Arthur Canon Doyle ('Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'): "From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...."

Albert Einstein: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...."

The logician, in his way, could expound upon and explain the "drop of water" from now to doomsday and still encounter nothing but violent opposition from "mediocre minds" . . . who can neither understand him nor his ways ("*******! Why is it that you can keep jumping into manure and come up smelling like a rose!" The "manure": complexity and chaos!).

 

[DaveC426913]

Albert Einstein: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...."

Invoking Einstein is worth 20 points on the "Are you a crank?" checklist.
Referring to your superior mind over mediocre minds is worth another 20 points on the "Are you a crank?" checklist.

 

[Atlan0001]

Invoking Einstein is worth 20 points on the "Are you a crank?" checklist.
Referring to your superior mind over mediocre minds is worth another 20 points on the "Are you a crank?" checklist.

I'm in a lot of great company! You're not.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm in a lot of great company! You're not.

You're not in their company.

Cranks have a habit of comparing themselves to Einstein. It's a symptom.

 

[Pinball1970]

They are so very stupid and ignorant in their thinking, as was Stephen Hawking . . . and, opposing, you are so very brilliant and knowledgeable in yours, say you in no uncertain terms.

It is pop science and entertainment not actual science.

 

[Atlan0001]

It is pop science and entertainment not actual science.

You can't judge credible science since in saying what you said you don't know what actual science is . . . or are too narrow-minded to recognize it. In my long working life before retiring I had two careers (well actually three, one folded within another), not one, working directly in and around "actual science."

Come to think of it, every working human is an actual scientist. Always has been. Particularly when he or she becomes also an inventor and/or innovator . . . practitioners starting before the beginning of recorded history. But from the clues given, you wouldn't know anything about the physics of history; the physic of histories, past histories and future histories (future histories "'NOW' concurrent" in the universe (equivalent to "quantum entanglement")). That shorts you regarding 'relativity' and 'reality'. You and at least one other also displaying being too narrow in mind (It isn't ignorance. Ignorance can be fixed. 'Narrowness' is a mind anchored in cement block.).

 

[Pinball1970]

You can't judge credible science since in saying what you said you don't know what actual science is .

Yes I can because I studied science at University in the 80s then worked in labs right after till 2007. I still work as a tech but office based now.
I have read all the books, most of them. They are books about science, history of science but not lectures, seminars, lab pracs or exams or working in a professional lab.
Doing science.

 

[Pinball1970]

every working human is an actual scientist

Bullshit. Is every human a mathematician? A musician? A Biblical scholar? A sportsman?

 

[Atlan0001]

Bullshit. Is every human a mathematician? A musician? A Biblical scholar? A sportsman?

Yes! But our bents and choices divide us, make us complex and chaotic, and quite prosperous and survivalistic for that, at the apex of the pyramid of life. All evolutionary nature's diversity and variety of eggs in a single species basket, thus impossible of being monolithic like the lower bio-robots of life. That is what it means to be the top tier, to branch, violently if necessary, in a single species, thus to imperatively need -- have to have -- an open system, frontier spaces and Space Ages.

That life which cannot or will not divide outwardly benignly, Nature, natural laws, physics, in an isolated from the outside universe closed world system will divide inwardly malignantly. Utopia / Nusquama, is Greek / Latin for "no-place", 'Nowhereland' and Nothingness. The reality being Orwell's Orwellian animalistic 'Animal Farm' and 'Dystopia'. Huxley's 'A Brave New World'. And eventually, the fulfillment of Stephen Hawking's prophesy of a maximum of 1,000 years to human extinction if we cannot begin birth, breakout, branching and rooting out the tree of life, from the Earth soonest!

Whether you agree or want it, thanks for the opening, Pinball1970.

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes! But our bents and choices divide us, make us complex and chaotic, and quite prosperous and survivalistic for that, at the apex of the pyramid of life. All evolutionary nature's diversity and variety of eggs in a single species basket, thus impossible of being monolithic like the lower bio-robots of life. That is what it means to be the top tier, to branch, violently if necessary, in a single species, thus to imperatively need -- have to have -- an open system, frontier spaces and Space Ages.

That life which cannot or will not divide outwardly benignly, Nature, natural laws, physics, in an isolated from the outside universe closed world system will divide inwardly malignantly. Utopia / Nusquama, is Greek / Latin for "no-place", 'Nowhereland' and Nothingness. The reality being Orwell's Orwellian animalistic 'Animal Farm' and 'Dystopia'. Huxley's 'A Brave New World'. And eventually, the fulfillment of Stephen Hawking's prophesy of a maximum of 1,000 years to human extinction if we cannot begin birth, breakout, branching and rooting out the tree of life, from the Earth soonest!

Whether you agree or want it, thanks for the opening, Pinball1970.

Everyone is not a scientist