(March 10, 2012 at 11:51 am)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:43 am)Werewolff Wrote: I don't have time to read the whole thing. Can you summarise?

Pretty much a high entropy de Sitter space sitting in a false vacuum (this is why you have to read the paper) gave rise to "bubbles" that were in a true vacuum. Those "bubbles" generally dissipated quickly but at least one found itself stable enough to exist and that was the beginning of the universe {in a low entropy condition) prior to the inflationary period. Now that you are hopelessly confused, make time and read the paper otherwise I can't be bothered to even consider your claims as being serious.

What claims?

Is what is in the paper that you have linked to just a hypothesis or is there evidence? And anyway, what caused it?

---

(March 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:59 am)black36 Wrote: Werewolf, you and I think a lot alike.

Phil, with all due respect, you violate your own point here: "The universe doesn't give a flip what any of us care." It "seems like a argument from personal incredulity" to me.

Also, I would love to see how you would explain "de Sitter space" in you own words. Frankly, if one can't explain something which a child could apprehend, then does one really understand the rhetoric one spews? AND, to throw this out: "You don't read much on cosmology and you make that painfully obvious with your heat death already claim." without unpacking it is a bit arrogant, no?

Are you fucking retarded or is your stupidity due to your parents being brother and sister? You apparently saw the word de Sitter space but didn't see the description I gave????? Fuck you.

That was uncalled for.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm)Werewolff Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:51 am)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:43 am)Werewolff Wrote: I don't have time to read the whole thing. Can you summarise?

Pretty much a high entropy de Sitter space sitting in a false vacuum (this is why you have to read the paper) gave rise to "bubbles" that were in a true vacuum. Those "bubbles" generally dissipated quickly but at least one found itself stable enough to exist and that was the beginning of the universe {in a low entropy condition) prior to the inflationary period. Now that you are hopelessly confused, make time and read the paper otherwise I can't be bothered to even consider your claims as being serious.

What claims?

Is what is in the paper that you have linked to just a hypothesis or is there evidence? And anyway, what caused it?

Are you going to read the paper or not? If not, scroll down under my signature banner and read what is written there. It's about you. If you are going to read the paper, it's not about you but to be honest, my money is on you not reading the paper.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:59 am)black36 Wrote: Werewolf, you and I think a lot alike.

Phil, with all due respect, you violate your own point here: "The universe doesn't give a flip what any of us care." It "seems like a argument from personal incredulity" to me.

Also, I would love to see how you would explain "de Sitter space" in you own words. Frankly, if one can't explain something which a child could apprehend, then does one really understand the rhetoric one spews? AND, to throw this out: "You don't read much on cosmology and you make that painfully obvious with your heat death already claim." without unpacking it is a bit arrogant, no?

Are you fucking retarded or is your stupidity due to your parents being brother and sister? You apparently saw the word de Sitter space but didn't see the description I gave????? Fuck you.

FYI - "de Sitter space" is three words.

So, you are incapable of explaining it. It's obvious you don't understand it then. Its ok, just admit it and your stock will go back up. One can only explain what one understands. Since you can't explain it, conclusion:
You have no clue.

I would have thought that if I could understand it, I would be able to explain it. I haven't read the paper and it's way too much to read, but Phil has read it, I would have thought he could summarise it in a way that would help us to get it. I don't know why he can't do that.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm)black36 Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 11:59 am)black36 Wrote: Werewolf, you and I think a lot alike.

Phil, with all due respect, you violate your own point here: "The universe doesn't give a flip what any of us care." It "seems like a argument from personal incredulity" to me.

Also, I would love to see how you would explain "de Sitter space" in you own words. Frankly, if one can't explain something which a child could apprehend, then does one really understand the rhetoric one spews? AND, to throw this out: "You don't read much on cosmology and you make that painfully obvious with your heat death already claim." without unpacking it is a bit arrogant, no?

Are you fucking retarded or is your stupidity due to your parents being brother and sister? You apparently saw the word de Sitter space but didn't see the description I gave????? Fuck you.

FYI - "de Sitter space" is three words.

So, you are incapable of explaining it. It's obvious you don't understand it then. Its ok, just admit it and your stock will go back up. One can only explain what one understands. Since you can't explain it, conclusion:
You have no clue.

ok fuckhead, teach us what it is. I need a laugh.

---

(March 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Werewolff Wrote: I would have thought that if I could understand it, I would be able to explain it. I haven't read the paper and it's way too much to read, but Phil has read it, I would have thought he could summarise it in a way that would help us to get it. I don't know why he can't do that.

Are you a chiapet sock? I just wrote a summary for you. I will never waste my time with you again though.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Werewolff Wrote: I would have thought that if I could understand it, I would be able to explain it. I haven't read the paper and it's way too much to read, but Phil has read it, I would have thought he could summarise it in a way that would help us to get it. I don't know why he can't do that.

Exactly!

Phil, you brought it up. The balls in your court. Don't just pack up and go home. That's cowardice.

Everybody dial it back a bit. There is a natural give & take around here, but we could all use a bit of a chill pill.

No Phil, you did not write a summary. Ask anybody here who has not read the paper and who hopes to understand it via your explanation and they will tell you that they do not understand your explanation. You have not explained anything in a way that anybody could understand.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Everybody dial it back a bit. There is a natural give & take around here, but we could all use a bit of a chill pill.

I only gave you kudos for using the phrase "give & take".

(March 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm)black36 Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Werewolff Wrote: I would have thought that if I could understand it, I would be able to explain it. I haven't read the paper and it's way too much to read, but Phil has read it, I would have thought he could summarise it in a way that would help us to get it. I don't know why he can't do that.

Exactly!

Phil, you brought it up. The balls in your court. Don't just pack up and go home. That's cowardice.

He did indeed bring it up. We still don't know if it's just some hypothesis or if there's evidence, because he hasn't said. In fact, we don't even understand what it's all about in the first place thanks to his totally unsatisfactory "summary". It explains nothing. No one here would understand anything based on what he has said.

Phil, in your own words, what's it all about? Can you actually explain it or are we to be in awe of you forever?