Multiverse

[Wuwei]

smh. It's plagiarism. Frannie STOLE his post #166 from these people -- .https://www.quora.com/Is-dark-matter-just-a-negative-temperature-matter. String him up!

Frannie probably stole it directly from CERN. That's where I originally found it.
Dark matter | CERN
The CERN site has the same bold-faced titles that Frannie has. Quora doesn't.

However it is even more egregious that Quora stole it from CERN. They stole the Dark Matter section but not the Dark Energy section. Shame on Unnikrishnan Menon, the Quora author. He did not give credit to CERN either. String him up too.

.

 

[james bond]

smh. It's plagiarism. Frannie STOLE his post #166 from these people -- .https://www.quora.com/Is-dark-matter-just-a-negative-temperature-matter. String him up!

Frannie probably stole it directly from CERN. That's where I originally found it.
Dark matter | CERN
The CERN site has the same bold-faced titles that Frannie has. Quora doesn't.

However it is even more egregious that Quora stole it from CERN. They stole the Dark Matter section but not the Dark Energy section. Shame on Unnikrishnan Menon, the Quora author. He did not give credit to CERN either. String him up too.

.

Those people and Frannie were equally bad in my book. Will be looking at both with a more critical eye.

 

[Wuwei]

smh. It's plagiarism. Frannie STOLE his post #166 from these people -- .https://www.quora.com/Is-dark-matter-just-a-negative-temperature-matter. String him up!

Frannie probably stole it directly from CERN. That's where I originally found it.
Dark matter | CERN
The CERN site has the same bold-faced titles that Frannie has. Quora doesn't.

However it is even more egregious that Quora stole it from CERN. They stole the Dark Matter section but not the Dark Energy section. Shame on Unnikrishnan Menon, the Quora author. He did not give credit to CERN either. String him up too.

.

Those people and Frannie were equally bad in my book. Will be looking at both with a more critical eye.

My reasoning is that people that plagiarize in this site is par for the course because forums like this have lots of deplorables. Quora is much more reputable with many with PhD's, and more serious posters with no wisecracks or pointless jokes.

.

 

[Frannie]

smh. It's plagiarism. Frannie STOLE his post #166 from these people -- .https://www.quora.com/Is-dark-matter-just-a-negative-temperature-matter. String him up!

Frannie probably stole it directly from CERN. That's where I originally found it.
Dark matter | CERN
The CERN site has the same bold-faced titles that Frannie has. Quora doesn't.

However it is even more egregious that Quora stole it from CERN. They stole the Dark Matter section but not the Dark Energy section. Shame on Unnikrishnan Menon, the Quora author. He did not give credit to CERN either. String him up too.

.

Those people and Frannie were equally bad in my book. Will be looking at both with a more critical eye.

My reasoning is that people that plagiarize in this site is par for the course because forums like this have lots of deplorables. Quora is much more reputable with many with PhD's, and more serious posters with no wisecracks or pointless jokes.

.

There is no PhD that has any more input on multiverses than the supermarket checker

You need to grow up, or reexamine reality

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no PhD that has any more input on multiverses than the supermarket checker

Stupid and wrong, of course.

In what they rest of us call reality, phDs are working on testing for the multiverse:

Stephen Hawking’s final paper is an astounding farewell

 

[Frannie]

There is no PhD that has any more input on multiverses than the supermarket checker

Stupid and wrong, of course.

In what they rest of us call reality, phDs are working on testing for the multiverse:

Stephen Hawking’s final paper is an astounding farewell

So how does one test for a computer simulated multiverse in the Turner show
How can an equation proving something that can not be tested or even be proved to exist be taken seriously?
Hawking was a laughable fuckup by the end of his life
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career -

The cosmologist Stephen Hawking has described the biggest blunder of his scientific career – his early belief that everything swallowed up by a black hole must be lost forever.

Professor Hawking said that there is one thing that does in fact escape from black holes – radiation. He has previously said that his discovery of what is now known as Hawking radiation was one of his proudest achievements.


In a lecture at a hospital in Los Angeles that has pioneered research into stem-cell treatments for degenerative diseases – including his own condition of motor neuron disease – Professor Hawking described the blunder that had initially blinded him to one of his greatest insights into the Universe.

Hawking made krap nothing more

 

[Frannie]

smh. It's plagiarism. Frannie STOLE his post #166 from these people -- .https://www.quora.com/Is-dark-matter-just-a-negative-temperature-matter. String him up!

Frannie probably stole it directly from CERN. That's where I originally found it.
Dark matter | CERN
The CERN site has the same bold-faced titles that Frannie has. Quora doesn't.

However it is even more egregious that Quora stole it from CERN. They stole the Dark Matter section but not the Dark Energy section. Shame on Unnikrishnan Menon, the Quora author. He did not give credit to CERN either. String him up too.

.

You can't steal make believe info, and if you do no one cares, except the little kids believing in multiverses.

So you can prove a multiverse, without knowing anything about the universe that you are in

Describe this multiverse

Then take your meds

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So how does one test for a computer simulated multiverse in the Turner show

So, lets review:

You refuse to read anything on thia topic and onow leas than nothing about it. You ask how it caj be tested, indicating that you dont know how.

Then, in the next breath, you claim to know with certainty it cannot be tested.

Yep, youre a religious nutball.

 

[Frannie]

So how does one test for a computer simulated multiverse in the Turner show

So, lets review:

You refuse to read anything on thia topic and onow leas than nothing about it. You ask how it caj be tested, indicating that you dont know how.

Then, in the next breath, you claim to know with certainty it cannot be tested.

Yep, youre a religious nutball.

Dude everything in the multiverse topic is nonsense...…………………..

The multiverse was created because idiots think they can't find 85 percent of the universe, they are idiots for believing that they know how much their should be in the first place.

The multiverse has nothing to do with religion, just astronomers babbling that everything is fake because they can't figure it out

You watch CNN right

 

[james bond]

My reasoning is that people that plagiarize in this site is par for the course because forums like this have lots of deplorables. Quora is much more reputable with many with PhD's, and more serious posters with no wisecracks or pointless jokes.

Uh.. no. It's what's inside a person's heart that makes the difference. I don't think whether a person is reputable is based on a PhD and whether one posts on Quora or someone who you think is a deplorable that posts on USMB. Go out and actually get to know people, open up when you can, and you'll find who your real friends are. I don't disagree with your view of the two websites though.

 

[Frannie]

My reasoning is that people that plagiarize in this site is par for the course because forums like this have lots of deplorables. Quora is much more reputable with many with PhD's, and more serious posters with no wisecracks or pointless jokes.

Uh.. no. It's what's inside a person's heart that makes the difference. I don't think whether a person is reputable is based on a PhD and whether one posts on Quora or someone who you think is a deplorable that posts on USMB. Go out and actually get to know people, open up when you can, and you'll find who your real friends are. I don't disagree with your view of the two websites though.

Again there is no multiverse, all info on this topic from wherever it comes is equal...…………..as it's all nonsense

 

[james bond]

Stupid and wrong, of course.

In what they rest of us call reality, phDs are working on testing for the multiverse:

Stephen Hawking’s final paper is an astounding farewell

Finally, you post something worth reading.

"Their paper asserts that evidence for multiple universes should be contained in background radiation from the beginning of time and that it should be measurable using the pair’s new equations once a deep-space probe has made certain measurements."

"“The intriguing idea in Hawking’s paper is that the multiverse left its imprint on the background radiation permeating our universe and we could measure it with a detector on a spaceship,” Carlos Frenck of Durham University tells The Times. “These ideas offer the breathtaking prospect of finding evidence for the existence of other universes. This would profoundly change our perception of our place in the cosmos.” He adds that there would be only one logical name for such a probe: “The Hawking Cosmic Probe, of course.”

One of the points creation scientists make is that there was a beginning. We cannot go back to the eternal universe model and the other models have fallen by the wayside. The theorem that Hawking proposes is similar to other theorems regarding the big bang and inflation, i.e. we have a beginning and there is inflationary expansion of space and time. Where we disagree are the ages of the universe and Earth.

Hawking's theorem also proposes a multiverse from the expansion and radiation.

Now, before we get to finding other universes, we still have to validate the big bang, and so far the evidence is against it. What we find is the CMB which supports the BB theory. However, the background radiation coming to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe and hitting the nearby galaxies should cast shadows. The x-ray radiation should cast shadows of the galaxies and they aren't. I think we agree on the galactic redshift as a Doppler shift and it is moving away from us per Hubble and Lemaitre.

I won't get into the other arguments against, since this is about the big bang and multiverses. I will wait until we find more evidence in the early universe probe.

 

[james bond]

Again there is no multiverse, all info on this topic from wherever it comes is equal...…………..as it's all nonsense

You have debunk their theories though. I learned big bang from Hawking and the CMB supports it. There was a beginning and an expansion. The two big assumptions they make about their big bang theory is the Copernican Principle, i.e. there is nothing special about the Earht's place in the universe, and an unbounded universe, i.e. the universe has no center. What Hawking is proposing is that during this cosmic inflationary expansion other universes were formed. The only thing I can debunk from the CMB radiation is in my post #192.

 

[Frannie]

Again there is no multiverse, all info on this topic from wherever it comes is equal...…………..as it's all nonsense

You have debunk their theories though. I learned big bang from Hawking and the CMB supports it. There was a beginning and an expansion. The two big assumptions they make about their big bang theory is the Copernican Principle, i.e. there is nothing special about the Earht's place in the universe, and an unbounded universe, i.e. the universe has no center. What Hawking is proposing is that during this cosmic inflationary expansion other universes were formed. The only thing I can debunk from the CMB radiation is in my post #192.

Debunking something that is not there but claimed to be there, but no one can see it is impossible. That is like me asking you to debunk what is in my pocket.

Only facts can be debunked.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dude everything in the multiverse topic is nonsense...…………………..

Yes, you said that already.
But then, every time you talk about it,you say hilariously wrong things. So your opinion on it just isn't worth squat.

 

[Wuwei]

There is no PhD that has any more input on multiverses than the supermarket checker

You need to grow up, or reexamine reality

Chill out. Take it up with Dalia she posted the OP on multiverses. I never said I supported the multiverse hypothesis. The major thing I supported here is an interminable argument about the definition of the Doppler effect.

.

 

[Frannie]

There is no PhD that has any more input on multiverses than the supermarket checker

You need to grow up, or reexamine reality

Chill out. Take it up with Dalia she posted the OP on multiverses. I never said I supported the multiverse hypothesis. The major thing I supported here is an interminable argument about the definition of the Doppler effect.

.

There is no evidence of any more than one universe and as for the doppler effect it is a wave progression and if looking to the stars there is no fundamental understanding of what the intensity of the source was, only what it is at this time which is billions of years from the time the wave was emitted, requiring even more time to observe a progression. Simplified the doppler effect can not be observed in outer space the way it is observed in near space on earth.

That said the geniuses who claim that 85 percent of the universe is missing so they created computer simulated multiverse Turner shows have to have something to pretend about

 

[Wuwei]

There is no evidence of any more than one universe and as for the doppler effect it is a wave progression and if looking to the stars there is no fundamental understanding of what the intensity of the source was, only what it is at this time which is billions of years from the time the wave was emitted, requiring even more time to observe a progression. Simplified the doppler effect can not be observed in outer space the way it is observed in near space on earth.

That said the geniuses who claim that 85 percent of the universe is missing so they created computer simulated multiverse Turner shows have to have something to pretend about

Broken record

 

[Frannie]

There is no evidence of any more than one universe and as for the doppler effect it is a wave progression and if looking to the stars there is no fundamental understanding of what the intensity of the source was, only what it is at this time which is billions of years from the time the wave was emitted, requiring even more time to observe a progression. Simplified the doppler effect can not be observed in outer space the way it is observed in near space on earth.

That said the geniuses who claim that 85 percent of the universe is missing so they created computer simulated multiverse Turner shows have to have something to pretend about

Broken record

Correct as there s no new news, you may want there to be, but there just isn't

No computer simulations
No multiverse
No doppler effect from billions of years ago

 

[ViewFromAbove]

The multiverse, also known as a maniverse, megaverse, metaverse, omniverse, or meta-universe, is a hypothetical group of multiple universes. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternate universes.

So, that could explain the big bang? because the big Bang came from somewhere our universe would have been created like the other universes?

What do you think? Give your opinion.

Brian Greene: Welcome to the Multiverse

Of course, we’ll never know if our hypothesized big bang singularity came from another “universe”, but that idea certainly seems logical.