Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
The Starmaker
I know there was a TV show on it...a long time ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E21323800
But where are those other people today?
Where is that parallel universe?
Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
The Starmaker
herbert glazier
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
Nature creates in pairs. Universes too. It might never be proven,but
its reality TreBert
RichA
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
Look up, Brane.
Joe Snodgrass
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law of
science with which it is in contradiction?
Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to recall
the name of something that they teach in sixth grade chemistry, but be
careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
The Starmaker
Somebody....told Rod Serling
that there are other universes...
parallel to ours with
people identical to us, ...
and he fell for it.
He trusted those those
people in the 'scientific community'...
did a whole TV show on it...
that was in 1963 ...a long time ago..
but it's just some..adult science fiction fairy tale.
Where do you supose the guy that told that to
Rod Serling got that idea from?
You probably won't believe this...
there are people out there who
think it's true.
It's just an adult cosmic religion science fiction fairy tale.
The Starmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E21323800
David DeLaney
>On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
>science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law of
>science with which it is in contradiction?
>
>Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to recall
>the name of something that they teach in sixth grade chemistry, but be
>careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
Note that everyone who says "Hey, conservation of mass-energy, you're
creating new universes out of nothing at all!!1!" conveniently forgets
that each "new" universe has a probability associated with it, and that
all the probabilities across ALL the universes have to add up to 1. Period.
So "new universe here with 50% probability of existing" has how much of the
mass-energy of the universe it split off from? 50%, that's right. So when you
add up over all the universes, you get: 100%.
Honestly, this isn't rocket science. It's just "remember to take everything
into account" science.
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.
PD
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
had nothing to show us further since then.
Koobee Wublee
> Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to recall
> >the name of something that they teach in sixth grade chemistry, but be
> >careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>
> Note that everyone who says "Hey, conservation of mass-energy, you're
> creating new universes out of nothing at all!!1!" conveniently forgets
> that each "new" universe has a probability associated with it, and that
> all the probabilities across ALL the universes have to add up to 1. Period.
Man, this is getting very spooky! <shrug>
> So "new universe here with 50% probability of existing" has how much of the
> mass-energy of the universe it split off from? 50%, that's right. So when you
> add up over all the universes, you get: 100%.
So, as we age, we are losing energy to our alternative selves in other
parallel universes. Is that correct? <hair standing up on back of
neck>
> Honestly, this isn't rocket science.
Gee! Hope not! Yours truly would label this as occult. <shrug>
> It's just "remember to take everything into account" science.
Right! Where are unicorns, gnomes, elves, etc? Did you miss out the
science to put a curse on someone?
SR and GR can be summed up with the following.
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
In doing so, occult science seems to be the eventual outcome. <shrug>
Post Card
> It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
> show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
> had nothing to show us further since then.
It is remarkable that anyone having an iq exceeding shoe
size can still believe in 2000 year old anthropocentric
legends grounded in the anthropomorphic mythology invented
by bronze age goat herders. Intellectual integrity of the
psychologically immature succumbs to ego soothing fantasy
when the egregious idiocy of patently absurd fantasy morphs
into belief. Rational honesty is defenseless in the face of
willful stupidity.
herbert glazier
Treb is proof that we have a parallel universe. There are more
universes in the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm. God I
like saying that TreBert
Joe Snodgrass
> Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
> >Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
> >DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
> >science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law of
> >science with which it is in contradiction?
>
> >Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to recall
> >the name of something that they teach in sixth grade chemistry, but be
> >careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>
> Note that everyone who says "Hey, conservation of mass-energy, you're
> creating new universes out of nothing at all!!1!" conveniently forgets
> that each "new" universe has a probability associated with it, and that
> all the probabilities across ALL the universes have to add up to 1. Period.
> So "new universe here with 50% probability of existing" has how much of the
> mass-energy of the universe it split off from? 50%, that's right. So when you
> add up over all the universes, you get: 100%.
>
> Honestly, this isn't rocket science. It's just "remember to take everything
> into account" science.
That's priceless. I'd like to see THAT get past a peer review. So
with the creation of every new universe, each pre-existing universe
gets more and more ghostly, until you have to count more zeroes to get
to the probability that it exists than there are hairs on everyone on
earth.
We have to count all those zeroes just to get to the probability that
a single factual thought ever flashed through your empty brain. I'd
like to meet the teacher who passed you through high school physics.
She probably did it to keep her job, because everybody in the class
was about to wash out. You're an airhead. You obviously learned
physics from Stan Lee.
papa...@gmail.com
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
You people don't even know or care what other people, homo sapiens
like you, are doing to survive in some not so far from you places
right here, in this very same Earth, and yet you are worried about the
existence or not of parallels universes.
Give me a break...
Louann Miller
42a1-8bd2-1...@k36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> You people don't even know or care what other people, homo sapiens
> like you, are doing to survive in some not so far from you places
> right here, in this very same Earth, and yet you are worried about the
> existence or not of parallels universes.
Did you read the sign on the door when you came in? People posting about
science fiction to a science fiction group is not normally considered
shocking.
Nobody is stopping you from pushing away from the computer to go feed
the hungry or nurse the dying.
Sam Wormley
> Treb is proof that we have a parallel universe
Translation: "Treb is my imaginary friend in old age".
Vilas Tamhane
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
Space has many dimensions. If you cannot perceive them you are an
idiot.
Space and time are interchangeable. If you cannot imagine it, then you
are an idiot.
A moving rod contracts but it doesn’t really contract. If you can’t
understand the meaning you are simply a moron.
Every physicist has two horns and one tail. If you can’t see these you
simply don’t have extra vision
Modern physics is paranormal meant for abnormal.
The Starmaker
"many worlds theory of quantum mechanics"? Is that another word for "Parallel Universe"? I just
used two words to describe it. Why did it take you six words?? Maybe you simply don't like the
words "Parallel Universe", is that it? Sounds too...'science fiction' for you?
So how did this idea come about? Did someone in the scientific community made some 'test' and heard voices
coming from another dimension or universe? Familiar voices..or saw the same street adresses...Or no JFK airport?
I'm just wondering how did this idea come about...I get my science from watching TV like most people do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E21323800
The Starmaker
Joel Olson
news:slrniqfgs...@gatekeeper.vic.com...
>
For each new universe, the probability of it is now 1. Adding up all the
universes will likely be at least infinity, likely a lot more than that.
To try to salvage something of your statement, one could perhaps interpret
"probability" as "fraction of the attention of some god-like outside
observer
that is on universe x."
If you like the idea of fractional existences, you might look into
Non-Aristotelian
Logics. Non-A, not to be confused with Null-A.
William December Starr
Joe Snodgrass <joe....@yahoo.com> said:
> Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
> DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
> science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law
> of science with which it is in contradiction?
>
> Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to
> recall the name of something that they teach in sixth grade
> chemistry, but be careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
What are you talking about?
-- wds
herbert glazier
Sam Reality is Treb tried and tried contacting me for over 50 years.
Its only about 10 years that I realized. It was an act of faith. I
like everyone else thought it was sci-fiction,or just plain crazy.
Call it a BH worm hole. I believe its brain waves passing through a
membrane Treb is more than a ghost. More than a God. Treb is real
TreBert
herbert glazier
My time laps theory gives the reason when nature creates pairs of
particles and universes they do not destroy each other on birth. My
convex space theory gives the reason universes do not collide.
Universes are created exactly alike. Some are being born as I'm typing
others destroyed. Since someday intelligent life will have to leave
this universe to go to one that is the same age(space and time.
Universes might always been "Stepping Stones for Humankind'. Its
possible we might someday be visited by aliens from another universe.
10 billion years ahead . Able to have the energy to pass through a
wormhole. Its the ultimate journey They are the top guns in the
evolution of intelligence Infinite in intelligence Infinite in
energy(Planck energy at their finger tips) I know why the universe is
inflating. They know how to control space inflating. Einstein gave us
spacetime. They can control spacetime. They are Gods TreBert
herbert glazier
>
> The Starmaker
I get my science from thinking good physics,and knowing how every
thing works. That takes my thinking out of the box. Makes for new
thoughts. TreBert
Sam Wormley
Just because you want something to be true, does not make it so,
Herbert. Mas often tells me that is the case. -Sam
hanson
> Hebe Herbie G=EMC^2 "herbert glazier" wrote:
>> Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> herbert glazier wrote:
>>>
G=EMC^2 Hebe Herbie wrote:
Treb is proof that we have a parallel universe
>>>
Translation: "Treb is my imaginary friend in old age".
>>
Sam Reality is Treb tried and tried contacting me for over 50 years.
Its only about 10 years that I realized. It was an act of faith. I
like everyone else thought it was sci-fiction,or just plain crazy.
Call it a BH worm hole. I believe its brain waves passing through a
membrane Treb is more than a ghost. More than a God. Treb is real
TreBert
>
Just because you want something to be true, does not make it so,
Herbert. Mas often tells me that is the case. -Sam
>
... ahahahaha... But Sam, you routinely post/cite the tripe from
Kaku and other TOE/String theorists. So, why do you belittle
my old pal G=EMC^2 Hebe Herbie, who says the same thing
what your wormhole and Einstein Dingleberry role models do?
>
Face the fact, Sam, in physics, once you go past measuring and
comparing an event to/with a will fully chosen standard unit, it's
a free-for-all. Reason: a not at all understood EM/induction
mechanism takes over in the brain and it conjures up all kinds
shit and make reality out to be a very personal experience, that
is different from individual to individual.
You, Sam, apparently have problems with that but Max Planck
did not and ca. 1894 he said :
|||| "Experiments are the only means of knowledge
|||| at our disposal. The rest is poetry& imagination."
Take care & thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahanson
alie...@gmail.com
Individual universes aren't individual until they can be
distinguished. You know, a universe has a situation that can go one of
two ways; in one something goes this -> way, and in another it goes <-
that way. MWI says both happen, and there are two daughter universes
that can be distinguished by the difference in the outcome of the
initial two-way event, and all subsequent events. Since QM runs
equally well both "forward" and "backward" in time, universes can also
become indistinguishable, meaning they merge into one. Simplest case,
whatever it was that could go two ways, each resultant state can also
go back to the original state, merging the daughters into one. A grain
of sand on a beach might fall into two identical-energy but different-
locations, creating two universes, then each new daughter grain might
fall back where they were. If nothing much else changed, two universes
become one again. If MWI is even approximately correct it must happen
constantly.
The two daughter universes should be entangled, and us observing the
one we live in (whichever outcome we do observe, that is) reifies the
other. Seems to me a variation of quantum eraser experiment ought to
give us some kind of observable.
Each daughter situation can be randomized via the application of
sufficient violence, frinst. That is to say the two affected volumes
in both universes are so completely randomized they can not be
distinguished. The more stuff gets into different states in each
universe the less likely it is, modulo the thoroughness of the
potentially randomizing force.
Also, the randomizing should take place before distinguishing light
signals get very far from the initial distinguishing event.
Just think how many locally distinguishable histories get randomized
by supernovae.
Mark L. Fergerson
Joe Snodgrass
If you claim to know how everything works, prove it. Write down the
time dependent solution to Schroedinger's Equation for a particle in a
quadratic potential well.
Hurry up. The clock is ticking.
Kevin
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> The Starmaker
I knew this stripper who would have been better off marrying her
cousin... In a parallel universe, that is exactly what she did and
therefore I never would have made her acquaintance.
The Starmaker
You got it backwards...
it is Earth that is the Greastest Show on Earth, not God.
In show business, ....we wish to be..behind the scenes...behind the curtain.
God is behind the curtain, ...at the controls..
if you try to pull back the curtian...
he might lose his temper.
Now, go on with the show..
pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
Hey, I'm doing the best I can! It's the 'scientific community' right
here who are the
cause of the problems in this world...
Instead of helping people...survive.. in 'not so far places'..
they are stealing the children of tomorrow to chase...rainbows and
parallel universes.
This kid was put on this planet for one reason only...to help people
survive in 'not so far places'.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/
Instead, the 'scientific community..mafia' kidnapped him to
chase..rainbows 'in far away places'.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> On Apr 14, 11:04 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
> >
> > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E...
> >
> > But where are those other people today?
> >
> > Where is that parallel universe?
> >
> > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
> >
> > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
> >
> > The Starmaker
>
> Space has many dimensions. If you cannot perceive them you are an
> idiot.
> Space and time are interchangeable. If you cannot imagine it, then you
> are an idiot.
Have you considered teaching as a proffession? Kids would love you!
The Starmaker
Joe Snodgrass
> In article <ab75199f-b330-4166-a525-1ef6b2cff...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
> > DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
> > science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law
> > of science with which it is in contradiction?
>
> > Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to
> > recall the name of something that they teach in sixth grade
> > chemistry, but be careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>
> What are you talking about?
You dumb fuck. The many worlds **HYPOTHESIS** contradicts one very
obvious and well known law of physics, which we all learn in sixth
grade chemistry. My post is a challenge to name the law that
contradicts it. Jeezus you're fucking stupid.
Joe Snodgrass
He could pass out doobies in class.
Wayne Throop
: The many worlds **HYPOTHESIS** contradicts one very obvious and well
: known law of physics, which we all learn in sixth grade chemistry.
Of course it doesn't. Energy is frame-relative, and relative to any
frame, in the many worlds interpretation, energy is conserved.
The fact that if you consider a bunch of unrelated frames you can
add apples to bicycles and get things not to conserve is of
no significance, just like it's of no significance to add energy
values from differing frames in Newtonian physics.
Not that I find the many worlds interpretation all that compelling.
It isn't, really. But that particular criticism of it is vacuous.
herbert glazier
Sam ( 96% of the universe is missing. ) We can't find it. That makes
the universe impossible TreBert
herbert glazier
Its the spacetime that an electron absorbs a photon and jumps to a
higher level with more energy. These jumps were first postulated by
Bohr. It all in reality comes from QM that elewctrons are both
particle and wave.That Schrodingers has these waves evolving in
time,and he had an equation on this(Schrodingers wave functions
TreBert
William December Starr
Joe Snodgrass <joe....@yahoo.com> said:
>>> Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
>>> DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
>>> science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law
>>> of science with which it is in contradiction?
>>>
>>> Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to
>>> recall the name of something that they teach in sixth grade
>>> chemistry, but be careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> You dumb fuck. The many worlds **HYPOTHESIS** contradicts
> one very obvious and well known law of physics, which we all
> learn in sixth grade chemistry. My post is a challenge to
> name the law that contradicts it. Jeezus you're fucking
> stupid.
I'm trying to get you say what you mean, rather than dancing
around it, so that the conversation can proceed.
(Okay, maybe that is stupid.)
-- wds
Joe Snodgrass
> In article <4ceccf01-18e6-43b1-94b0-9a60fe591...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
If you couldn't extract my meaning from what I posted, I would say
that you have not been properly educated in scientific fundamentals.
Before trying to make sense of something complicated like Everett's
theory, you need to understand freshman physics. If you don't have
calculus, you need to look at that, too, because you can't do real
physics without it. Although there are plenty of losers who claim
that they can.
This whole think makes me angry at Bryce Dewitt. The guy was
supposedly such a great thinker within his specialty, yet his
popularization of Everett's dishonest theory, which is completely
unfalsifiable, is a MAJOR BLEMISH ON HIS CAREER. It makes me wonder
if something else I found that was important in one of his papers is
also wrong. He's dead now, so nobody can ask him.
herbert glazier
People have trouble thinking about the unknown. They use Gods because
we do not have TOE. I think out of the box,and I'm hated for it. Sam
bad mouth's me for my theories. Tells me my pictures that stop light
and are a million times faster than done with a strobe light are
fakes. With Sam if its not in Google its a lie. Sam is a non-thinker.
Sam is a parrot brain. So sad,so true TreBert
Joseph Nebus
>On Apr 17, 12:25=A0am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> In article <4ceccf01-18e6-43b1-94b0-9a60fe591...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> I'm trying to get you say what you mean, rather than dancing
>> around it, so that the conversation can proceed.
>>
>> (Okay, maybe that is stupid.)
>If you couldn't extract my meaning from what I posted, I would say
>that you have not been properly educated in scientific fundamentals.
>Before trying to make sense of something complicated like Everett's
>theory, you need to understand freshman physics. If you don't have
>calculus, you need to look at that, too, because you can't do real
>physics without it. Although there are plenty of losers who claim
>that they can.
And yet you still haven't been able to name the incredibly
obvious ``scientific fundamental'' which you think the many-worlds
hypothesis violates and which, apparently, you believe every
physicist or science popularizer who has not rejected the interpretation
fails to know about. It makes one wonder if you in fact know the
fundamental or the many-worlds interpretation.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD
> On Apr 17, 12:25 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <4ceccf01-18e6-43b1-94b0-9a60fe591...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > >>> Suppose it's really true. Suppose that Hugh Everett's (and Bryce
> > >>> DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
> > >>> science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law
> > >>> of science with which it is in contradiction?
>
> > >>> Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to
> > >>> recall the name of something that they teach in sixth grade
> > >>> chemistry, but be careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>
> > >> What are you talking about?
>
> > > You dumb fuck. The many worlds **HYPOTHESIS** contradicts
> > > one very obvious and well known law of physics, which we all
> > > learn in sixth grade chemistry. My post is a challenge to
> > > name the law that contradicts it. Jeezus you're fucking
> > > stupid.
>
> > I'm trying to get you say what you mean, rather than dancing
> > around it, so that the conversation can proceed.
>
> > (Okay, maybe that is stupid.)
>
> If you couldn't extract my meaning from what I posted, I would say
> that you have not been properly educated in scientific fundamentals.
Which fundamental are you referring to?
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 1:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
> > > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E...
>
> > > But where are those other people today?
>
> > > Where is that parallel universe?
>
> > > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> > > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> > > The Starmaker
>
> > It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
> > show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
> > had nothing to show us further since then.
>
> You got it backwards...
> it is Earth that is the Greastest Show on Earth, not God.
>
> In show business, ....we wish to be..behind the scenes...behind the curtain.
>
> God is behind the curtain, ...at the controls..
And what makes you think that some of what has been discovered
recently hasn't been part of what he wants to reveal to us now?
>
> if you try to pull back the curtian...
>
> he might lose his temper.
You're making a *presumption* that he doesn't want you to know about
his creation. Why?
Joe Snodgrass
> In <6b36671d-e09f-434b-8b08-0a34e6a14...@l6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >On Apr 17, 12:25=A0am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> In article <4ceccf01-18e6-43b1-94b0-9a60fe591...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> I'm trying to get you say what you mean, rather than dancing
> >> around it, so that the conversation can proceed.
>
> >> (Okay, maybe that is stupid.)
> >If you couldn't extract my meaning from what I posted, I would say
> >that you have not been properly educated in scientific fundamentals.
> >Before trying to make sense of something complicated like Everett's
> >theory, you need to understand freshman physics. If you don't have
> >calculus, you need to look at that, too, because you can't do real
> >physics without it. Although there are plenty of losers who claim
> >that they can.
>
> And yet you still haven't been able to name the incredibly
> obvious ``scientific fundamental'' which you think the many-worlds
> hypothesis violates and which, apparently, you believe every
> physicist or science popularizer who has not rejected the interpretation
> fails to know about. It makes one wonder if you in fact know the
> fundamental or the many-worlds interpretation.
I have not named it because I am making it into a challenge for you.
It is an inviolable scientific law, of a category known as a
conservation law, which we all learned in sixth grade chemistry. That
should be enough for the intelligent layman to figure it out, and the
rest is up to you.
I'm leaving it as a puzzle to solve, in the grand tradition of
science, which is really just the art of solving puzzles. When they
were children, the people who are scientists today were solving
puzzles from children's puzzle books. If you want to be in the same
category as them, start now. Solve the puzzle.
There are clues all over the damn place, and you don't even have to
leave this thread to find them.
David DeLaney
>On Apr 17, 1:26 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>> And yet you still haven't been able to name the incredibly
>> obvious ``scientific fundamental'' which you think the many-worlds
>> hypothesis violates and which, apparently, you believe every
>> physicist or science popularizer who has not rejected the interpretation
>> fails to know about. It makes one wonder if you in fact know the
>> fundamental or the many-worlds interpretation.
>
>I have not named it because I am making it into a challenge for you.
>It is an inviolable scientific law, of a category known as a
>conservation law, which we all learned in sixth grade chemistry. That
>should be enough for the intelligent layman to figure it out, and the
>rest is up to you.
He's talking about either conservation of mass, conservation of energy, or
conservation of mass-energy. He's apparently forgotten about conservarion
of linear and angular momentum, as well as of lepton number and baryon number.
And he's thinking "Whoah! We had one universe a moment ago, now we have two!
There must be twice the mass involved. Hey, it came from NOWHERE! THAT
VIOLATES CONSERVATION OF MASS!" (at this point he has to sit down for a moment
and let his breathing slow down again)
Which is, to put it bluntly, silly. The original universe was running at
a certain probability level (which, given that it's a whole universe, will
already be FAR FAR FAR less than 1, usually so small you'd need to use double-
exponential notation just to get near it). The portions of the amplitude flow
that it splits into which then decohere from each other conserve that amount
of probability... and the meaningful conservation law is "sum of
mass*probability". If you simply state it as "mass is conserved", that only
applies in a given universe; to state it comprehensively in many-worlds you
have to take into account the probability level of each piece of the
amplitude as well. And similarly for energy, momentum, and other measurables
that are, inside a single universe, conserved.
But no, Joe's decided that, instead, his giant brain must have picked up on
a really simple disproof of this theory that is both too small to write in
the margin and was entirely missed by every single physicist involved with
the theory, rather than listening to the clues we're liberally providing that
maybe he doesn't know as much about it as he thinks he does.
The Starmaker
>
> On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 14, 1:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
> >
> > > > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E...
> >
> > > > But where are those other people today?
> >
> > > > Where is that parallel universe?
> >
> > > > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
> >
> > > > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
> >
> > > > The Starmaker
> >
> > > It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
> > > show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
> > > had nothing to show us further since then.
> >
> > You got it backwards...
> > it is Earth that is the Greastest Show on Earth, not God.
> >
> > In show business, ....we wish to be..behind the scenes...behind the curtain.
> >
> > God is behind the curtain, ...at the controls..
>
> And what makes you think that some of what has been discovered
> recently hasn't been part of what he wants to reveal to us now?
What was discovered recently? Are you talking about Christoper Columbus discovered America?
>
> >
> > if you try to pull back the curtian...
> >
> > he might lose his temper.
>
> You're making a *presumption* that he doesn't want you to know about
> his creation. Why?
That will spoil the whole show! You want to know the ending of the movie...you're going to
have to sit through it kid.
You might not like what you'll see behind the curtain...
Show business isn't very pretty..
>
> >
> > Now, go on with the show..
> >
> > pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
> >
> > The Starmaker
This 'parallel universe' thing is just someone who wrote *numbers* on a window pane..
you cannot use mathematics to describe people..God is not in the numbers. He took himself out of
the equation before finished The First Star.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
Should have been a closed casket. But he could be alive in another...
The Starmaker
What country do they have 6th grade chemistry? I must have been cutting classes that day...
chemistry classes would be a complete waste of time and money on me.
Chemistry classes are for those kids that sit in the front of the class with those thick
eye glasses and distorted bodies they have...when are you people going to learn, you don't teach
chemistry to people who sit in the back of the class. That is for the front half, not the back.
It's like having to differnet schools in one class..
I rather learn how to sell pot.
The Starmaker
William December Starr
Joe Snodgrass <joe....@yahoo.com> said:
> nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
>> And yet you still haven't been able to name the incredibly
>> obvious ``scientific fundamental'' which you think the
>> many-worlds hypothesis violates and which, apparently, you
>> believe every physicist or science popularizer who has not
>> rejected the interpretation fails to know about. It makes
>> one wonder if you in fact know the fundamental or the
>> many-worlds interpretation.
>
> I have not named it because I am making it into a challenge
> for you.
Frankly, at this point it looks like you're not naming it just out
of some perverse "Nyah nyah nyah!" stubbornness. You certainly
aren't doing much to advance the art of reasoned discourse here.
-- wds
herbert glazier
> On Apr 15, 5:10 am, Post Card <news_re...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 2011-04-15 07:30, PD wrote:
>
> > > It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
> > > show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
> > > had nothing to show us further since then.
>
> > size can still believe in 2000 year old anthropocentric
> > legends grounded in the anthropomorphic mythology invented
> > by bronze age goat herders. Intellectual integrity of the
> > psychologically immature succumbs to ego soothing fantasy
> > when the egregious idiocy of patently absurd fantasy morphs
> > into belief. Rational honesty is defenseless in the face of
> > willful stupidity.
>
> Treb is proof that we have a parallel universe. There are more
> universes in the cosmos than flakes of snow in an endless storm. God I
> like saying that TreBert
If we did not have a twin universe that has positrons we would not
have a universe that we are in (electrons). Nature can only produce in
pairs. Treb's universe and ours are two sides to the same coin.
TreBert
herbert glazier
Universes like black holes have gravity. II have posted universes add
gravitation to the cosmos,and use that as the gravity that is missing.
TreBert
Will in New Haven
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
Well, fiction IS about making stuff up. Parallel universe theory can
be divided into how it is being studied in science and how it is used
in fiction. Of course, some SF relies on scientific theory for the
framework for its parallel universes but other SF probably doesn't,
because some of it PREDATES today's interest in parallel unverses.
PU theory has been explored because there seem to be difficulties in
cosmology which it could explain.
PU theory is used in SF because it can create a setting or settings
for an interesting story.
All of it whizzes right over your head and your response, is to hate
and belittle your betters, which is just about everybody.
--
Will in New Havn
PD
Oh dear. The coy layman.
As a word of caution, note that the "conservation of mass" that is
frequently taught in sixth grade chemistry is in fact not a
conservation law at all -- and in fact when you get to the latter
chapters in a chemistry textbook you discover this interesting point.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 1:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
> > > > > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E...
>
> > > > > But where are those other people today?
>
> > > > > Where is that parallel universe?
>
> > > > > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> > > > > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> > > > > The Starmaker
>
> > > > It's remarkable that some people think that if God had something to
> > > > show to people 2000 years ago, then he went ahead and did that and has
> > > > had nothing to show us further since then.
>
> > > You got it backwards...
> > > it is Earth that is the Greastest Show on Earth, not God.
>
> > > In show business, ....we wish to be..behind the scenes...behind the curtain.
>
> > > God is behind the curtain, ...at the controls..
>
> > And what makes you think that some of what has been discovered
> > recently hasn't been part of what he wants to reveal to us now?
>
> What was discovered recently? Are you talking about Christoper Columbus discovered America?
Oh, for example, the interesting aspects of quantum mechanics that
allowed for the design of the semiconductor electronics that you are
using to make posts to Usenet.
>
>
>
> > > if you try to pull back the curtian...
>
> > > he might lose his temper.
>
> > You're making a *presumption* that he doesn't want you to know about
> > his creation. Why?
>
> That will spoil the whole show! You want to know the ending of the movie...you're going to
> have to sit through it kid.
Well, that's your choice, I suppose. But it seems rather odd to be in
the audience of a storyteller and that when the storyteller gets to an
interesting place in the story, you blurt out, "Don't tell me! Don't
tell me! You'll ruin the surprise!"
How do you think God would have responded if Moses came upon the
burning bush and then turned on his heel, saying, "No, no, no, not
ready to meet you yet! Don't ruin the surprise! I'd rather find out
who you are later!"?
The Starmaker
>
> On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
> >
> > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E...
> >
> > But where are those other people today?
> >
> > Where is that parallel universe?
> >
> > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
> >
> > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
> Well, fiction IS about making stuff up. Parallel universe theory can
> be divided into how it is being studied in science and how it is used
> in fiction. Of course, some SF relies on scientific theory for the
> framework for its parallel universes but other SF probably doesn't,
> because some of it PREDATES today's interest in parallel unverses.
>
> PU theory has been explored because there seem to be difficulties in
> cosmology which it could explain.
The bible can explain your ....difficulties.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.
Do you have "difficulties" with that? Maybe I can help...
You first need to understand the word "In"
then the word "the"...
Once you understand the meaning of those two words...then learn
"beginning".
The Starmaker
Didn't Moses and John Nash have the same disease?
The Starmaker
Textbooks? Didn't I tell you guys to burn that junk?
I don't recall ever carrying 'textbooks' to skool....
there was something....'cruddy' about them..
look like it was written by...teachers.
And 'teachers' are 'crudding looking'.
PD
Stuttering? Not that I'm aware of.
Let me put it to you a different way.
You may personally believe that curiosity and human investigation is a
bad thing and should be discouraged. This is why you believe that
people with higher IQs, with their naturally elevated inquisitiveness,
are dangerous. You may believe that humans ought to stay low and be
more passive and cattle-like. You may believe that God would prefer it
if humans were cattle-like and submissive than the intelligent and
eagerly inquisitive creations that they are; I believe that God
actually created them to be the latter and not the former.
From this point, it's a choice. You can say, "As for me, I *choose* to
be submissive and stupid and incurious, like cattle, rather than what
God made me to be." But that's you. I personally think that's a sucky
choice.
The Starmaker
Paranoid schizophrenia, not stuttering. Moses was hearing ...voices.
PD
Yes, and when I answer the phone I hear voices too. Also when I turn
on the radio.
Oh, that's right, you think those technologies are work of the devil,
so that hearing voices from the phone and the radio are also signs of
paranoid schizophrenia.
Aha.
The Starmaker
I'm not talking about sound waves that travel...it travels in the air,
not inside moses head.
If you have paranoid schizophrenia, you don't give your telephone a
pill...
PD
You were there with Moses? No sound waves in the air?
The Starmaker
I didn't realize you were sooo religious...
maybe you don't understand the people
who wrote the bible...they are no different from the people
today.
The bible is just a 'story'...no different from a televsion script.
If you understand show business...and the people who run it..
they first steal someones idea for a script...
then they change it around to make it theirs...
The majority of TV scripts and movies are stolen ideas of others.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/13051757#13051757
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13050005/
The Bible...is a story based on an idea that they stole...Genesis 1.
Someone took Genesis 1 and 'expanded' on it. Genesis 2 is a remake of
Genesis 1. All the following chapters after Genesis 1 is just a made up story...
episodes.
A book today is just an idea expanded too 600 pages long.
The bible is a Hollywood production.
So why are you talking about...Moses? He's just a character in a book.
The Starmaker
Anybody with any commom sense and television script knowledge can see
Genesis 2 is a remake and writen by a fraud.
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/genesis01-03.html
herbert glazier
>
> The Bible...is a story based on an idea that they stole...Genesis 1.
>
> Someone took Genesis 1 and 'expanded' on it. Genesis 2 is a remake of
> Genesis 1. All the following chapters after Genesis 1 is just a made up story...
> episodes.
>
> A book today is just an idea expanded too 600 pages long.
>
> The bible is a Hollywood production.
>
> So why are you talking about...Moses? He's just a character in a book.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Anybody with any commom sense and television script knowledge can see
> Genesis 2 is a remake and writen by a fraud.http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/genesis01-03.html
It is possible other electron universes have visited our universe,and
planted the seeds of life. We are them Hmmm Not my theory,but some
high wit thinkers. Nature deals in large numbers such as there are
trillion,and trillions of atoms in your body. The kicker is there are
more universes than all the atoms in our galaxy . TreBert
Will in New Haven
I don't have any difficulties. You choose to believe a book written by
people who knew nothing a few thousand years ago because observing the
actual world is too hard. It's not my problem.
--
Will in New Haven
James Silverton
Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a physicist and priest from the Catholic
University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the "Big Bang"
theory of the origin of the universe. He called it his "hypothesis of
the primeval atom". Lemaitre told the Pope of the time not to use the
hypothesis as proof of the existence of God.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm "not"
not.jim....@verizon.net
Thomas Heger
> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> I know there was a TV show on it...a long time ago
>
>
> But where are those other people today?
>
>
> Where is that parallel universe?
>
- more or less - 'round the corner'.
If you alter the axis of time, the universe undergoes a specific change.
Space and time are altered, but also what we could see and what appears
as matter.
To any of such axis there exist a specific universe, that is special to
this timeline.
That is the view of -say- me and you into a different direction, where
we both inhabit different 'universes', because our view is pointing in
opposite direction.
If our view is parallel, our universes are the same.
herbert glazier
> Am 14.04.2011 20:04, schrieb The Starmaker:> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
> > I know there was a TV show on it...a long time ago
>
> > But where are those other people today?
>
> > Where is that parallel universe?
>
> Actually 'angle' would be more appropriate. I mean, these universes are
> - more or less - 'round the corner'.
>
> If you alter the axis of time, the universe undergoes a specific change.
> Space and time are altered, but also what we could see and what appears
> as matter.
>
> To any of such axis there exist a specific universe, that is special to
> this timeline.
>
> That is the view of -say- me and you into a different direction, where
> we both inhabit different 'universes', because our view is pointing in
> opposite direction.
>
> If our view is parallel, our universes are the same.
The parallel positive universe is a time laps away. Its anti-matter
that is why its important to have space between. My anti-self is
Treb. TreBert
The Starmaker
all you need is a piece of chalk..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpY3e0j41I#t=01m22s
The Starmaker
What do you think "primeval atom" means?
Definitions of primeval on the Web:
* aboriginal: having existed from 'the beginning'; in an earliest or original stage or state;
and if you don't know what an 'atom' is...you need to look it up.
The Big Bang is Cosmic Religion.
The Starmaker
pahgesmahlone
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Moses had the same disease as John Nash. No, a parallel universe
does not exist. Hope that helps.
PD
> > University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the "Big Bang"
> > theory of the origin of the universe. He called it his "hypothesis of
> > the primeval atom". Lemaitre told the Pope of the time not to use the
> > hypothesis as proof of the existence of God.
>
> What do you think "primeval atom" means?
It means what Lemaitre meant by it, which you can get by reading his
stuff.
A BAD idea is what you've done is to look up definitions on the web
and string them together.
In fact, that's a remarkably stupid approach.
The Starmaker
"meant"? Lemaitre didn't meant...he learned from others and then
he came out with an idea, based on...whatever people believed at the time.
For example: He believed an atom was "The smallest mediaeval unit of time". 'The beginning'...
Definitions of primeval on the Web:
* aboriginal: having existed from 'the beginning'; in an earliest or original stage or state;
"primeval atom" translates to: the beginning/primeval, the beggining/atom..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.
Look at a picture of Lemaitre and tell me he could have *meant* anything else:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/250px-Lemaitre.jpg
http://cosmology.net/images/LemaitreEinstein.jpg
The Big Bang is based on Genesis One...and you guys are just in denial.
It's not the first time 'Genesis 1' has been...*plagiarized*.
The Starmaker
PD
You must be clowning. You have to be.
>
> The Big Bang is based on Genesis One...and you guys are just in denial.
Oh, and you were the one that was chiding me for being soooooo
religious.
pahgesmahlone
What was your first clue?
The Starmaker
>
> >
> > The Big Bang is based on Genesis One...and you guys are just in denial.
>
> Oh, and you were the one that was chiding me for being soooooo
> religious.
I don't see anything in Genesis 1 that tranlates into a religion..
It's just a mixture of early cosmology and evolution..(in it's correct order of events).
I already said, Genesis 1 has been plagiarized..somebody stole it and turned it into a religion.
On the otherhand, if the word *God* is religious to you, then...God is not an invention of man...it
is included in the DNA instructions...it's in your blood. You don't really think people are that
smart enough to invent God, do you?
The Starmaker
PD
>
> > > The Big Bang is based on Genesis One...and you guys are just in denial.
>
> > Oh, and you were the one that was chiding me for being soooooo
> > religious.
>
> I don't see anything in Genesis 1 that tranlates into a religion..
Yes, ok, that ties it.
> It's just a mixture of early cosmology and evolution..(in it's correct order of events).
>
> I already said, Genesis 1 has been plagiarized..somebody stole it and turned it into a religion.
>
> On the otherhand, if the word *God* is religious to you, then...God is not an invention of man...it
> is included in the DNA instructions...it's in your blood. You don't really think people are that
> smart enough to invent God, do you?
In a bow.
The Starmaker
sez the professional clown...
pinky
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm the professional clown? I am? Me? Oh, okay.
The Starmaker
There must be someone you worship...some girl? Or maybe the Jerry Farrel of Cosmology, Michio Kaku? Whose your God?
pinky
>
> - Show quoted text -
Secular Humanist: Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance,
which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to
give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building
of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other
natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human
capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural
views of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
That pretty much sums it up.
The Starmaker
> >
> > > > > > The Big Bang is based on Genesis One...and you guys are just in denial.
> >
> > > > > Oh, and you were the one that was chiding me for being soooooo
> > > > > religious.
> >
> > > > I don't see anything in Genesis 1 that tranlates into a religion..
> >
> > > Yes, ok, that ties it.
> >
> > > > It's just a mixture of early cosmology and evolution..(in it's correct order of events).
> >
> > > > I already said, Genesis 1 has been plagiarized..somebody stole it and turned it into a religion.
> >
> > > > On the otherhand, if the word *God* is religious to you, then...God is not an invention of man...it
> > > > is included in the DNA instructions...it's in your blood. You don't really think people are that
> > > > smart enough to invent God, do you?
> >
> > > In a bow.
> >
> > There must be someone you worship...some girl? Or maybe the Jerry Farrel of Cosmology, Michio Kaku? Whose your God?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Secular Humanist: Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance,
> which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to
> give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building
> of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other
> natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human
> capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural
> views of reality.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
>
> That pretty much sums it up.
Oh, pulease..enough with this The Fountain Head talk...
pinky
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't see Ayn Rand on the list. But I do see Albert Einstein, Bill
Maher, Carl Sagan, Frank Zappa, Kurt Vonnegut, Issac Asimov, Gene
Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie....
herbert glazier
TREB TreBert
pinky
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's a TreBert, Herbert?
I think the point has been made that no actual belief in a particular
religion or supernatural being is necessary for science fiction.
The Starmaker
I don't see Pinky on the list..
The Starmaker
i don't know why these people in the 'scientific community' don't want to admit it, that they are
*all* trying to get 'closer' to God...to understand the mind of God. They want to ask Him, "How did you do that?"
"Come on, tell me pleaseeee God, how did you do it..I don't want to die without knowing how you did it."
And they die without knowing.
Because people like PD have hit a 'brick wall', ...and they have reached the end of the line.
The Starmaker
herbert glazier
> On Apr 15, 5:05 am, Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 12:36 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > > Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
> > > >DeWitt's) many worlds theory of quantum mechanics really is bad
> > > >science. Can you remember of the name of any known and proven law of
> > > >science with which it is in contradiction?
>
> > > >Think simple; think basic; think "conservation law." Try to recall
> > > >the name of something that they teach in sixth grade chemistry, but be
> > > >careful, because it's NOT a trick question.
>
> > > Note that everyone who says "Hey, conservation of mass-energy, you're
> > > creating new universes out of nothing at all!!1!" conveniently forgets
> > > that each "new" universe has a probability associated with it, and that
> > > all the probabilities across ALL the universes have to add up to 1. Period.
> > > So "new universe here with 50% probability of existing" has how much of the
> > > mass-energy of the universe it split off from? 50%, that's right. So when you
> > > add up over all the universes, you get: 100%.
>
> > > Honestly, this isn't rocket science. It's just "remember to take everything
> > > into account" science.
>
> > That's priceless. I'd like to see THAT get past a peer review. So
> > with the creation of every new universe, each pre-existing universe
> > gets more and more ghostly, until you have to count more zeroes to get
> > to the probability that it exists than there are hairs on everyone on
> > earth.
>
> Individual universes aren't individual until they can be
> distinguished. You know, a universe has a situation that can go one of
> two ways; in one something goes this -> way, and in another it goes <-
> that way. MWI says both happen, and there are two daughter universes
> that can be distinguished by the difference in the outcome of the
> initial two-way event, and all subsequent events. Since QM runs
> equally well both "forward" and "backward" in time, universes can also
> become indistinguishable, meaning they merge into one. Simplest case,
> whatever it was that could go two ways, each resultant state can also
> go back to the original state, merging the daughters into one. A grain
> of sand on a beach might fall into two identical-energy but different-
> locations, creating two universes, then each new daughter grain might
> fall back where they were. If nothing much else changed, two universes
> become one again. If MWI is even approximately correct it must happen
> constantly.
>
> The two daughter universes should be entangled, and us observing the
> one we live in (whichever outcome we do observe, that is) reifies the
> other. Seems to me a variation of quantum eraser experiment ought to
> give us some kind of observable.
>
> Each daughter situation can be randomized via the application of
> sufficient violence, frinst. That is to say the two affected volumes
> in both universes are so completely randomized they can not be
> distinguished. The more stuff gets into different states in each
> universe the less likely it is, modulo the thoroughness of the
> potentially randomizing force.
>
> Also, the randomizing should take place before distinguishing light
> signals get very far from the initial distinguishing event.
>
> Just think how many locally distinguishable histories get randomized
> by supernovae.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
QM has it being easier to go from universe to universe than going from
galaxy to galaxy. Go figure TheBert
herbert glazier
> On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>
>
> > But where are those other people today?
>
> > Where is that parallel universe?
>
> > Don't tell me you guys just made that up??
>
> > One of you guys taking Harvard LSD made that up.
>
>
> Nature creates in pairs. Universes too. It might never be proven,but
> its reality TreBert
Where is the 96% missing stuff of our universe? Science fiction is
needed always when you realize universes are impossible. TreBert
The Starmaker
It's in the dark, ..you just need to turn on the lights.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
What is this 'obsession' the scientific community have with...gods?
They name their rocket ships after gods...Apollo 13? Isn't Apollo a...a gods name?
I think the 'scientific community spend more time thinking about God than religious people do...they
might even be more...closer to God than everyone else.
I don't get it.
I wish they would stop saying "God does not exist" and then, they turn around and name everything after gods...
they practically named every boundry in space after some god...Where is the Jesus Christ Planet? Did they forget that one?
They're God is 'discovery'. All they talk about is...'new discoveries'. They even named a machine after it...
I think it's called...Discovery.
A bee living in Africa
flies to
America in 1491
did the bee first discovered America?
The Starmaker
pinky
>
> What is this 'obsession' the scientific community have with...gods?
>
> They name their rocket ships after gods...Apollo 13? Isn't Apollo a...a gods name?
>
> I think the 'scientific community spend more time thinking about God than religious people do...they
> might even be more...closer to God than everyone else.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> I wish they would stop saying "God does not exist" and then, they turn around and name everything after gods...
>
> they practically named every boundry in space after some god...Where is the Jesus Christ Planet? Did they forget that one?
So, basically, you're contending that the acknowledgement by science
of so-called gods proves the existence of those gods as once sentient?
>
> They're God is 'discovery'.
I like that.
All they talk about is...'new discoveries'. They even named a machine
after it...
>
> I think it's called...Discovery.
>
> A bee living in Africa
> flies to
> America in 1491
> did the bee first discovered America?
>
> The Starmaker- Hide quoted text -
herbert glazier
Gods are "fiction" Based on human fear. Based on Hocus Pocus Heaven
and hell two craZY HOUSES G=EMC^2 has "G" for gravity not for God.
Bibles used to brain wash children that go to church. TreBert
Ken from Chicago
"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
news:9193lu...@mid.individual.net...
> Am 14.04.2011 20:04, schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Parallel universe? Is that science fiction?
>>
>>
>> I know there was a TV show on it...a long time ago
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofZt6kxUP0&playnext=1&list=PL10CA3F4E21323800
>>
>>
>> But where are those other people today?
>>
>>
>> Where is that parallel universe?
>>
> Actually 'angle' would be more appropriate. I mean, these universes are -
> more or less - 'round the corner'.
>
> If you alter the axis of time, the universe undergoes a specific change.
> Space and time are altered, but also what we could see and what appears as
> matter.
>
> To any of such axis there exist a specific universe, that is special to
> this timeline.
>
> That is the view of -say- me and you into a different direction, where we
> both inhabit different 'universes', because our view is pointing in
> opposite direction.
>
> If our view is parallel, our universes are the same.
It's a matter of dimensionalities. Sentient dots in a one-dimensional
universe wound consider a plane to contain a parallel lines aka parallel
universes. Sentient shapes in a two-dimensional universe would consider cube
a cube to contain parallel planes aka parallel universes. Sentient volumes
in a three-dimensional universe would consider a hypercube containing
parallel solids aka parallel universes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Howard Brazee
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gods are "fiction" Based on human fear. Based on Hocus Pocus
I bet you could come up with a dozen other reasons that people believe
in gods.
--
"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
James Silverton
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:34:43 -0700 (PDT), herbert glazier
> <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gods are "fiction" Based on human fear. Based on Hocus Pocus
>
> I bet you could come up with a dozen other reasons that people believe
> in gods.
>
a longing that somehow, sometime, there will be justice.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm "not"
not.jim....@verizon.net
Richard Tobin
James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Some might say wishful thinking, but the concept of the Christian God is
>a longing that somehow, sometime, there will be justice.
He doesn't have a very good record. Just ask the first-born sons
of Egypt.
-- Richard
Howard Brazee
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Some might say wishful thinking, but the concept of the Christian God is
>a longing that somehow, sometime, there will be justice.
But it's a particular kind of justice.
Switching religions, we can all relate with the lyrics from _Fiddler
on the Roof_
We'll raise a glass and sip a drop of schnapps in honor of
the great good luck that favors you,
We know that when good fortune favors two such men, it
stands to reason, we deserve it too!
===================
When we don't seem to be rewarded for doing things right - while
others seem to be rewarded for doing things differently from us - it's
comforting to think we will be rewarded later.
pinky
And the Bible, perhaps, was the first work of sci-fiction, used as a
method of explaining natural phenomena in the absence of scientific
practice. Now when a bush burns, we assume arson or campfire, not god.
When the sea parts, it is usually a tsunami. It's like worshipping the
1956 edition of the encyclopedia. Outdated. Irrelevant.
herbert glazier
Bible has no humor. Bibles have no sex. Bible keeps brain washed
children in line. We are in a spacetime when praying to the Godfather
in USA for our daily bread has more reality than praying to hocus
pocus Gods TreBert
pinky
Right there. Huge disqualifier.
Don Stockbauer
I'm all for a parallel universe. We should be able to park in it
better.