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

[Pinball1970]

Apparently not. And elsewhere this [oh so] boring non-science stuff, non-science to you (elsewhere physics and "Cosmology"), I just discovered today, is reaching 191,000 reads, 31,000 reads since I was stopped adding to it.

On this platform? Where?

 

[Atlan0001]

On this platform? Where?

I can tell you're really quite 1-dimensionally narrow of mind. Find me on other scientific platforms and you will find it! Plain to, still, see and read (to comb, also, possessing many, many, background references (many! the combo, one of the reasons I'm still being read; my modeling still being looked to))!

 

[DaveC426913]

Prove it.

Prove what? That bots and crawlers exist? I think I'll have you prove they don't.

I told you once, "Dave, you haven't a clue as to how science actually works." Especially the science of the mind (infinity of the mind) and communication.

This is not an insult coming from someone who admits to posting his (what did you call it? "trash"? "nonsense" in the Free Thought forum.)
By your own actions, you acknowledge yourself that it is not science.

I can tell you're really quite 1-dimensionally narrow of mind. Find me on other scientific platforms and you will find it! Plain to, still, see!

If you were in the right, you would not need to resort to vacuous insults such as thois. You would simply speak rational thruths and no one would be able to challenge them.

But, of course, here you are, lashing out with vacuous insults at members such as pinball - who simply asked a perfectly valid clarifying question. You might want to think about why that is.

 

[Atlan0001]

Not big fish in a big ocean, but you do think you are the big fish in a mighty small pond. That is also, actually, not so. Anyone who can well interpret what they're reading here can tell who is actually doing the savage insulting of people and persistently savagely trashing their different -- differing from yours -- inputs to the differing sections of the site. If it doesn't agree with you, if it doesn't echo your own vision and your own belief system, your own conventions, then there isn't any possible clarity to it until it is made to do so! And that Orwellian-type doctrinal tyranny isn't going to happen! I'm too knowledgeable and experienced an old warrior in the trenches of complexity and chaos regarding what interests me.

 

[Pinball1970]

. Find me on other scientific platforms

I'll pass.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not big fish in a big ocean, but you do think you are the big fish in a mighty small pond.

I'm just a forum member, participating in a discussion.

Not everyone will agree with your ideas. You will have to get used to that. If you can't, you should reconsider posting your ideas on a public science forum.

I'm not sure what you're expecting. You can't post your ideas in a public discussion forum and expect them not to be challenged.

That is also, actually, not so. Anyone who can well interpret what they're reading here can tell who is actually doing the savage insulting of people and persistently savagely trashing their different -- differing from yours -- inputs to the differing sections of the site.

That is the nature of disagreement. You're posting a lot of philosophical word salad and trying to insist it's science.

This is not your blog. Expect to have your words challenged.

If it doesn't agree with you, if it doesn't echo your own vision and your own belief system, your own conventions, then there isn't any possible clarity to it until it is made to do so! And that Orwellian-type doctrinal tyranny isn't going to happen!

What tyranny?

Is "I disagree with you. I don't think what you're posting makes sense" considered tyrannical where you come from?

Nobody is actually shutting you down, so I don't know what "tyranny" you're talking about.

Do you think that, per Shakespeare, perhaps you "doth protest too much"?

 

[Pinball1970]

Когда я представила себе это тихое, уютное счастье, у меня началась депрессия. Пришлось бежать, роняя тапки. Он до сих пор, наверное, мне этого не простил.

I think some of that may be lost in translation? Why depressed? Drop your slippers?

 

[Olga]

I think some of that may be lost in translation? Why depressed? Drop your slippers?

Один хороший психолог сказал, что у меня хроническая депрессия. Уже много лет, с тех пор когда умер брат. Не знаю, как он это определил.

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm just a forum member, participating in a discussion.

Not everyone will agree with your ideas. You will have to get used to that. If you can't, you should reconsider posting your ideas on a public science forum.

I'm not sure what you're expecting. You can't post your ideas in a public discussion forum and expect them not to be challenged.


That is the nature of disagreement. You're posting a lot of philosophical word salad and trying to insist it's science.

This is not your blog. Expect to have your words challenged.



What tyranny?

Is "I disagree with you. I don't think what you're posting makes sense" considered tyrannical where you come from?

Nobody is actually shutting you down, so I don't know what "tyranny" you're talking about.

Do you think that, per Shakespeare, perhaps you "doth protest too much"?

Your confusion is running rampant.

 

[Atlan0001]

Knowledge: In quantum physics more than one reality exists:

MSN

www.msn.com

I've been talking the two-state reality (the observed state (past histories state, an observer's distant observation) and the un-observed state (future histories state, a traveler's local reality, object traveler and [concurrently existing in both space and time] object observer, versus that observer's observation), the equivalent state in the macrocosm, the macro-verse, since coming on the website. The two space and time universe ( two past histories observed and two future histories un-observed) reality. More than one reality of universe to the scenario!

 

[Pinball1970]

I've been talking the two-state reality (the observed state (past histories state, an observer's distant observation) and the un-observed state (future histories state, a traveler's local reality versus that observer's observation), the equivalent state in the macrocosm, the macro-verse, since coming on the website. The two space and time universe (past and future) reality

Can I have that in Dirac notation?

 

[Atlan0001]

Can I have that in Dirac notation?

No. Since you can't seem to understand what I pointed to as the video article, do your own work! I don't follow your conventions or your attempted put downs of the things I do the way I do them! I do what I do my way. Too bad, so sad!

 

[Pinball1970]

No. Since you can't seem to understand what I pointed to as the video article, do your own work! I don't follow your conventions or your attempted put downs of the things I do the way I do them! I do what I do my way. Too bad, so sad!

Why are you so ruffled with a mention of Dirac w.r.t. Quantum physics? He was one of the major players in the field.

 

[Atlan0001]

Ruffled?

Paul Dirac - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would say that to a certain extent I am a metaphysicist and no physicist as such. I go at physics and cosmology my metaphysical way (sort of taking after Frank Sinatra and many others who did ("I did it my way") and do things their way). Even peers of Dirac had trouble understanding and keeping up with him. Like Einstein, Hawking, and some others, I read the man for the gist, never mind his complex work attempts at the perfections of "beauty" he tried for.

I know one basic thing for certain. Enough buildup of complexity and the edifice collapses (enough straw on the back of the camel and the back of the camel will break from the last least little straw added). (Collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity (18 layered levels down and in, 13.7 billion light years up and out, at once one and the same infinity's collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity). Infinity collapses into a cosmological Horizon constant (/\), relatively speaking (finitely speaking) that is.

 

[Pinball1970]

I know one basic thing for certain. Enough buildup of complexity and the edifice collapses (enough straw on the back of the camel and the back of the camel will break from the last least little straw added). (Collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity (18 layered levels down and in, 13.7 billion light years up and out, at once one and the same infinity's collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity). Infinity collapses into a cosmological Horizon constant (/\), relatively speaking (finitely speaking) that is.

I am getting tired of using the term word salad so I think I will move onto something else instead.
Gibberish.

 

[Atlan0001]

I am getting tired of using the term word salad so I think I will move onto something else instead.
Gibberish.

You know as little about infinity being inside/outside the collapsed Horizon constant of the observable universe as you know about anything else of "cosmology."

Or, is it that you think you know everything about "cosmology" to call the above gibberish?! You must think you are a ranking expert on infinity and cosmology, but I think that in your very small fish (in a very small pond) claim to such awesome knowledge of the universe you are nothing yourself but a load of mediocre gibberish. Prove your great knowledge! Prove you've been in and beyond the Horizon! Prove your own assertions are not gibberish. Prove them!

I don't have to prove my word picturing, my thinking into my modeling of a 'Cosmic All' . . . my metaphysically realized Cosmology. As I did before coming here, and am now going in your face with (post #130), I can keep on keeping coming up with some background support to my modeling, a multiverse article piece here by article piece there.

 

[Pinball1970]

You know as little about infinity being inside/outside the collapsed Horizon constant of the observable universe as you know about anything else of "cosmology."

Gobbledygook

 

[James R]

I always have the strangest feeling that the universe is always in creation from the middle out...

The universe has no middle.

... future histories (concurrency) forward and past histories (the foundational props) behind, accelerating in expansion out from the middle out, NOW this instant.

Histories can't accelerate and they don't expand. (Well, not in a physical sense.)

That right NOW, this instant, is the endless beginning of the universe . .

The universe began 13.8 billion years ago.

"Endless beginning" is an oxymoron.

That it is the only real possibility of creation...

You are mistaken. It isn't the only real possibility.

 

[James R]

Knowledge: In quantum physics more than one reality exists

You're talking about the "many worlds" theory?

I've been talking the two-state reality (the observed state (past histories state, an observer's distant observation) and the un-observed state (future histories state, a traveler's local reality, object traveler and [concurrently existing in both space and time] object observer, versus that observer's observation), the equivalent state in the macrocosm, the macro-verse, since coming on the website.

You have not.

Moreover, nothing in what you have said suggests that you are describing two states. This paragraph doesn't really scan as a coherent English sentence, either.

The two space and time universe ( two past histories observed and two future histories un-observed) reality. More than one reality of universe to the scenario!

You're writing stuff, but you keep saying nothing. You have mentioned no "scenario" and have given no reasons why anybody ought to be persuaded by any of your claims.

I would say that to a certain extent I am a metaphysicist and no physicist as such.

It's obvious that you're no physicist, given your output on this forum so far.

I know one basic thing for certain. Enough buildup of complexity and the edifice collapses...

How did you come to know that for certain?

(Collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity (18 layered levels down and in, 13.7 billion light years up and out, at once one and the same infinity's collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of Planck (BC/BB) Horizon Singularity).

This is not an English sentence.

Infinity collapses into a cosmological Horizon constant (/\), relatively speaking (finitely speaking) that is.

You are saying nothing. Literal word salad. Just stringing words together, almost at random.

You know as little about infinity being inside/outside the collapsed Horizon constant of the observable universe as you know about anything else of "cosmology."

Is it your claim that "infinity" is "inside/outside the collapse Horizon..." blah blah blah?

Are you aware that your claim literally means nothing? The terms don't even make sense together.

Or, is it that you think you know everything about "cosmology" to call the above gibberish?!

False dichotomy. One need not know everything about cosmology to be able to identify cosmological nonsense when one sees it.

You must think you are a ranking expert on infinity and cosmology, but I think that in your very small fish (in a very small pond) claim to such awesome knowledge of the universe you are nothing yourself but a load of mediocre gibberish.

Please don't insult other members of sciforums.

Prove your great knowledge! Prove you've been in and beyond the Horizon! Prove your own assertions are not gibberish. Prove them!

Which assertions has he made, which you want him to prove, exactly? Be specific.

I don't have to prove my word picturing, my thinking into my modeling of a 'Cosmic All' . . . my metaphysically realized Cosmology.

Correct. You don't have to prove anything here. However, you are expected to post coherently. Please review our site Posting Guidelines, which are available in a sticky thread in the Site Feedback subforum.

I can keep on keeping coming up with some background support to my modeling, a multiverse article piece here by article piece there.

Have you done some "modelling"? Physics modelling, you mean? Even though you say you aren't a physicist?

You have published articles? Where? Can you provide links to them, please?

 

[James R]

Meanwhile, while we wait for the "modelling"...

The speed of light is a big deal to me since it is an infinite constant ...

It is not.

Come to think of it, every working human is an actual scientist.

No. An actual scientist is paid to do science. Most people are not paid to do science.

This is like claiming that every human being who has seen a ballet is an actual ballet dancer.