How insignificant are we

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Laniakea Supercluster

The red dot is the Milky Way Galaxy

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

The red dot is the Milky Way Galaxy

The red dot is also the only known location for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.  

The OP suggests there are lots of multiverses. If there have been multiverses for an infinite period of time, then why is there no energy signature from them, and why do we not see them interacting with our universe? If there have been an infinite number of multiverses over an infinite amount of time, then they would be overlapping and interacting with one another.

MayCaesar

Your argument seems to posit that we are insignificant because we affect events in a very small geometric space relative to the entire space out there. How do you define significance? Would it be also fair to say that death of your loved one is insignificant because it is just one human dying out of billions?

It seems to me that significance is intrinsically subjective, and things that affect our lives more are more significant to us. There may be billions of galaxies out there, but events only in one of them routinely affect our lives noticeably, so we will see it as far more significant than everything outside of it. Would you not agree?

John_C_87

@maxx

Variation due to Earth's tilt = -7.655 sin d

Variation due to elliptical orbit = 9.873 sin(2d + 3.588)

Time variation = -7.655 sin d + 9.873 sin(2d + 3.588)

There is only one universe until the dimensions of that one universe are described. I can tell you that Pi is negated from mathematics by replacing it with a chord length of 115 degrees inside the circumference of all circles. We can then take that chord length and calculate the circle circumference as the straight hypotenuse side of a triangle by multiplying the chord length by 4. From there we simply rewrite Einsteins theory of General Relativity as a Law of Relativity. The conclusion of closing the work of Einstein was in mathematically solving general relativity/ special relativity as a law. Not by attempting to proving the theory was true or false with scientific experimentation. We already know in mathematics that things are Generally Relative we have called this principle of mathematic chance long before Einstein had arrived on the scene. Do you blieve it?

The Equation of Time - Interactive Mathematics (intmath.com)

Chord Length Formula - Explanation, Formulas, Solved Examples, and Important FAQs (vedantu.com)

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;why is there no energy signature from them

Good point there Lier Boy but you have to put it in perspective. If that dot is the Milky way then your got to realise that between there and the edge of the picture is about 250 trillion light years. And if you think about it....well I know, but your got to try. But lets say for arguments sake thats the case and I did calculate it buy the way. I dont know how good the cell net work is where you live but if the aliens sent a time signiature at say 10 billion years after the universe started then its not going to ping off the tower for another 249 trillion 750 billion years time and I reckon you wood have wet your pants waiting around for that length of time to happen.

John_C_87

@Barnardot

Juleskorngold asked : Why do we not see them interacting with our universe?

I would ask the question this way: Why do we not see them mathematically interact with our universe first?

They and the other universe are in a different time zone according to mathematics and it is concerned with the theory of General Relativity written as a law. For a time-zone to be part of the other time zone of earth the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of the circle must fall inside a boundary of the circumference of the circle. For argument this is a ratio of ( 4:1 ) or greater.  Pi does not keep the linear conversion of time inside the circle / sphere at an attempt of ratio at ( 3:1). In other words, the diameter length of the circle is made longer than the circle is wide, and end of the diameter falls outside the circle unlike a chord. At this point the new diameter is now a chord inside a different time zone of a larger circle.

Times is a way to calculate the placement of lines around the earth in contradiction to the magnetic lines that rest on a magnetic compass of North and South for navigation. Hope this helps you understand.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;why is there no energy signature from them

Good point there Lier Boy but you have to put it in perspective. If that dot is the Milky way then your got to realise that between there and the edge of the picture is about 250 trillion light years. And if you think about it....well I know, but your got to try. But lets say for arguments sake thats the case and I did calculate it buy the way. I dont know how good the cell net work is where you live but if the aliens sent a time signiature at say 10 billion years after the universe started then its not going to ping off the tower for another 249 trillion 750 billion years time and I reckon you wood have wet your pants waiting around for that length of time to happen.

If a new universe is created once every trillion or quintillion years, over an infinite amount of time, it doesn't matter where in the omniverse you are, there should be infinite universes intersecting each other.  The radiation should be everywhere because of an infinite amount of time to cover everywhere.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

The radiation should be everywhere because of an infinite amount of time to cover everywhere.

Have we had this discussion before?  Are we the people just plagiarizing time and changing the meaning to support entertainment not fact. Have we noticed the similarity between how some American's look at mathematics and physics and how voters view and use criminal law and United States Constitutional Right are identical. The law of constitutional right is not described as a connection to established justice and therefore becomes a process of media entertainment and income as people become upset over the lack of justice.

Universe must have a state of size to be more than one universe. All the time know as fact will not change this point. The mistake in physics is made by the conversion of time into a linear form Pi creates two time zones by default, Pi does not sychronize the two time-zones.

The radiation should be everywhere because of an infinite amount of time to cover everywhere. 

There is not an infinite amount of time it is not space even when time is converted into a linear state from a circle. What the linear state of time does have unique to itself is one set of numbers. One number of a pair placed at the beginning and one number of the set placed at the end of the linear form.

Rights Reserved.

GiantMan

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

If a new universe is created once every trillion or quintillion years, over an infinite amount of time, it doesn't matter where in the omniverse you are, there should be infinite universes intersecting each other.  The radiation should be everywhere because of an infinite amount of time to cover everywhere.

Not at all. You might find it interesting to learn that, back when the dominant theory suggested that the Universe itself was infinite and contained an infinite amount of matter, it did not suggest that there would be heavy radiation everywhere.

Many versions of the Multiverse theory allow for Universes to interact and exchange energy, yet these interactions are rare and relatively weak. Even if there is infinity of the Universes out there, but contribution of different Universes is different, the total energy influx may be finite. In the simplest case one Universe supplies ours with 1/2x energy, another with 1/4x, another still with 1/8x - summing up to the finite value x.

Furthermore, Universes do not have to all interact with each other. It is possible to have infinity of Universes arranged in such a way in some abstract space that only a few of them intersect with our Universe. Think of the Universes arranged as Olympic rings, for instance: in that case our Universe would only interact with 4 other Universes. Newly created Universes can expand in various directions, away from ours, never intersecting with it.

John_C_87

The universe is infinet until we explain how big it is. We can say the Universe is 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 light years, the light coming from a brown dwaf. Well then there is a multiverse the problem is we didn't there is not the argument is fiction and not scientific or mathematic theory. This is debate is for movie and Sci-Fi scripts right?

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If a new universe is created once every trillion or quintillion years, over an infinite amount of time, it doesn't matter where in the omniverse you are, there should be infinite universes intersecting each other.  The radiation should be everywhere because of an infinite amount of time to cover everywhere.

Not at all. You might find it interesting to learn that, back when the dominant theory suggested that the Universe itself was infinite and contained an infinite amount of matter, it did not suggest that there would be heavy radiation everywhere.

Many versions of the Multiverse theory allow for Universes to interact and exchange energy, yet these interactions are rare and relatively weak. Even if there is infinity of the Universes out there, but contribution of different Universes is different, the total energy influx may be finite. In the simplest case one Universe supplies ours with 1/2x energy, another with 1/4x, another still with 1/8x - summing up to the finite value x.

Furthermore, Universes do not have to all interact with each other. It is possible to have infinity of Universes arranged in such a way in some abstract space that only a few of them intersect with our Universe. Think of the Universes arranged as Olympic rings, for instance: in that case our Universe would only interact with 4 other Universes. Newly created Universes can expand in various directions, away from ours, never intersecting with it.

Christopher Isham in "Space, Time, and Quantum Cosmology', God, Time, and Modern Physics, 1990, first observed that given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and when they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another.  So given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, rather than a relatively young one.  

Further any universe or multiverse, that is on average, expanding as our universe is, can not be geodesically complete in the past and must have an initial singularity, according to the Borde, Guthe, Vilenkin Theorem.   

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

That is a very strange observation, considering that "primordial vacuum" itself can only exist within a universe, and no universe should be able to spawn in it. Are you sure you are interpreting his postulate correctly?

The Multiverse theories I am familiar with all posit that universes exist and "move around" in a very abstract space, a space that has nothing in common with the spacetime we observe around us. The idea that universes are balls embedded in some Euclidian-like or Minkowski-like space seems bizarre, and I am not familiar with any physical theories that seriously consider it.

JulesKorngold

We are "masters of an insignificantly small speck in the cosmos."  Neal deGrasse Tyson

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold
How insignificant are we?

We are the only one of our kind as we look and see into the depths of space that makes us pretty dam significant. Unless there is life identical to humans on every planet, moon, and asteroid in existence hiding humanity is not insignificant. lol.......even if you learned mathematics riddled with errors some of us still can fix the mistakes. That makes us significant. When we move into outer space, I’m going to get a job pollinating plants with a little paint brush.

GiantMan

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

That is a very strange observation, considering that "primordial vacuum" itself can only exist within a universe, and no universe should be able to spawn in it. Are you sure you are interpreting his postulate correctly?

The Multiverse theories I am familiar with all posit that universes exist and "move around" in a very abstract space, a space that has nothing in common with the spacetime we observe around us. The idea that universes are balls embedded in some Euclidian-like or Minkowski-like space seems bizarre, and I am not familiar with any physical theories that seriously consider it.

What models are you talking about - vacuum fluctuation models, chaotic inflationary models, quantum gravity models, or ekpyrotic models?

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Christopher Isham in "Space, Time, and Quantum Cosmology', God, Time, and Modern Physics, 1990, first observed that given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and when they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another.  So given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, rather than a relatively young one. 

Space & Time are not compatible as the mathematics of space consists of positive and negative numbers. There are corrupt measurements of time that hold positive and negative numbers. When we say past time, this is not a negative value. What really takes place in calculus is the use of Pi places many theorems outside the time zone of the origin time used as base measurement of time in many of the Tensors used. This is found when we test the ratio of Pi against the ratio found by using the Pythagorean Theorem instead of simple division. Time is either calculated in a time zone or time is calculated outside a time zone this is what the field equation of General Relativity as theory really established.

Further any universe or multiverse, that is on average, expanding as our universe is, can not be geodesically complete in the past and must have an initial singularity, according to the Borde, Guthe, Vilenkin Theorem.   

Yes, it can, and yes it does become complete. No one has declared the Universe a sphere and if someone does hold it as sphere or circle.

(3) The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem - Alexander Vilenkin, PhD - YouTube

   In Dr. Vilenkin's lecture the lines in the image are all curved and suggest that the inflating spacetime is incomplete for at some time the curve becomes so slight it is infinite. This is due to the errors admitted by Einstein and others to the Theory of General Relativity itself in a relationship made with Pi. No one listens. The description of the question raised suggested that the Theory would need to be written as a Law of Relativity by connecting time and space as a linear line. It is Dr. Vilenkin who admits to never adding Relativity of energy which must be considered as energy is never created or destroyed according to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

I am sorry it is taking so long to write down the complete formula for Relativity for you just_sayin from Einstein as it consists of hundreds of other theorems that have been simplified to 24.

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

@just_sayin

Christopher Isham in "Space, Time, and Quantum Cosmology', God, Time, and Modern Physics, 1990, first observed that given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and when they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another.  So given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, rather than a relatively young one. 

Space & Time are not compatible as the mathematics of space consists of positive and negative numbers. There are corrupt measurements of time that hold positive and negative numbers. When we say past time, this is not a negative value. What really takes place in calculus is the use of Pi places many theorems outside the time zone of the origin time used as base measurement of time in many of the Tensors used. This is found when we test the ratio of Pi against the ratio found by using the Pythagorean Theorem instead of simple division. Time is either calculated in a time zone or time is calculated outside a time zone this is what the field equation of General Relativity as theory really established.

Further any universe or multiverse, that is on average, expanding as our universe is, can not be geodesically complete in the past and must have an initial singularity, according to the Borde, Guthe, Vilenkin Theorem.   

Yes, it can, and yes it does become complete. No one has declared the Universe a sphere and if someone does hold it as sphere or circle.

(3) The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem - Alexander Vilenkin, PhD - YouTube

   In Dr. Vilenkin's lecture the lines in the image are all curved and suggest that the inflating spacetime is incomplete for at some time the curve becomes so slight it is infinite. This is due to the errors admitted by Einstein and others to the Theory of General Relativity itself in a relationship made with Pi. No one listens. The description of the question raised suggested that the Theory would need to be written as a Law of Relativity by connecting time and space as a linear line. It is Dr. Vilenkin who admits to never adding Relativity of energy which must be considered as energy is never created or destroyed according to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

I am sorry it is taking so long to write down the complete formula for Relativity for you just_sayin from Einstein as it consists of hundreds of other theorems that have been simplified to 24.

John said :

This is found when we test the ratio of Pi against the ratio found by using the Pythagorean Theorem instead of simple division. 

The calculation is based on 'infinity'.  Infinity produces an infinite amount of universes.  Its not really a math problem per se, but a logical observation.

John said:

Yes, it can, and yes it does become complete. No one has declared the Universe a sphere and if someone does hold it as sphere or circle.

In Dr. Vilenkin's lecture the lines in the image are all curved and suggest that the inflating spacetime is incomplete for at some time the curve becomes so slight it is infinite. This is due to the errors admitted by Einstein and others to the Theory of General Relativity itself in a relationship made with Pi. No one listens. 

I hope you read/saw  Vilenkin's brutal assessment of Stephen Hawking's 'shuttlecock' model.  The BGV theorem isn't that complex and is just 7th grade math.  It is the kind of formula used in word problems.  You are wrong in that it can be past complete.  Any universe, which has on average, been expanding, can not be geodetically past complete.  That's what the math says.  The energy runs out at some point.  

maxx

the idea is that our universe "pervades" all living things, such as cells, animal life, plant, etc,; creating an enclosed system of universe(s) with-in these life forms. 

John_C_87

@just_sayin
Thank you for the link. 
The BGV theorem isn't that complex and is just 7th grade math.  It is the kind of formula used in word problems.  You are wrong in that it can be past complete.  Any universe, which has on average, been expanding, can not be geodetically past complete.  That's what the math says.  The energy runs out at some point

All things measured by time and compass have a past complete for all compass and time share the same state of measured value. The basic question is in each step of increment or reduction of all states of energy. Time is used as a method of synchronization between time zones. Space = energy, energy level = time, Past is not a measurement of time it is a point of origin. The pass in the context of energy in a quantity of mass, force as energy, and average of reoccurrence. The idea is dissipation the universe is dissipating not expanding. Heat simply is not the primary reason behind energies dissipation.