BS: KISS keep it simple

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:35 PM

Sez Nobel Prize winning genius'.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:28 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 - 09:14 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 - 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: 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 - 08:32 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 - 08:30 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 - 08:24 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:03 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: 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: 18 Jun 23 - 07:54 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gillymor
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 08:34 AM

The Simpsons had a black hole in their basement and pretty much everything got sucked into it as I recall, so I say yeah, go for it.
Jes kiddin', (sort of).

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 08:09 AM

There are 3 types of people in this world
Those who understand quantum computing

Those who do not understand quantum computing

And those who both simultaneously do and do not understand quantum computing

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 23 - 08:07 AM

WATCH CNN AT 8 PM SUNDAY!

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 23 - 06:32 PM

I will look into making acoustic black holes in the basement.
I have no idea how they work or what they do. How hard could it be.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 16 Jun 23 - 05:33 AM

Thanks, Donuel; that's reminded me .... many birds' feather colours are produced by interference effects rather than coloured chemicals. Peacocks come to mind. You can spot the ones that do this by the way the colour shimmers as you and/or the bird moves.

.... Which has reminded me of certain car colours, which change with the angle of view. The constabulary do not love the owners, as this effect confuses crime-scene reportage.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 23 - 02:23 AM

Hey, CDs and DVDs are rarer than schools nowadays :-)

I saw the double slot experiment but I wasn't sure if it changed because I was watching it...

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 07:40 PM

Some butterfly wings have a diffraction grating that produces colored patterns. A moire pattern can sometimes make a color.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 07:08 PM

Oil drop on vibrating water demonstrates how particle waves behave as they pass through a double slit in the lab. The beads of oil even show how pilot waves behave. Also in the lab you can produce the equivalent of a black hole using acoustics.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 05:45 PM

> What's a diffraction grating

A set of lines separated by not much: I once saw a piece of glass ruled with 3000 lines per inch diffract a beam of monochromatic light by thirty degrees or so, much to the teacher's surprise.

> and where did you find it?

If you can't get to a physics lab or a school, turn over a CD or DVD under white light, and look for the reflection with the rainbow pattern. The effect's wavelength-dependent.

.... Oh, and look up "double-slit experiment" for why I made the comment in the first place. We now return you to the KISS Principle.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 05:16 PM

What's a diffraction grating and where did you find it?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 04:57 PM

Is it just me, or do others find this diffraction grating?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 23 - 04:56 PM

Johnny two times always tells a joke twice.