A CRITIC AT LARGE IN THE MULTIVERSE

A Critic at Large in the Multiverse has 4 ratings and 0 reviews. Science Fiction in the Real World revisited an original collection a new decade's.
Table of contents

I prefer "Plan of Action" As far as insults go, not sure what you are trying to say It isn't a piccy I can look at. You are just inferring its existence. It could be magic electrickery dust. It's that smug feeling the brush gets knowing no one is dafter; an insult to the brush if anyone can be dafter.

Albert Einstein got writing theories down to such a fine art his thought experiments are difficult to surpass, it doesn't mean there's any truth in them, that's where Albert's skill lay, he made them believable. Yes, this is the logic created by the understanding of the structure of the universe and the formation of matter from Aether. This Aether that I am talking about, he is in close connection with the activity of the Spiritual Entity SEU , none of you is aware of it, because you neither respect nor can understand it. If I gave a detailed explanation of this, then I would disenfranchise many of the Nobel Prizes that were obtained on the basis of fictional theories that delude civilization.

An example of how magnetism occurs: A "liquid" aggregate state free gluons is formed from Aether. These gluons are the energy state of matter and they form neutrons. This is my copyright.


  • Life in the Fast Lane: Two Tom Cats Strike it Lucky!.
  • The Pirates of Penzance - Act II, No. 19: Away, away - Vocal Score.
  • Critics At Large : Constellations: Love in the Multiverse?

Remember, there is no magnetism without a neutron. Every chemical element, which has more neutrons than protons, is magnetic! E, this explanation is not for this level of discussion, as there are several Nobel Prizes. Too bad that modern people are sorta separated from reality and practical experience, which Thompson, founder of electron routinely had.

The electron beam inside the vacuum bulb bounces around walls of vessel Errm, I think this has gone over your head a bit. I am asking Benni for observational evidence of electrons, as that, by his own words, is his test to decide if things are actually real. He thinks neutron stars aren't real, because he can't see a picture of one. We can detect GWs from them, Hubble has actually imaged one.

We can detect their presence in other ways, at various wavelengths. We can see the EM afterglow, and subsequent r-process nucleosynthesis from the merger of two of them. All of this fits theory as well as the existence of electrons do. Yet neither Benni, nor anybody else, has ever seen an image of electron. I am merely placing the same burden of proof on him, as his woo beliefs place on others.

In other words, he is an idiot. I was under the impression benni was from the generation where TV dinners were considered the pinnacle of technology and culture. Now hes calling people old men? I suppose age is relative though. It's difficult to decide who holds the Crown for the Evil Troll King, the standards to high; maybe we should hold a competition. Uh, oh, yet another old man still on the loose with his fantasies because he can't come up with pics. Hey, loony tunes, where is your pic of an electron? Otherwise I'm calling BS on this whole 'electron' woo.

Show me a pic. Off you go, woo child. Now you're telling us that because you've never seen a pic of an electron that it too must exist? Have mommy toss another bag of potato chips into the basement for you. We've seen an image of a neutron star. We've seen GWs from them. We see r-process nucleosynthesis from them. Every observation of them matches theory. And what has your IQ deficient, scientifically illiterate brain come up with? Back to mopping the floors, you muppet. Let us know if and when you graduate grade school, and we'll see what can be done for you.

I don't hold out much hope, though. Still no science, eh woo boy? Told you; get back to the mopping. You're saying my thought experiments are not believable That's okay, because the only person that I ask to believe them, is myself If anyone else does, then that's their concern That said, my thoughts on this matter are a WIP - still hashing it out. No claim to be right - they're just my thoughts. Liebig's law of minimum: The quality of every online discussion is determined by the IQ of its dumbest member. Anyone taking bets on who that might be?

Our "processor" is conditioned via both nature and nurture to see only certain aspects of the total Universe. A certain defined for and by our "sensors" set of "patterns", if you will. It is an interpretation of our combined sensory input.


  • Knowledge Discovery in Proteomics!
  • Caregiving Alzheimers (n/a).
  • A Critic at Large in the Multiverse.
  • Kindle Editions!
  • FBI, the Mob, and Treachery!
  • Our Stories: A Fiction Workshop for Young Authors (Follow-Up To: Whats Your Story?).
  • Freddy! Deep-Space Food Fighter.

Other states of being - not "alive" by our definition - have other sensory avenues to the Universe. Those avenues might provide different interpretations than our own. Or - none at all According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real. It's no coinkydink that post followed immediately after a jonesdumb post. According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real Oh dear.

You are NOT seeing electrons. Nobody has ever seen an electron. Therefore, there is as much proof for electrons as there is for neutron stars. You can decide how much that is. And it was Pauli's work that explains the electron structure of atoms, and therefore the periodic table, stability, chemical reactions, etc. It was the same Pauli whose quantum description of such leads to electron degeneracy in white dwarfs and neutron stars. You want to throw it out? Better tell the genius Thornhill that he needs to start rewriting chemistry, pronto. Comparing the hands on science involved in the discovery and confirmation of electrons to the highly speculative pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of neutronium and the claimed neutron stars is the height of stupidity and ignorance of science.

Not everybody is as thick as you, woo boy. Chandrasekhar built on the idea a couple of years later. Bell-Burnell discovered pulsars in '67 for which her boss got a Nobel. They got the Nobel in ' Meanwhile, all these observations were confirming theory that went back decades before their discovery. One of those predictions was the formation of GWs when two NSs merged. And that we would see r-process nucleosynthesis. ALL of this has been achieved by real scientists, doing real science.

If you think otherwise, please point to the peer reviewed material that says they are all wrong. Not the idiot Scott on frigging Youtube. I'm still waiting for cantthink69 to explain why, if neutrons always decay after 15 minutes, there are stable atoms with neutrons in their nuclei that appear to last for at minimum billions of years without decaying.

I bet those GW's are created when neutronium and "strange matter" gets mixed together by the leprechaun in his pot 'o gold, and of course he uses an alicorn to do so.

Search Critics at Large

Like I have said for a long time - you will never get any science out of these loons. It is beyond their capabilities. They merely parrot idiotic nonsense from their Velikovskian overlords, who are barely more scientifically literate than themselves. That is why they are a complete irrelevance, and have no influence whatsoever on real science. Thickos, the lot of 'em. Neutronium and strange matter are actual types of matter proposed in highly speculative NS, it's utterly laughable.

No, you are just an uneducated idiot. Please tell us who is saying that such things are impossible. That electron and neutron degeneracy are impossible. Lend some weight to your argument, bozo. Nobody is interested in anything you say, or the idiots Thornhill or Scott. Back your crap up, or STFU. So basically cantthink69 said something really stupid- that neutrons always decay after 15 minutes- and cantthink69 what to say now, so the troll is just avoiding it.

Run away and hide, cantthink69 troll. It's not only possible, but it is highly likely you are a degenerate jonesdumb. Right on par with Ellen Degenerate. See, this is how people can tell you're lying, cantthink You don't have the courage to admit it when you said something stupid. If you'll lie about that, you'll lie about anything.

Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang

So, we can take that to mean that nobody of any scientific note has questioned the formation of white dwarves or neutron stars due to degeneracy pressure. As expected, it is only the scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. Given what they believe, then they can be safely ignored. The only thing to match the hypothetical density of neutronium or strange matter LOL is jonesdumb.

Einstein, Chandrasekhar, and Baade are apparently not "of any scientific note" according to cantthink Do you ever stop lying? Then going back in time there appears a state of curvature fluctuations as large as particle field fluctuations. But Planck showed that eternal inflation is most likely non-chaotic [see the Planck legacy archives, IIRC especially the relatively recent paper that weighs in BICEP2 data], and never reach a breakdown or even need an initial state as classical quantum fluctuations will keep sufficient inflating volumes that they grow exponentially in relation to non-inflating volume i.

Related Stories

It seems to me not a cosmologist that this work is unlikely to be useful. Continuing speaking of useful, this: Cosmologist Weinberg showed already in the 80's that it is testable on the cosmological constant by a local test of having stars, despite the presumed mathematical problem of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" infinite number of infinite distributions. As an irony here I note that essentially the same idea is often levered against string theory despite that it comes out with a finite but large number of states.

Something that can be traced in Hawking's formulation I think, re "large" vs "infinite" scale. It is the absence of pinning remaining parameters that irks many, I take it. But it is the same situation as in - the testable [! Its contingency will not allow unique traits, just guarantee a set of survivable ones or not, i. So if biology makes contingency against a potentially infinite number of sometimes large scale trait distributions work, why cannot cosmology?

Which takes us back to Weinberg again, it seems to work the same. Perhaps you could do yours first, as it will be considerably shorter! So, what are you waiting for? Or do your 'scientists' only include Velikovskian woo merchants? It was a veritable troll feast involving EU or criticism of cosmology, big bang, inflation, multiverses, standard particle model and string theory here used mainly as mathematical tool, I think ; I noticed now after posting.

Not much to do except downvoting, thanks to heroic work from DS, JD and others to show the trolls for what they are. As currently becoming a couch physicist and instead bioinformatician I note though that articles from BBC, Science and individual cosmologists such as Ethan Siegel criticizes the relevance - but not the physical model details - in much the same manner as I did.

FWIW using Peter Woit as source is problematic since he is a couch physicist too, managing computers in a student lab last I heard. If the criticism is valid it does not matter what is its source. Which takes us back to the downvote feast; trolls are useless. I think if he'd try quantum fluctuations he might have a snowball chance. Certainly wouldn't harm his credibility. I think the retina was designed to pick up photons. That is electrons in the retina are excited to a higher energy level and send signals off to the optic nerve.

Anything which sufficiently excites the optic nerve may be seen as a flash of light, particularly cosmic rays. Such an assumption therefore rises more questions than answers and as such it violates the Occam's razor. Best rhetorical argument I've heard so far for the existence of the deity. Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road. Quantum fluctuations are OK, but we can still ask, where they come from? Where that comes from I'm uncertain except it's just one of the laws of nature.

Where they come from I'm uncertain. True to form I guess. Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road And the Big Bang doesn't? The BB is over-rated. You add up all those quantum fluctuations in some particular form every 10 or 20 billion years and you're going to get some pretty strange results. Big Bang primarily faces number of problems increasing with exponential rate If you have problems with naturally occurring events that's your problem - not the BB. After torbjorn speaks, the trolls grow excited and caper for attention.

I won't contaminate a response to you, torbjorn, with troll responses. You're essentially saying, that our universe itself is such a giant quantum fluctuation. Too bad that normal vacuum fluctuations never grow that large. What made our Universe fluctuation so special?

While Hertog talks about tests for their conjectures, I think a rigorous analysis to show what tests are unique to them might be useful, and will no doubt happen. Hubble's constant was already subject of false consensus expectation bias in the past. The physicists are just repeating it again. Could the physicists just be discovering natural variability?

Also, Hertog misspeaks in the video; the theory of a multiverse doesn't allow just anything in the universes created. It's a large number but it's not infinite. There are still constraints. Nobody ever accused me of being a religionist. But I don't see any undiscovered relationships.

Between regions of spacetime expanding at a different rate. A form of relaxation, actually. But there is more to it than that, namely the differential forces of pressure and spacetime density due to different expansion rates or pressure and energy density. Nothing in common except matter, the stuff that moves in space and time. Not saying that energy doesn't move in space and time also, notably photons.

So just hand over your weapons, put your hands over your head, and follow your new leader! Excluding religious science, are whole edifices will come crumbling down as Georges Lemaitre an ordained priest wrote the rules for our very existence. The statement it doesn't mean there's any truth in them is two pronged! Another way to look at it What if you "processor" only processed odd numbers or only even numbers?

Or maybe only counted by Fibonacci or even primes? THAT universe would sure look different Sorry, and with all due respect for this great man, but this theory is just scratching the surface, with some good assumptions. Our own tiny universe is currently still in expansion mode lasting Scientists have still no clue of what happened before the big bang, they don't know about the immaterial belts of our own universe, they don't know about our universe's twin universe.

They don't know about the vast number of other universes of the same maturity level as ours existing in our neighborhood. They don't know about the subsequent development stages of universes, once done with their material form of presence. Should you want to seek some inspirations in that regard, you need to… 1 Learn some German 2 Check out this book https: Advertise your woo here! In characters or less, let us know all about your unpublished, unreviewed fantasies!

After all, this is what Phys. Who needs the scientific literature, when we have sites such as this, and the wonderful Youtube, on which to promote your favourite pseudoscience? Come one, come all, it's free woo promotion week every week at Phys. Albert Einstein with his thought experiments are specifically responsible for what you are now observing jonesdave, when you let priests rewrite the rule of the universe, undo the work of Michelson Morley bringing back Aether you get Fritz Zwicky and darkmatter then darkenergy then theirs Heisenberg's uncertainty which opens up a whole plethora of obnoxious possibilities which are now being refuted and to top it all we have LIGO spinning gravity as warped vacuum of space.

What can you expect. You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths or if you want to be picky: Sir Isaacs Newton's Laws of Motion are not taught as little lies, the fact that its been stated to teach the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics is a state of mind indicating "relativity and Quantum Mechanics" are problematic and you are noticing the consequences.

Einstein was a very resourceful man, who took two concepts and phenomena in the universe, which have neither the end nor the beginning, and that is space and time. He "screwed up" that couple and invented the phenomenon of gravity, in a completely unconscious way, as Lemetr invented BB and thus entangled both science and religion, inventing something totally unknown to our consciousness.

User Data and Cookie Consent

Einstein's theories formed on the claims of Lorenz's transformations completely erased the awareness of most scientists who, therefore, wander through the spaces of multiverse, dark matter and energy, of the expanded universe. Why yes it is, and Phys. Free woo promoted here; https: If you agree, then you understand what many will never understand. Start listing the tests that relativity and quantum have been subjected to, and failed.

I'll give you singularities as a starter. No word salad, just a numbered list will be fine. I'll start working on a list of tests that they've passed, but may have to post it elsewhere, as it'll never fit in the character limit. I've just done it for you. Sorry about the mockery. Are you agreeable too? Albert Einstein's by his thought experiments attracted follows that over the years have imagined more in theorising than reality demands.

Albert Einstein would have nipped them in the bud at a moment's notice but he's not here, it's free for all. I am not criticising Albert or Heisenberg's uncertainty or LIGO for their achievements, its what follows after their achievements that problematic - The one I like the best is LIGO spinning gravity as warped vacuum of space and who came blame them, because it is an extension of gravity wells. I'll give you singularities as a starter So why are Relativity and Quantum theory constantly tested to an inch of their lives persistently, constantly and brought out constantly as proof to non believers, is this not johnsdave, giving sucker to all the scientists who have alternative theories, as you eloquently describe them, reason to doubt the very testing that proves Relativity and Quantum theory to be Correct.

Relativity and Quantum theory are attempts to describe to them as incomprehensible terms everything that their "inventors" have not understood, nor will they ever be able to understand, if the mathematics of their guidance is stronger than consciousness. The word is "succor" Steven Hawkins suggestion that Georges Lemaitre Cosmic-Egg is billions in number Everyone has heard of light radius stars as the equivalent of the cosmic egg and the light radius is the escape velocity of light, in effect we are living in a blackhole with a 15billion light year radius.

All a multiverse is, are light radius stars spread throughout the vacuum of space. There are no intellectual gymnastics hoops of the imagination to jump through to realise it is the same as Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic-Egg but in billion of numbers. Just like when the sun when round the earth and we realised our arrogance and believe differently. It is equally arrogant to refute Steven Hawkins's suggestion that Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic-Egg is billions in number! Back to where it all started, the final straw!

Steven Hawkins suggestion that Georges Lemaitre Cosmic-Egg is billions in number If viewing this theory in the cold light of day sends shivers down your spine it is the evolution of centuries of excessive theorising culminating in the multiplicity of Cosmic Eggs in the vacuum of space, a reflection on how this all started in the begging. Is it logical and logical to make conclusions and claims about phenomena in the universe at distances of billions of light years, and no one has yet learned from science: Do you know who you give many of your claims about these remote femmes?

If science finds out this about the moon, then it will find out what are the true and true paths of the celestial bodies and will see that Einstein's, Lorenz's and Hablov's claims are only fabrications and their fossom. Who wants to discuss the position of the moon?

Hi milnik, If curious, you can over there read a little bit more about some only partially known mysteries of our moon. Why it is that imbalanced etc. And yes, the fairy-tale of its origin by Earth's collision with a major celestial object gets rightly ridiculed. Da Schneib But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.

Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity. Probably the heavy side? StudentofSpiritualTeaching and Seeker2, Any other story of the month is unfounded, if you do not know the laws of the movement of heavenly bodies. There is also a logical and mathematical proof of why the Moon always has one side facing the Earth. Science has not explained it, and that's why all its theories about the movement of celestial bodies are completely illogical and wrong.

And you are participants in these ignorance. Science has not explained it So science is ignoring the logical and mathematical proofs? How could this happen? I have this logical and mathematical proof, not science, you did not understand me well! So as I understand logic and mathematics are not science, correct? Seekers, you did not understand me well. I have logical and mathematical proofs, and science does not have it I said "and science does not, which means that science does not have what I have.

And how do you agree: If this is true, what is the basis of the science? Well, maybe you could give the rest of the world just a little hint Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity And I think DS outlined them pretty well.. Just to interject a little, science is quantification of the behavior of reality; to quantify requires math, and logic is both part of math and necessary to order thought and connect pieces of the world to one another.

So for example, lightning is connected to electricity which is connected to magnetism which is connected to forces and currents. And if you push X amount of electrons through a wire and make a current, then it makes Y amount of magnetism around the wire, and the magnetic force acts in direction Z.

Logic, and math, but also the "stuff the world is made of," too, and how it behaves. Logic and mathematics are tools to rationalize and quantify the world so that one person can describe what they saw in a manner that another can understand without error. Then people can build on what other people saw, and science progresses and improves all our understandings of what the world is like and how it behaves.

I guess we all do. Probably should leave a little wiggle room though. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, Lenni, electrons are unseen. If you get all butthurt because I call you Lenni, you can start calling me by my proper handle anytime and eventually when I read one of your posts doing so I'll stop. If it makes you feel so bad, poor baby Lenni. Yes quite true unfortunately as I discovered thru my own experience. All those who do not know what gravity is, how it arises, and who provokes it, are great manipulators, not only with gravity, but with all the phenomena related to gravity.

Whudening What you say that I could give the world something that would change some terms, I'm not sure what you mean. But I am sure that my knowledge in this field of science must change many erroneous conclusions and even theories. Whydening Gyre, yep, I got my paper and pencil ready too. Whydening and other, What I own, in my opinion, is worth several Nobel Prizes, provided that the accuracy of my evidence is proved. Is it realistic and is this the place where I need to show you that. I gave enough basics and showed that, first and foremost, it must be known: Find a scientific institution where I can publish it without paying that post!

It seems that you are certainly not suffering from an overdose of humbleness. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. A Critic at Large in the Multiverse 3. Kindle Edition , pages. Published first published September 9th To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about A Critic at Large in the Multiverse , please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about A Critic at Large in the Multiverse. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Mariusz rated it it was amazing Aug 18, John Dupuis rated it really liked it Dec 30, Cameron rated it did not like it Feb 10, Simon Bucher-Jones rated it liked it Jan 28, Samuel marked it as to-read Jun 01, Dan marked it as to-read Nov 19, Dan marked it as to-read Dec 17, Teresa marked it as to-read May 14,