(September 8, 2016 at 3:02 am)Alex K Wrote: Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

Arkilogue Wrote:So it takes a world wide appeal to consensus for you to consider anything new? Quite the handicap you have there.

This is his general response, such intelligent, much wow, veri surprise

Well he has a point, doesn't he. I mean it just isn't that hard to make up fantastic things without checking for consensus. Of course his standards for belief might be a good deal lower.

Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

SerenelyBlue Wrote:I am intimidated by the fine tuning argument.  In the past I subscribed to the "god of the gaps" view, but now I am more sensible.  I believe, or want to believe, that the universe has a natural beginning and it makes sense to me that the universe probably went through a many versions before this one originated.
Are there any people here who believe in the multiverse, or at least think it is a viable option?


Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

There are observations that multiple universes are a reasonable explanation for, but it remains a hypothesis for which there is insufficient evidence to consider it confirmed. It's an interesting possibility that doesn't contradict what we already know and for which the math works; but that's half of theoretical physics.

However, regarding the fine tuning argument; it's much weaker than it might appear at first. Note the local version of the fine tuning argument: The universe is so hostile to life that the existence of a planet just the right distance from its star with all the necessary elements for life is so unlikely that it is more likely to have been a product of design than chance. Then the general version: the universe is so accommodating to life that it is more likely to have been a product of design than chance.

More to the point, the argument in regards to the universe is that IF the universal constants could have had any value and IF the values are unrelated to each other (such that if one were different, another would have to have a particular value in relation to it) and IF any value is equiprobable, and IF only a universe with the exact same universal constants as ours could support life (including life very unlike ours); THEN it would be more likely to have been a product of design than chance.

A very large number of universes is one possible solution to the fine tuning argument. If you accept all of its premises, then a huge number of chances for a universe with the exact values ours has would be a sufficient explanation for our universe having them, and we would naturally be in the universe that allows our existence.

I don't think multiple universes is at all necessary as a rebuttal, though. The fine tuning argument is ultimately only a thought experiment based on things we do not know: we do not know that the universal constants could have been different, if they're unrelated to each other, if the values are equiprobable, or if different kinds of universes could allow different kinds of life. We've only got a sample size of one, and we can't really make an informed statement about the odds of it having turned out that way, except that one like ours is definitely possible.

If the universe is the result of a quantum vacuum fluctuation and must have a net energy budget of zero; that would put severe constraints on the range of possible values for the universal constants.

Here's an intriguing possibility: quantum foam spawns trillions of universes, most quite similar to ours in terms of their universal constants.

Arkilogue Wrote:

Alex K Wrote:The universe is what in the what what?!?


Of course there is no bingo if you invent all new words...

Nothing for nothing but I think that's Boggle or Scrabble....never seen words form in Bingo but I'm sure it randomly happens.

A single universe is a single quantum (discrete measure of motion, spatial wave-form) of an infinite material singularity (infnite unified state, IUS, a"particle" with no boundary.)

The IUS is both infinite spatially and objectively "One" (there is no nothing else...not even nothing) so it's singular wave-form expression is infinite "ones" (an infnite plane of equal sized spheres) that contiues to "cavitate" planes of spheres in it's wake.

This is the first and only symmetry breaking needed. There is no impedence to the planar wavefront and it will continue to cavitate universes into being forever. That is the tenporal expression of infinity. The beginning of the metaverse is obviously not neccesarily the beginning of our universe within the metaversal sphere stack.

The universe is the "ex nihilo" like a vacuum/vapor bubble under water. reletive time-space is what was created and the prexistant matter is flung into similar quantum organization within the bubble. The first micro-quantum predicted by the spherical macro-universe is the spherical atom.  They are stble because the universe is stabiled by the pressence of the 12 universes around it and the flows of the IUS (now in super=symmetric motion) around and between the universal void spheres.  They flow around each sphere in exactly the same pattern governed by their contact points as vibrational nodes.  I have these to be predictive of sub-atomic anatomy and behavior like the pos and neg W bosons from a nuetral Z boson, and the inverese triple arrangement of quarks between protons and neutrons.

This is why the model is completely geometrically deterministic.  If the constants on one of these universes (which is the same for them all) can be found to match the constants we find in this universe, then the model, imho, is far more plausible than the Many Worlds metaversal theory of random universe production...and as a side bonus it puts to rest all intelligent design arguements.  Because it's completely unecessary.

In theological terms, the creation of a universe is actually a procreation.  The order and organization of the progenny is inhernent in the parent.  What was reproduced was individuality.  Which is why there are individual atoms, individual universes, individual creatures and individual awarenesses like you and I.  They are all (nested) holons of the original IUS.

I'm far from done exploring it, but I've been able to lay quite a bit of ground work already. Currently in the process of refining it. =)

What was the evidence that led you to this conclusion?

(September 8, 2016 at 11:22 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

That's not a coincidence.  He knows if you ever realize that the relative space-time expression of flibbertyflibbets doesn't mean anything, then nobody here will ever listen to him, ever again.

(September 8, 2016 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What was the evidence that led you to this conclusion?

That's the problem with a "theory" that is created "ex nihilo," isn't it? *snerk*

You'll never get an answer to this question that isn't just another text wall with the verbiage grandiosity level turned up to 11.

(September 8, 2016 at 11:22 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

The wall of theory was completely incomprehensible to me, and I'm, if I may be so immodest, an expert on this stuff, having both published peer reviewed articles on it and peer reviewed others for major journals. So either it is vague nonsense, or the language he uses to convey valid ideas is so far removed from the standard scientific jargon that it renders it incomprehensible to experts. I won't hold my breath for option 2 - but I'm happy to be open to the possibility that there are at least valid ideas in there.

(September 8, 2016 at 3:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: Wegener looked at physical evidence, and arrived at a conclusion so revolutionary that people just couldn't accept it.  Arkilogue has looked at nothing except his own hallucinations, and arrived at a conclusion so imaginary that people just can't accept it.

The difference is that Wegener was doing science, and Arkilogue is making shit up because actually learning about things is harder than pretending to be clever.

My model predicts the expansive dark energy constant to within .5%
Predicts a slight negative curvature of space-time.
Predicts rapid initial inflation followed by slow plateau of increasing expansion.
Predicts 5 times more matter entangled with the creation of ours.
Predicts a six fold division of the CMB and hemispheric asymmetry.

All by simple self limiting geometry.
All confirmed.

My conclusion is that the universe is a quantum deterministic waveform, in a quantum deterministic metaverse from an infinite singularity.

If you have anything more comprehensive, more simple or more elegant. I'm all ears.

---

(September 8, 2016 at 10:46 am)RozKek Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 3:02 am)Alex K Wrote: Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

Arkilogue Wrote:So it takes a world wide appeal to consensus for you to consider anything new? Quite the handicap you have there.

This is his general response, such intelligent, much wow, veri surprise

And your response is to take quotes out of context and smash them together?

I've seen so many of those "post-predictions of dark energy" or particle masses, which are usually based on some vague words and piles of numerology, but without a consistent underlying theory. Do you have a prediction for the scalar to tensor ratio? Or actual math for your inflation claims? What about the quartic divergences of the standard model? Is your scheme consistent with the known properties and predictions of the Standard Model?