You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[BackAgain]

Rigorous studies of the results from the COBE and JWST satellites have given lots of understanding to the nature of the universe. A mathematical model describes the behavior of phenomena. The only underlying assumption is that the universe and matter can actually be modeled by mathematics.

I don’t believe that’s the only underlying assumption.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually even just recoding this in C# (very comparable to Java) and leveraging Linq, could simplify the code a lot, you'd be able to use Parralel.ForEach for example. that could leverage multiple cores.

Write a simple parallel program using Parallel.ForEach - .NET

In this article, learn how to enable data parallelism in .NET. Write a Parallel.ForEach loop over any IEnumerable or IEnumerable data source.

learn.microsoft.com

FYI

Since each pixel is totally independent of neighboring pixels, parallelism would really speed things up. I'm sure Java optimization doesn't go as far as breaking up loops into individual threads.

 

[Wuwei]

I don’t believe that’s the only underlying assumption.

Of course the math must model experiments. In QED the math models experiments to one part per billion or trillion. That says alot about quantum mechanics.

 

[BackAgain]

When scientists discerned that the amount of matter calculated to exist in our universe didn’t correspond with various other assumptions, they posited a then new concept: dark matter. Then dark energy.

And while interesting, and possibly even a correct insight, it isn’t exactly established.

Every theory that then requires a new assumption to support it might be off or even wrong.

For instance, take this article:

Largest-ever computer simulation of the universe escalates cosmology dilemma

"I am at a loss."

www.space.com

Observing some problem with how matter got distributed through the cosmos led to a new theory. Right, wrong or something in between, we really don’t know. But the modeling had been predicated on what we thought we knew. So the discrepancy required some thinking beyond and above what we thought we knew about science. That is literally another appeal to the supernatural.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course the math must model experiments. In QED the math models experiments to one part per billion or trillion. That says alot about quantum mechanics.

Where do you get those figures? And in layman’s terms, what does it mean?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the rigorous scientific study which your theories postulate are non existent.

You are referring to empirical rigor. I believe we've already covered that ad nauseum. And i'm pretty sure we are all in agreement.

 

[BackAgain]

You are referring to empirical rigor. I believe we've already covered that ad nauseum. And i'm pretty sure we are all in agreement.

I was addressing what you had written.

Maybe you should consider being a bit more rigorous in striving for clarity.

Beyond that, we aren’t in agreement.

We since some areas of agreement.

I am not a cosmologist nor do I play one on tv. But I suspect you’re not, either.

Let me try it this way with you:

Do you believe that it is true — from our understanding of the laws of science and nature — that nothing which exists can have come into existence without having been created?

 

[Wuwei]

Where do you get those figures? And in layman’s terms, what does it mean?

See Wikipedia: Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me try it this way with you:

Nope, I don't play this game. Just make your own points. Nothing personal.