BS: KISS keep it simple

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 09:33 AM

> .... 3 types of people ....

I think it's slightly worse than that, DtG, but I can't for the life of me find (quickly) who it was who said that, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't. Corrections invited, and I'll integrate them over all worlds .... I think.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 09:53 AM

There are 10 types of people

Those who can work in binary and those who can't

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 10:00 AM

Even those who suspect Quantum Theory is incomplete/wrong do not understand it. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Quantum field philosophy”

I don't know what a Whore Ratio is.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 10:07 AM

Despite that... QT is correct to one part in a billion.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 10:25 AM

I'll see you that joke, DtG, and raise you "All the world's an analogue stage, and computers only have bit parts".

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 10:34 AM

I went into the jewellers to buy a watch.

"Analogue?" The assistant asked.

"No, just a watch."

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 04:35 PM

What goes "Pieces of seven, pieces of seven"?

Parity failure

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 Jun 23 - 04:02 AM

Oooh, good'n, DtG, but that's a bit niche.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jun 23 - 07:54 AM

Zen Crossword Puzzle; 1. down - nothing    1. across - nothing

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 06:54 AM

Budhist goes up to a hot dog seller

"Make me one with everything"

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 07:03 AM

Supermassive black holes are so huge they do not have time to evolve in our universe so they are theorized that they are an artifact that comes from BEFORE our big bang.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 07:24 AM

You can't have "before the Big Bang."

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 07:29 AM

Study the work of Dr. Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner.
The big bang was a quantum event, not a collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 07:42 AM

A supermassive black hole can be as big as the Milky Way. Imagine the density and the repulsive dark energy. This could be an explanation for the inflation of space.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 07:58 AM

"Study the work of Dr. Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner."

Well we can all appeal to authority (a well-known logical fallacy), so I'll do the same. Study the work of Stephen Hawking, who regarded the concept of "before" with regard to the Big Bang as meaningless.

Any more for any more?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:02 AM

The cyclic nature of our universe is not a testable experiment but is a rational possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:24 AM

Stephen Hawking was interested in the cyclic universe theory, which proposes that the universe goes through an infinite series of cycles, each beginning with a Big Bang and ending with a Big Crunch which we now know ends in all black holes. However, he did not explicitly endorse the theory, as there is currently no direct observational evidence to support it.

In his final book "Brief Answers to the Big Questions," published posthumously in 2018, Hawking wrote about the cyclic universe theory and stated that it was a possibility worth exploring. He noted that the theory could potentially explain some of the mysteries of our universe, such as the uniformity of cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of light elements. However, he also acknowledged that the theory faced significant challenges, such as the problem of entropy increase from one cycle to the next.

Overall, while Hawking did not fully endorse the theory it was worth exploring. This is far from the claim he found it meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:30 AM

OK, calm down, folks: much depends on one's weapon mathematical model of choice when dealing with the initial singularity (mis)called the Big Bang. Some recent models say there was a *before*, and others say nay; but once you extrapolate as far as the singularity, all bets is off.

There's also a common misconception that the Universe is expanding; this caught out some astrophysicists to begin with, as red shift looks uncommonly like Doppler shift. The way I had the effect explained to me is that space itself is expanding, and dragging the Universe with it.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:32 AM

Ergo, supermassive black holes could be the direct observational evidence we were looking for. That which is impossible deserves an explanation and the cyclic universe is it.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:42 AM

The cyclic Universe is *one* explanation. We await testable predictions; but I am willing to admit that I'm a bear of very little brane.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 08:57 AM

I think another brane is where virtual particles come from. Another brane might even be the domain of dark matter and where gravity is at its greatest effect. At least I try to think for myself.

I do not think the grat attractor is evidence of an intruding brane.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 09:14 AM

Speaking of little 'brains', mine is tiny. My hat size is only found in children's sizes. Size has its place but so does activity.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 09:28 AM

Speaking of size the Universe is finite.

Due to the finite speed of light, and the finite age of the Universe, only a portion of it is observable. When people talk about "the size of the Universe", "the number of stars in the Universe", etc., they usually refer to the observable Universe, i.e. the sphere in which we are centered, and which has a radius given by the distance light has been able to travel in the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. Note that since the Universe is expanding, this radius is more than 13.8 billion light-years. In fact it's probably 46.3 billion light-years.

Observations indicate that, on large scales (i.e. above roughly half a billion light-years), the Universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in all directions). Assuming that this is indeed true is known as the cosmological principle. If the rest of the Universe follows this principle, then there are three possible overall "versions" of universes that we can live in. We call these versions "flat", "closed", and "open". Whereas a globally closed universe would have a finite extent, globally flat or open universes must be infinitely large.

The observable Universe is, within measuring uncertainties but to a very high precision, flat. Hence, we might think that the whole Universe is, in fact, infinite. But sort of like standing in a large forest with limited visibility doesn't tell you whether the forest is just larger than you can see, or if it's infinitely large, we can't with our current theories and observations know whether the Universe is finite or infinite.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 09:34 AM

If the Universe was a bra it would be bigger than an H cup.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 09:45 AM

As you can see I can not visualize what a flat universe means, but it would give hope to the holographic crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 09:54 AM

“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”

It would be good if you could refrain from extrapolating extra and unwarranted meaning from the very simple statement I made.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 10:06 AM

I'd like to explain what happened before the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, there's no time.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Jun 23 - 10:27 AM

Calling the Universe "flat" is a statement about its geometry: it states that the curvature of space is zero, but says nothing about its topology. For more information, see the zero-curvature subsection of the Wikipedia page about the shape of the Universe (which looks reasonably accurate to me, despite the warning notices); the page offers ways to visualise the different geometries. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 07:44 AM

Dave the Gnome has been more clever than usual. I had too much coffee yesterday. Time curvature is flat. Decades some thought a straight line could eventually come back on itself. The path of light is more like playing Plinko.

There has to be a state prior to the big bang. The realm was dark with fading black holes after trillions of years to the millionth power (a long time) The realm was a homogenous empty quantum realm undergoing entropy to the point where size has no meaning. An energy potential still existed in this emptiness on the cusp of an entropic state change. A quantum rip occurred sending a change throughout the space in a very sudden state change.
The initial expansion without a fully formed measure of time would appear faster than light in a space we call inflation. Relative to our viewpoint inflation looks impossible. But we are in a future with a different quality of spacetime.

This is a very different idea from the big crunch. It is more like a big rip.

The questions regarding an entropic quantum state change involves a lower energy state universe OR NOT. Perhaps the forming new universe is the same or different. This is the quandary Hawking had.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 09:24 AM

As the dark quantum realm emptied into our new universe I can see how objects like super massive black holes could pass on through the state change whole. Many of these early black holes are seen as quasars today. Born huge and whole these immense black holes are definitely not stellar black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 09:41 AM

"There has to be a state prior to the big bang."

Sez you.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 04:35 PM

Sez Nobel Prize winning genius'.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 04:54 PM

Whatever was before the big bang is beyond the ken of top scientists, let alone us enthusiastic amateurs. It may be fun to speculate but stop pretending you know, Don.

I fully appreciate that you find such speculation fun but putting across as fact only highlights your lack of understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 05:09 PM

The subject is less impactful than cheese mold in our daily lives but my exploring ideas is not within your grasp, authority or whim. There might be a whiff of pretending in the arena of speculation but so what. I suggest you sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 05:37 PM

Your exploring ideas, alas, often comes across as rather delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 02:32 AM

Yes Don. Lots of your posts are beyond anyone's grasp. Which is why I asked you to clarify some and, to date, that is something that you have failed to do. I have no problem at all with that but as you have the right to post your speculations online, we have the right to point out that they are not facts. Something else that you often fail to do.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:43 AM

I clarify to the point of my own understanding. I am not responsible for people who have far less and have much to learn. To be fair there are things you need to learn, to learn the next thing be it magnetism or the standard model.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 08:02 AM

I must say that really takes the biscuit. You cannot clarify things for other people and then say we have much to learn. With no hint of irony. I love it, Don. Keep digging :-)

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 08:04 AM

The arrogance of the ignorant knows no bounds, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:16 AM

Mu.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 11:09 AM

Micron? Greek letter? Musicians' Union? The hated Manchester United, aka Manure?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 01:42 PM

If you don't have the basics it is hard to skip immediately to advanced. that's not arrogance but it is a hard fact.

I started with flat land. Issac Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, and then Roger Penrose. PBS Youtube has an excellent series on Cosmology. The biggest discovery will probably be how much we don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 02:16 PM

Between each big name are dozens or hundreds of other people with major contributions. Some of the contributions come from disciplined hard work for years and some may come from a sudden dream.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:13 PM

Don. I already understand how much I don't know and as I get older I realise that there are more and more gaps in my knowledge. I do know what I am good at though and two of the things are figuring out solutions for high availability business and understanding what people want. I am very innovative yet practical in my approach to complex issues and people trust me. I made a good living because of this. I have other skills and virtues of course but modesty prevents me from blowing my own trumpet :-) I do understand people though and do know bullshit when I see it.

I am interested in theoretical physics only as a pastime. Much like music. I get pleasure out of both but I am too long in the tooth to start getting a degree in either. I genuinely thought that you may be able to put an interesting perspective on things. I was wrong. It is a waste of time asking you to explain anything as you do not have the interpersonal skills to do so online. You may know the subject in your own mind but without the ability to pass it on to anyone else it is mental masturbation. Not something we all want to watch you do.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 06:05 AM

You deserve to blow your horn. People like me don't make a living selling ideas no matter how prolific they are. The examples on educational youtube seminars are your best bet. However emailing as many personal attacks as you and Steve have done here won't put you in good standing with the teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 06:37 AM

eye candy from the Webb

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 06:54 AM

Question for you Donuel .......... do you sing or play an instrument?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 02:46 PM

I am a classically trained cellist. Mudcat led to mandolin, tenor uke and autoharp. I can't do guitar picking but I have picked up some basic luthier skills.
Steve is an abusive bomb thrower possibly from being bullied.
The problem is he is not good at it. He ends up throwing gasoline on a pile of unlit matches. His words are more autobiographical than a single truth about me.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 03:20 PM

I consider myself taught by 12,000 clients. People are not always rational when they are suffering. It is for this reason that I still have empathy for Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 03:47 PM

You certainly consider yourself an awful lot, that's for sure. By the way, I know some "classically-trained" musicians who have no musical soul whatsoever. It's not an achievement. It's what someone did to you.