mul·ti·verse

[The Starmaker]

mul暗i暇erse


The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes
(including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and
can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse



I know this is the 'stuff' the scientific community believes in, but they are wrong!


And I have to come along and correct this...garbage. (cause i cannot think of another word for it)


So, I'll correct it now..

"multiple possible universes"
multiple universes

No, there are no "multiple possible universes".

"everything that.. can exist"

No, there is only one that can exist.

"the entirety of space, time, matter, and
energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."

Wrong again. There are no other
"space, time, matter, and
energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."


Where do you people come up with this stuff?



You got *kids* believe in it! Children.
Yous should be ashamed of yourself.

What is worse, they kids grow up and go to college taking up this garbage.

This garbage belongs in a garbage can.


Simply put,
Any other mathematical structures of the universe will result only in this:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/No_Stars.jpg


Change the equation, and all you're going to get is this:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/No_Stars.jpg

nothing, nothing else can exist.



The Starmaker



Now, throw away your textbooks...you know, where you throw garbage in, a garbage can..

[G=EMC^2]

On Nov 10, 5:05 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> mul ti verse

>
> The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes
> (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and

> can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

>
> I know this is the 'stuff' the scientific community believes in, but they are wrong!
>
> And I have to come along and correct this...garbage. (cause i cannot think of another word for it)
>
> So, I'll correct it now..
>
> "multiple possible universes"
> multiple universes
>
> No, there are no "multiple possible universes".
>
> "everything that.. can exist"
>
> No, there is only one that can exist.
>
> "the entirety of space, time, matter, and
> energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
>
> Wrong again. There are no other
> "space, time, matter, and
> energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
>
> Where do you people come up with this stuff?
>
> You got *kids* believe in it! Children.
> Yous should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> What is worse, they kids grow up and go to college taking up this garbage.
>
> This garbage belongs in a garbage can.
>
> Simply put,
> Any other mathematical structures of the universe will result only in this:http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/No_Stars.jpg
>
> Change the equation, and all you're going to get is this:http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/No_Stars.jpg
>
> nothing, nothing else can exist.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Now, throw away your textbooks...you know, where you throw garbage in, a garbage can..

Nature creates in pairs You can'[t have an electron universe and not
have a positron one. TreBert

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:40:30 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nature creates in pairs You can'[t have an electron universe and not
>have a positron one. TreBert

Ahh, and you can't have a mountain universe without an anti-mountain
universe?

Pairs seem to be the rule in particle physics, but we don't understand
everything, and assuming like that works for humor.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Benj]

Starmaker, you need to understand my "Spin is In" theory that Bert stole
from me and gave to Tree. It's simple. Conservation of angular momentum
is a natural law. So if there is empty space and you create an electron
from it spinning CW, it follows simply that there must ALSO be an anti-
electron created with CCW spin so the net angular momentum remains ZERO!

Simple. I'll bet Herb never understood my "Spin is In" theory well enough
to explain that one to you! He shouldn't steal things he can't
understand.

[The Starmaker]

G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 5:05 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > mul ti verse
> >
> > The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes
> > (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and
> > can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multive
> >

It was zero that created one. There should be a zero and a one on the back of your desktop computer...put it on zero...tell me what you see on the screen.

[Mark]

On Nov 10, 4:05 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> mul ti verse
>

> The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes...

Some historical perspective is in order here. Before the 20th century,
a single galaxy was known as The Universe ... and a single galaxy was
generally assumed all that there was. Other galaxies, if they existed,
were then referred to as "island universes", this notion going all the
way back (I believe) to either Berkeley or Kant.

The current usage of "universe" is analogous: this time referring to
the individual Cosmoses (for lack of a better name) that each get
spawned off a Big Bang, from a larger matrix. These would have the
same relation to one another that galaxies have to each other in
current conception.

There is no quantum "multiple worlds, everything possible exists
somewhere" aspect to any of this, any more than there is to the idea
of multiple galaxies. The extra baggage relating to quantum theory and
the "many worlds interpretation" [sic] is mostly extraneous and is
quite unrelated to the question of whether there is one Cosmos or
many.

In fact, the question need not have any connection to quantum theory
at all. A simple classical account that yields the same picture would
have the Universe (in its entirety) residing in a continuum that is
neither a Riemannian nor Lorentzian geometry, but a more general
geometry that has different signatures in different places. Then each
region -- which you may call a "signature domain" -- will be separated
from the others by phase boundaries. The two ways you can go from a
4+0 Euclidean signature, where c^2 < 0 to a 3+1 Lorentzian signature,
where c^2 > 0 is either through the c^2 = 0 boundary or the c^2 =
infinity boundary. The latter would yield a Lorentzian signature
region where the metric has the form dt^2 - A(t) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2),
where A(t) takes the place of 1/c^2 and A(t) -> 0 as t -> 0 (which
depending on how fast A(t) -> 0 may or may not yield a cosmological
horizon). The former would correspond to a Lorentzian signature domain
where A(t) -> infinity (a so-called Hubble horizon or "Big Rip").

So in that larger setting you can think of each Cosmos as being a
Lorentzian signature domain, all interfaced to possibly a single 4+0
Euclidean domain. Or perhaps, you can have even more elaborate
networks of signature domains, even with 2+2 domains.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Mark" wrote in message
news:de760600-2ba5-49c7...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

=============================================================
The set of everything there is is called "the universe" and there can only
be one universe by its very definition. "uni" means one.
It is the root of unit, unite, union, unity, unify.

All that babbling verbal diarrhoea is
a) totally lost on a moron like "The Starmaker",
b) fucking bullshit, you are not fooling anyone except yourself with your
own spew.

In fact, actually, anyone starting a sentence with "in fact" is about to
lie to themselves to convince themselves, actually, if fact, and that's a
fact, in fact, actually.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[David DeLaney]

Mark <federat...@netzero.com> wrote:
>Some historical perspective is in order here. Before the 20th century,

and a short ways into it (1912, Vestro Slipher),

>a single galaxy was known as The Universe ... and a single galaxy was
>generally assumed all that there was. Other galaxies, if they existed,
>were then referred to as "island universes", this notion going all the
>way back (I believe) to either Berkeley or Kant.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 21, 4:16 pm, Androcles, the fvcked psycho, wrote:

> The set of everything there is is called "the universe" and there can only
> be one universe by its very definition. "uni" means one.
> It is the root of unit, unite, union, unity, unify.
>
> All that babbling verbal diarrhoea is
> a) totally lost on a moron like "The Starmaker",
> b) fucking bullshit, you are not fooling anyone except yourself with your
> own spew.
>
> In fact, actually, anyone starting a sentence with "in fact" is about to
> lie to themselves to convince themselves, actually, if fact, and that's a
> fact, in fact, actually.

This is one of the very few times that the abominable Andro has made
an excellent comment. <shrug>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:30c4dac3-61f5-4d71...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

====================================================
You and I see eye to eye on almost everything except your ridiculous and
unnecessary mechanical ectoplasm that you hallucinate permeates everywhere
and everything. If your aether waves to convey light, why is wood which is
transparent to a magnetic field not transparent to light?
You have no answer except your abominable bluster, of course.

[G=EMC^2]

On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:40:30 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
>

> <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Nature creates in pairs  You can'[t have an electron universe and not
> >have a positron one.   TreBert
>
> Ahh, and you can't have a mountain universe without an anti-mountain
> universe?
>
> Pairs seem to be the rule in particle physics, but we don't understand
> everything, and assuming like that works for humor.
>
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madis

/?.,
Good thinking has particles have to be created in pairs Have a wave.
Spin,and wobble That is m foundation for quantum thinking. Gave me
the structure of the electron TreBert

[The Starmaker]

That sounds like it would look like this:
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/E91yxk_pT_A

mutiverse is just an upgraded version of multiturtles.


The Starmaker

[Fjolsvit]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:05:13 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> mul�ti�verse

Multiverse is the stupidest ideas since der Judenstaat.

[gyans...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:05:13 AM UTC+13, The Starmaker wrote:
> mul�ti�verse
>
>

You are talking bollocks of course. Explain Young's slit experiment.

[Fjolsvit]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:05:13 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> mul�ti�verse
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you for a statement of the blatantly obvious. It's hard to live in a world where educated adults sincerely believe that nonsense.

[G=EMC^2]

On Nov 26, 4:06 am, Fjolsvit <fjols...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:05:13 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:

> > mul ti verse

It fits TeBet

[Michael Stemper]

In article <de760600-2ba5-49c7...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Mark <federat...@netzero.com> writes:
>On Nov 10, 4:05=A0pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple pos=

>sible universes...
>
>Some historical perspective is in order here. Before the 20th century,
>a single galaxy was known as The Universe ... and a single galaxy was
>generally assumed all that there was. Other galaxies, if they existed,
>were then referred to as "island universes", this notion going all the
>way back (I believe) to either Berkeley or Kant.

Kant, as I understand it. And the usage did last, at least in scattered
pockets, well into the twentieth century. E. E. Smith repeatedly used
the term "island universe" in his corpus.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk

[The Starmaker]

Okay, the problem here is too much misinformation in colleges..
that is why we have the Internet...to correct the proffessors.
To correct the textbooks.

Isn't the universe big enough already? Do you have to go make-up
more universes just because you're bored of this one?

This universe is big enough already. You don't need another one..

you just need to stop reading those stupid textbooks and drop out of college.


Look at me! I didn't go to college and I'm a fuckin GENUIS!!!


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Okay, most of yous don't know how big this thing is...
I'll tell you..
The universe is 93 billion light years long, probably a little longer but as far as i can see...

isn't that big enough? Enough room to put a new giant screen TV set...

(i know a girl who was the first one on line for hours at Best Buy on Black Friday, as soon as she got in
they told her the TV big screen on sale sold out! she couldn't understand that...she told them "I was the first one on line,
how could they sell out??!?)

It's like those 'science guys'..."We didn't say there was water on Mars!!" "We didn't say there is life on Mars!" "We didn't say..."


The Starmaker


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

I'll let you in on a secret..

The Biggest Con the NASA guys have is...

if you ever see or hear thises words, it's a CON..

"The Building Blocks Of Life".

If you see or hear "The Building Blocks Of Life", it's a con.

They have no idead whatare "The Building Blocks Of Life".

They pretend to everyone else that they know
what "The Building Blocks Of Life" are, but they don't.

So, how can they find on Mars "The Building Blocks Of Life", if they
don't even know what are "The Building Blocks Of Life"?

Whatever they say "The Building Blocks Of Life" are, is not.

The Starmaker

Now, how many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?

[Thomas Heger]

> Now, how many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?

If the big-bang happened 14 (+/-) billion years ago, the diameter could
not exceed 28 light years.

We are told, it comes from 'inflation' and the excess 60+ billion
light-years appeared in the first three seconds (or was it milli-seconds
?).

[The Starmaker]

it's millionith...

and I couldn't possibly be wrong about the number being 93 billion light years long.


I simply couldn't be wrong about that..
I couldn't, i know too much.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

"We didn't say Earthshaking!"

"The characterization of new findings as earthshaking did not come from anyone on the mission's science team," Webster said.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/28/scientists-speculate-mars-rover-discovery/

[Michael Stemper]

In article <ahn6sc...@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> writes:

>> Now, how many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?
>
>If the big-bang happened 14 (+/-) billion years ago, the diameter could
>not exceed 28 light years.

Give or take a factor of 10^9.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

This message contains at least 95% recycled bytes.

[The Starmaker]

Michael Stemper wrote:
>
> In article <ahn6sc...@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> writes:
>
> >> Now, how many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?
> >
> >If the big-bang happened 14 (+/-) billion years ago, the diameter could
> >not exceed 28 light years.
>
> Give or take a factor of 10^9.

Can you translate that in English?

[The Starmaker]

Okay, I'll figure it out....

The American people would have a better understanding of how big the universe is if you use a TV to describe it.

I'll do the math, but it's going to take a week...cause I'm just like Einstein, not good in math.


Here is my math problem:

How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?


There are 63360 inches in one mile.


I first have to figure out how many 50 inches there are in a mile..



I'll be back.



The Starmaker

[thermate...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:05:13 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:

> mul�ti�verse

>
> Now, throw away your textbooks...you know, where you throw garbage in, a garbage can..

The many-worlds model is a good conceptual tool for thinking about conditions which are not measurable beyond the precision determined by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. There is a certain insight in the many-world model which is difficult to formulate otherwise.

But when the model is taken to be a statement of what really exists, we have reducto ad absurdum.

Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and even Bohr(more or less) rejected the notion that nature is fundamentally acausal.

[HVAC]

On 11/30/2012 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll figure it out....
>
> The American people would have a better understanding of how big the universe is if you use a TV to describe it.
>
> I'll do the math, but it's going to take a week...cause I'm just like Einstein, not good in math.
>
>
> Here is my math problem:
>
> How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?
>
>
> There are 63360 inches in one mile.
>
>
> I first have to figure out how many 50 inches there are in a mile..
>
>
>
> I'll be back.

I may be of assistance here. I recently purchased an 82" TV.
Does that help?






--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[The Starmaker]

There are 1,267 50 inch TV sets in a mile!

That took almost a whole day! I got six days to go to come up with..

How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?

I must be a fuckin genuis! I'm going to building atomic bombs pretty soon at this rate!!

There are 5,878,625,373,184 miles in a light year.

I'll be back with...How many 50 inch TV sets are there end to end in a ...light year?

This might take a couple of days...


I need a break...I'm not used to...thinking.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Hey, it didn't take that long!

The answer to How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long? is...


Four hundred million trillion 50 inch Sony TV sets lined up end to end across the universe in a row.


That's it...400,000,000,000,000,000,000 TV sets.


The Starmaker

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:37:27 -0800, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| The Starmaker wrote:

|> There are 1,267 50 inch TV sets in a mile!
|>
|> That took almost a whole day! I got six days to go to come up with..
|> How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long?
|>
|> I must be a fuckin genuis! I'm going to building atomic bombs pretty soon at this rate!!
|>
|> There are 5,878,625,373,184 miles in a light year.
|>
|> I'll be back with...How many 50 inch TV sets are there end to end in a ...light year?
|>
|> This might take a couple of days...
|>
|> I need a break...I'm not used to...thinking.
|>
|> The Starmaker
|
| Hey, it didn't take that long!
|
| The answer to How many 50 inch TV's fit lined up in this universe that is 93 billion light years long? is...
|
|
| Four hundred million trillion 50 inch Sony TV sets lined up end to end across the universe in a row.
|
|
| That's it...400,000,000,000,000,000,000 TV sets.

Did you remember that TV sizes are a diagonal (corner to corner)
measurement? That makes the "end to end" length somewhat smaller, and
will increase the number of TV sets you will need.

HTH, HAND.


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Thomas Heger]

I forgot the 'billions' in my statement. Sorry, but it was obvious, what
was meant.

Big bang theory is nonsense in my eyes. But if there was a big bang,
than the outermost front would not move faster than with c (according to
SRT), hence the diameter could not exceed twice the age of the universe
in lightyears.

Only, we don't see this. This means, there is need for a 'fudge factor',
called 'inflation'.

We also don't see a two-dimensional universe, or something equivalent,
but space seems to expand in all directions.

The 'fudge factor' in this case is 'expansion of space' and CMBR as
remainders of the big-bang. But this interpretation is also nonsense. So
we have nonsense to explain nonsense, but still need a few tricks, to
hammer the square plug into the round hole.

TH

[The Starmaker]

My TV stand that my Sony TV is on is one inch more on both sides, which makes the dimensions
of a sony 48 inch width 50 inch wide.

Are you going to remind me next that the uinverse is expanding?

Or, the length of the unobservabe universe is longer?

Or, ...

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> mul�ti�verse
>
>

> The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes
> (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and
> can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
>
>
>
> I know this is the 'stuff' the scientific community believes in, but they are wrong!
>
>
> And I have to come along and correct this...garbage. (cause i cannot think of another word for it)
>
>
> So, I'll correct it now..
>
> "multiple possible universes"
> multiple universes
>
> No, there are no "multiple possible universes".
>
> "everything that.. can exist"
>
> No, there is only one that can exist.
>
> "the entirety of space, time, matter, and
> energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
>
> Wrong again. There are no other
> "space, time, matter, and
> energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
>
>
> Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Scientists don't sit in their studies dreaming up more and more bizarre
ideas for no good reason.

The problem is that nature itself keeps throwing up results of
experiments that just don't fit with any notion of common-sense.

The theory of relativity, for example, arose as way to understand
unexpected results when measuring the speed of light, together with
other results in electromagnetism.

Quantum mechanics was needed to address things like the amount and
colour of light radiated from hot objects, and the fact that things that
had previously apparently been definitively determined to be waves could
display particle like behaviours, and vice versa.

Quantum mechanics then made predictions about how certain measurements
are correlated, even though the level correlation was troublesome when
the theory of relativity is taken into acount, but those measurements
were found to match the predictions.

At that point one starts to tear one's hair out, screaming "What the
hell is going on? How can the universe be like that?"

The Multiverse is juse one of a number of possible answers, none of
which is in the least bit in accord with any commonsense view of how
things are, but is at least not quite as outlandish as the others.
(Would you prefer "nothing is real - everything is just a probability"?)

It would be nice to have a simple straightforward model of what's
happening, but none has been found that's capable of explaining the
experimental results. And since everything we observe during our day is
in some sense an experimental result, it means that there is no simple
straightfoward model of the world we live in.

Scientists certainly didn't choose this outcome - they just found it.

It's a bummer, for sure, but that's where we are at.

Sylvia.

[benj]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:21 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


> The Multiverse is juse one of a number of possible answers, none of
> which is in the least bit in accord with any commonsense view of how
> things are, but is at least not quite as outlandish as the others.
> (Would you prefer "nothing is real - everything is just a probability"?)
>
> It would be nice to have a simple straightforward model of what's
> happening, but none has been found that's capable of explaining the
> experimental results. And since everything we observe during our day is
> in some sense an experimental result, it means that there is no simple
> straightfoward model of the world we live in.
>
> Scientists certainly didn't choose this outcome - they just found it.
>
> It's a bummer, for sure, but that's where we are at.
>
> Sylvia.

Hey:

"There is always an easy solution to every every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong."

H. L. Menchen

[The Starmaker]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > mul暗i暇erse

Experiments are not a requirement of Nature.


You've reached the end of the road, Sylvia...a blank wall.

You need to change your career, something more earthly...

how about learning how to play a guitar?


The Starmaker


Or...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YEWjVBJfA1k#t=9s

[Sylvia Else]

On 27/12/2012 8:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>>> mul�ti�verse

Of course they are. Every time the grey butcher bird in my garden swoops
on the piece of meat that I've thrown, and catches it in mid air, having
accurately anticipated its trajectory [*], it's doing an experiment
involving the laws of physics, and in the process of achieving the
interception, verifying those laws.

Now, I strongly doubt that it has any clue that that's what it's doing,
but it still is. There's no fundamental difference between the everyday
processes of life and formal experiments done in a laboratory.

[*] It's quite impressive, the bird instantly heads towards the point
where the meat and bird will arrive simultaneously, and rarely misses.

>
>
> You've reached the end of the road, Sylvia...a blank wall.
>
> You need to change your career, something more earthly...
>
> how about learning how to play a guitar?

What makes you think I can't do that already?

Sylvia.

[DonH]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ak1u3j...@mid.individual.net...

# The universe of human science is a tautology, as we humans are trapped
within our five senses. There may be multi-verses (parallel, etc), but we
are unaware of them, and probably always will be.
In one sense, definitional, "uni-verse" implies all that exists, but if
we can't know it, then we are stuck. A bit like: "What happens when an
irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
There is no answer, because one rules out the other. By definition, you
can't have both.
Hence, a uni-verse rules out multi-verses.
But, from a human perspective, "our" universe is all there is.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 27.12.2012 16:51, schrieb DonH:

> # The universe of human science is a tautology, as we humans are trapped
> within our five senses. There may be multi-verses (parallel, etc), but we
> are unaware of them, and probably always will be.

This is simply wrong.
Actually we're talking about physics and physicists have all sorts of
devices to measure all sorts of quantities.

We have also powerful computers, that can translate almost any
conceivable idea into what our eyes can see. That is called
Computer-graphics.

We have also mathematical models, simulators and even pen and paper, to
draw any possible relationship.

There are also microscopes, telescopes or satellites, that enable humans
to see very tiny or remote things. This allows us to see into different
worlds.

But if you'd like a different frequency rang or other time interval,
that's no problem. There are many other means to access, what our five
senses could not detect.

So, these senses are not the prime or sole instruments of scientists
(even if they are important).

TH

[The Starmaker]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 27/12/2012 8:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> >>> mul暗i暇erse

I didn't say you couldn't use experiments, I'm saying...Nature doesn't
require it.

>
> Now, I strongly doubt that it has any clue that that's what it's doing,
> but it still is. There's no fundamental difference between the everyday
> processes of life and formal experiments done in a laboratory.

Of course the bird knows what it is doing..he learned it..it took time, he
recognized a ...pattern.

>
> [*] It's quite impressive, the bird instantly heads towards the point
> where the meat and bird will arrive simultaneously, and rarely misses.

If he missed everytime...we wouldn't have any birds.

> >
> >
> > You've reached the end of the road, Sylvia...a blank wall.
> >
> > You need to change your career, something more earthly...
> >
> > how about learning how to play a guitar?
>
> What makes you think I can't do that already?
>
> Sylvia.

I just meant, you should be doing something...else.

I'm very transparent, ...you got suckered in the 'scientific community', and I'm tryin to sucker you out.


Even Einstein gave up physics eventually...


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> > mul暗i暇erse

You want a "simple straightfoward model of the world we live in", ...

Here it is:


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.


Now, there was a time where the 'scientific community' believed that the universe 'had no beggining'...
eventually they had to give in to the "In the beginning..."

Now they believe there are other Earths...
eventually they will discover, there is only one Earth.


It's straightforward: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.


Is there any part of that one sentense you don't understand?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.



The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: You want a "simple straightfoward model of the world we live in", ...

: Here it is:
: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

That's neither simple, nor a model of the world we live in.

[Sylvia Else]

On 28/12/2012 8:24 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 27/12/2012 8:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>>>>> mul�ti�verse

If we do no experiments, then we'll not discover results that are
difficult to model, and in particular, wouldn't conceive of things like
the Multiverse as a way of resolving the conundrum presented by the
experimental results.

That hardly makes the problem go away. It's just wilful blindness.

>
>
>>
>> Now, I strongly doubt that it has any clue that that's what it's doing,
>> but it still is. There's no fundamental difference between the everyday
>> processes of life and formal experiments done in a laboratory.
>
> Of course the bird knows what it is doing..he learned it..it took time, he
> recognized a ...pattern.
>
>
>>
>> [*] It's quite impressive, the bird instantly heads towards the point
>> where the meat and bird will arrive simultaneously, and rarely misses.
>
> If he missed everytime...we wouldn't have any birds.
>

That's far from clear, even in relation to butcher birds. Where in his
evolutionary past would his ancestors have encountered food following a
ballistic trajectory through the air? He's an insectivore, and his
normal prey would tend do be doing anything but.

One point he doesn't seem to grasp (not yet, anyway) is that if the meat
is thrown above the deck, and the predicted interception point is below
the deck, then there's no point in heading there. I may be
anthropomorphisising, but the bird seems visibly surprised when the meat
doesn't appear at the expected place.


Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 28/12/2012 9:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> You want a "simple straightfoward model of the world we live in", ...
>
> Here it is:
>
>
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

OK. I have a ball, and project it vertically from the surface of the
Earth at 20m/s. How long before it lands on the surface again?

Now, applying your model, we get...

... well, nothing actually. The model seems somewhat limited if it can't
even address such a simple question.

Sylvia.

[benj]

Obviously Sylvia, you've jumped ahead too many steps. You start by
assuming you HAVE a ball. But just WHERE did that ball come from? That
question needs to be asked first and traced back to origins. All your
"velocity" crap is just working out the details! And I might point out
that "creating heavens and earth" includes ALL the laws of the universe
that you are so hot to calculate.

[Wayne Throop]

::: You want a "simple straightfoward model of the world we live in", ...

::: Here it is:
::: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

:: OK. I have a ball, and project it vertically from the surface of the
:: Earth at 20m/s. How long before it lands on the surface again?

:: [...]
:: The model seems somewhat limited if it can't even address such a
:: simple question.

: benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
: Obviously Sylvia, you've jumped ahead too many steps. You start by

: assuming you HAVE a ball. But just WHERE did that ball come from?
: That question needs to be asked first and traced back to origins.

First, that's silly. As in stupid.

Second, even after you've traced it back to "origins", you still wouldn't
be able to predict jack squat. So, you've introduced an infinitely complex
"first cause", and now you can use it... for n0othing at all pratical.
Basically, it's neither simple nor a model of the world we live in.

[The Starmaker]

What is this obession you have with 'throwing things around'?

If shes isn't throwing some meat, she's throwing a ball...

...makes me nervous.

[The Starmaker]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 28/12/2012 8:24 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/12/2012 8:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/11/2012 9:05 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

> >>>>> mul暗i暇erse

I'll rephrase, Nature does not require experiments and observation to discover results...there are other methods
to discover results without using experiments and observations....or what you people call, "the scientific method".

Nature does not confine itself to experiments and observations. You're confined to it. Try...something...else.


Maybe medical maraijuana....I know I know, you're going to say "How do you know I'm not smoking it now."


The Starmaker

[Sylvia Else]

And so it should, since you are unable to predict where it will land.

Sylvia.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: What is this obession you have with 'throwing things around'?

What is your obsession with ignorance and stupidity as a virtuous goal?

[The Starmaker]

You can throw a bird and you cannot predict which way it will fly, so what? And you're not a girl.

If you can predict everything, you cannot predict everything...there would be nothing left to predict.


The Starmaker


and you're not a girl! Girls don't throw meatballs.

[The Starmaker]

Ignorance and stupidity are in high demand. Who buys Science Magazines?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:33:15 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> OK. I have a ball, and project it vertically from the surface of the
> Earth at 20m/s. How long before it lands on the surface again?

itg accl once for speed

gt + k, k = -20, initial velocity

t ~ 2.04s way up, 4.08s for total, wrong?

> Now, applying your model, we get...

same, since those rules are given

[Wayne Throop]

:: What is your obsession with ignorance and stupidity as a virtuous goal?

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Ignorance and stupidity are in high demand.

So, things that are in demand are virtuous goals.
I doubt anybody will buy this "20 zillion morons can't be wrong" ploy,
no matter how you try to disguise it.

: Who buys Science Magazines?

Enough people to keep them in business, evidently.
I expect a substantial majority of their subscribers are non-scientists

[The Starmaker]

It's simply..
IMPOSSIBLE,
for
subscribers
to a
Science Magazine
to be
"non-scientists".

It's Impossible!


Wrong again, Mr. Wayne, (consistently wrong I might add...)

no one is a bit surprised..

Mr. Wrong Throop.




The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: It's simply..

: IMPOSSIBLE,
: for
: subscribers
: to a
: Science Magazine
: to be
: "non-scientists".

Oh, well, if you're going to flat-out lie about it like this,
I doubt you'll convince anybody. So that's good.

[The Starmaker]

I understand, English is your third language...

To 'study' means:
The devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject


When a person subscribes to an academic publication, it means they want to
devote time and attention to acquire knowledge on the academic topic of their choice.

sci·en·tist

noun /?si-?ntist/
scientists, plural

A person who is *studying*, or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.


A person who subscribes to academic magazine like "Science Magazine", is a person studying Science.

A scientist, is a person who studies science.


http://tinyurl.com/bn5rv2x


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=throop&defid=5806195

[Sylvia Else]

I don't follow you. Starmaker hasn't identified any rules in his model
that relate to acceleration, distance and velocity, nor indicated how
his model might be extended so as to include such rules. Indeed, he
seems to be positively antagonistic towards the usual scientific
experimental approach that might allow appropriate rules to be deduced
and added to his model.

My inference is that his model does not, and never will, be capable of
addressing the simple question posed. Certainly the mainstream
scientific model has no difficulty at all, but that's not the point.

Sylvia.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: When a person subscribes to an academic publication, it means they

: want to devote time and attention to acquire knowledge on the academic
: topic of their choice.

And yet, the "about Science" link leads to the description of the magazine
as "the world's leading journal of original scientific research, global
news, and commentary".

And is procuced by "editors, writers, artists, production specialists,
and other staff members".

So. The people who selected the Higgs Boson were not scientists, as
is perfectly evidence when you read the article. It's "global news and
commentary" not "science".

Further, it's not necessary to *be* a scientist to want to follow
scientific research. As you very well know. Hence the conclusion
that your deceptive claims are *intentionally* deceptive.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:11:50 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I don't follow you. Starmaker hasn't identified any rules in his model
> that relate to acceleration, distance and velocity, nor indicated how
> his model might be extended so as to include such rules.

hmm, he talks about creation, no?

consequently the rules must be there in advance, otherwise the task is
impossible

[Greg Goss]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> how about learning how to play a guitar?
>
>
>What makes you think I can't do that already?
>
>Sylvia.

When I see the name "Sylvia", I think of the Great Speckled Bird. I
dunno if anyone else even remembers them.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Greg Goss]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/12/2012 8:51 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>> > Experiments are not a requirement of Nature.
>>
>> Of course they are. Every time the grey butcher bird in my garden swoops
>> on the piece of meat that I've thrown, and catches it in mid air, having
>> accurately anticipated its trajectory [*], it's doing an experiment
>> involving the laws of physics, and in the process of achieving the
>> interception, verifying those laws.
>
>
>I didn't say you couldn't use experiments, I'm saying...Nature doesn't
>require it.
>
>
>>
>> Now, I strongly doubt that it has any clue that that's what it's doing,
>> but it still is. There's no fundamental difference between the everyday
>> processes of life and formal experiments done in a laboratory.
>
>Of course the bird knows what it is doing..he learned it..it took time, he
>recognized a ...pattern.

"Experiments" are an organized method of recognizing patterns. You're
almost there.

[The Starmaker]

If a bird recognzies a pattern, he doesn't have to perform any tests to
prove it, or
any experiments, or even try...he just goes for it.


If I see a guy.. give a girl a hundred dollar bill, and
moments later he's on top of her, I recognized a pattern.

I get a hundred dollar bill, I'm on top of her! No test. No experiments.


Is a bird a scientists? Is the bird perfoming scientific experiments?
Then any bird
brain can be a scientist, ...even me.

So is the 'scientific community' a bunch of bird brains?


The Starmaker


If you throw a bird in the air, have you guys figured out using some
math formunla which way it will go? Or does it only
work with a dead piece of meat?

[The Starmaker]

When I see the name "Sylvia", I think of a Hundred Dollar Bill.

[The Starmaker]

Maybe you don't understand what "model" means...

It is, ...established. It is, what you base the future on. It is, an
architecture creation.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

It is the foundation of cosmology today.

It's like a hanger. A wire hanger you use to hang up your clothes. If
you twist the hanger around out of it's shape,
your clothes will fall off.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

I know there are others...attempting to remove "God" from that sentence,
and trying to change the word "earth" into "earths",
and trying to change "In the beginning" to "no beginning"..., but
then...their clothes fall off!


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

: It is the foundation of cosmology today.

Well, if you're just going to lie about it.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Maybe you don't understand what "model" means...

It means it has certain useful isomorphisms to the thing being modeled.
Which your example notable avoids providing.

[The Starmaker]

isomorphisms? You are certaintly lacking good communications skills...you have no understanding of the English language, do oyu?

[The Starmaker]

cosomology: definition;
An account or theory of the origin of the universe.


What came before
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: What came before

: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.?

In the King James version,

The Old Testament of the King James Version of the Bible
The First Book of Moses: Called Genesis