Ghideon

5 hours ago, Strange said:

They could be hardwired but might be easier to make using a simple programmable controller.

Good point, and thereby also easier to add more functions (see below)

5 hours ago, Klaynos said:

You can even get (or at least build) ones that you point other remote controls at and can remember what they receive. 

Yes.

It's been a while but my memory says that i've had three universal remotes; not sure if price tag and production cost or complexity correlate but:
-Cheapest one had a hardcoded set of commands for a set of manufacturers.
-Next had hardcoded set of commands plus the ability to learn new commands by pointing it nose to nose with another remote. (Nice if you bought the replacement remote before the old one was broken)
-Most expensive had a connection for adding new models / IR codes. I believe the high price in this case was not necessarily motivated by production cost. Guesswork: A Programmable controller as stated by @Strange was required anyway, and by allowing en user to connect to it looked more fancy, and retailed at a significantly higher price.

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

If 2 big bangs happen "next" to eachother (lets say 200 billion light years) than 2 black holes travelling opposite to eachother would meet  some time in the future. The distances in one universe are bigger and bigger but that doesn't mean that the distances outside of the universe are bigger.

I have some trouble understanding, as far as i know the hot dense state that expand during big bang is "everywhere". If I understand the statement above you have, kind of:
Some spatially large void.
Locally in this void, there are many, or an infinite number, of volumes in a hot, dense state.
Each one of these many local hot dense volumes can individually expand and cool. 

Questions: If you have one large initial void then isn't that, by definition "the universe"? 
If there is empty space between volumes that can expand as "separate big bangs"* doesn't that imply that each such "big bang" your hypothesis has a centre, as @Strange pointed out? 

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

And this goes on forever in an infinite space.

I haven't analysed this completely but: If space is continuously expanding and each new "big bang" is triggered by a finite mass in a black hole that has reached "critical mass", then on a global scale, doesn't the density decrease? So the process can't go on forever?

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

You know exactly what I meant.

No I do not, but I am on this forum to ask questions and learn more

*) I intentionally use "big bang" to try to be clear and separate your model from the mainstream Big Bang, in case they are different in the context of this discussion. 

Hi!

I'm trying to understand the idea to add some thoughts. Unfortunately the first quote seems empty. Was that intended? I'll comment on point 1-3 once I know I have all info.

5 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

4) Is kinda obvious with the rest of this but I would like to keep my findings of #4 to myself till I can mathematically prove it.

Ok, but it is tricky to comment or discuss the idea if you keep it for your self

1 hour ago, omaser said:

This is a computer that hasn't worked for 3 years

What was fixed since the computer now shows the login screen?

1 hour ago, omaser said:

is it possible to bypass its login screen without password

Why do you need to bypass the login? What happens when you enter the correct password? That said, Windows 10 has password recovery features. Or, if that is what you want to do, once logged in you can let a specified user be automatically logged in next time the computer is restarted.

4 minutes ago, Yanni said:

You know scientists who  study quantum mechanics say that the same electron can be observed in two different positions at exactly the same time around the nucleus of an atom.

I did not know that, why just two specific locations? Can you post a reference so I can learn more? 

8 minutes ago, Yanni said:

What do you believe?

I believe I need more details to comment your multi universe idea.

5 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical

Is this, according to your point of view, applicable to all scientific theories? Is the statement above equally applicable to, for instance, evolution*? I think scientists lack a complete understanding of how life initially started on earth, does that lack of confirmed scinteific evidence make you skeptical about evolution as well?  

A lot of comments in this, and other threads, seems to focus on varous definitions of opinions, fact, evidence and objectiveness and I'm trying to figure out where possible misscommunication comes from so I can add constructive comments to the discussion.

*)The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection and later enhancements or develpments

33 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

you want me to believe, that we don't know answers when I do

I do not know what it is that you say that you know since you never tell what your secret knowledge is. 

33 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Can you imagine that (remembeing that imagination is more important that knowledge), no more Mondays because Monday is now called something else?

I can imagine quite a few fitting words for some mondays I've experienced in the past and it has nothing to do with your "theory".

1 hour ago, studiot said:

For instance there is only one white king.

Nice! I see I should have added more details! Going of topic: the tiles in my example was meant to consist only of the necessary graphical variations needed to draw the board. Rules, such as max number of white kings, are not part of the tiles. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Scientists pay attention to detail!

And some old game programmers seem to lack attention to detail

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

This can't possibly be right, unless you are misusing the phrase all possible combinations.

Good catch. In my initial response above I was biased by background in computing where I think the answer is something like: 
"All possible combinations" means empty white tile and empty black tile plus each chess piece, black and white, on a white or a black tile.
2 empty + 6 types of piceces x 2 colors x 2 tile colors = 2+24=26 different tiles. (quick calculation, may be wrong)

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Just for example, saying the universe is composed of mini-universes that just go through a big bang/heat death cycle billions of times a second, creating not the whole universe but just a small part.

I do not really follow the idea (yet). Short question that may clarify for me; Big Bang is about how universe went from a hot dense state to less dense and cooler. Heat death is even less dense and cooler. How does the mini universes "keep their size"? To me the Big Bang -> heat death analogy seems to suggest that the mini universes expands, not a cyclic process.

Thanks for the clarification, we are discussing the Time dilation paper. 

1 hour ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Well actually I had sent it to IJISRT. It's a peer reviewed journal and after a week they confirmed that the paper has been reviewed and is ready to be published.

Is the version of the Time Dilation paper you attached to this topic the same version you sent to IJISRT? If so, how come the paper is ready to be published? The paper has quality issues.

25 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

actually I had sent it to IJISRT

I am confused. What paper are you talking about? A Collatz paper? The A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation paper you attached above? Something else?

4 hours ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Ok then here you go once again.

A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation-3 (1).pdf

How is that paper connected to the Collatz Conjecture? Anyway, I responded in another topic where you posted. Here are some of my concerns: The first part of the chapter INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND states:

Quote

In 1905 the great physicist albert eintstein[10] published his theory of general relativity[11,13,14,18] followed by his theory of time dilation

(bold by me to highlight)

Maybe just a minor thing but not a promising start. And it is then contradicted by the paper's first reference: 

Quote

Miller, arthur i. (1981), albert einstein's special theory of relativity. emergence (1905)

Unfortunately it does not look like this revision of the paper has quality issues. How was the paper reviewed? 

Interesting topic! I'm no expert in the area but have some, rather naive, comments. First some statements that, in my opinion, are applicable to the topic. 

1: There are "laws", "rules" or "mechanisms" governing things in universe. I do not think the universe cares about what I call them and they seem to govern things such as gravity etc regardless if any scientists are around.

2: For a lot of the things in universe scientists have created approximations, or laws, that predicts the outcome of a number things. The approximations are good enough to enable to be useful in lots of stuff used in daily life. 

3: Some old approximations are replaced by better versions. Some old laws are still used but in limited contexts.

Some ideas: I have not yet found any reference to an experiment where the result shows something like "the universe, at this particular place, behaves differently from the rest of the universe". But through history I've seen lots of cases where "The known laws of physics are not applicable, or does not predict the outcome of the experiment. The laws need some adjustments."

A: So, if the OP is about the laws of physics, or "approximations" as I named them above, then @Strange has already given a valid answer.

B: If the OP is about any underlaying principles, the ones scientists are trying to model, then the short answer is "Everywhere". Example, intended to illustrate: Modelling the centre of a black hole is hard and doing experiments inside a black hole may not be possible. Black hole observation seems to suggest that black holes follow what ever principles that are applicable. Whether those principles are modelled by laws in text books or not does not matter.

I'm not sure there is any scientific value to case B. I find case A more interesting.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You can find it in text books. Some people hold it in their heads. But you won't find it written in space.

Thanks! Intended or not, that comment made me think, +1.

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

trust John Wheeler, I like him. I am not sure I trust people on here.

By verifying some of the answers given by people on here there are some I trust and others I do not trust. Those I trust most have for instance backed up their claims using good source material, ability to answer questions and present fresh views on various scientific topics. 

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Are you going to explain how you are enforcing the model? By your will?

What makes you believe that I have to? Or that I, as a god, cares about "will"? You told me I am a god in the thought experiment, I am capable of creating rules that apply everywhere. 

Back to science: What scientific experiment do you suggest to tell if one of us is right? Is it possible within the scope of science to test it? Can you provide some evidence for your pixel based universe other than "it is self evident"?

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

OK, lets try a thought experiment, its simple, you are God, you are going to create the universe from a blank sheet. This blank sheet is empty space. You now go ahead and create science, your first step is to create laws. So how do you add laws to empty space?

Why throw a god into the mix? But it may be OK for a thought experiment.This will me very imprecise; the purpose of my comment is to express an opinion in context of the thought experiment, not present any scientific facts. Since I am a practical guy relying on mainstream science and observations, I would:
1: remove space
2: create a hot dense state and let it evolve as described by the Big Bang model.

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

First step, empty space. The is no such thing as mathematics, there is nothing to count or measure.

Second step, say "empty space now be composed of pixels" and your will is done. Suddenly, with one simple act, you create mathematics, we now have things to count and measure.

Third step, create time.

Ok. What scientific experiment do you suggest to tell if one of us is right? Is it possible within the scope of science to test it? Can you provide some evidence for your pixel based universe other than "it is self evident"?

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have already said I am not going to do the big reveal yet

Ok! But how am I supposed to see the self evident step if you have a complete picture of some new pixel based model while I have only a short description without any details?

36 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I know you want the math, but I can go better than that, I can derive maths itself from a pixel based universe, The pixel is the first 'unit'.

Ok! That is interesting, please show how.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

The original conversation was a bit messy, I am going to slow down a bit so things stay more understandable. I dont quite get what you are on about here, sorry.

The reason for my statement is that i have tried to ask the same question from various angles and also to figure out the answers to other members posts but all I can find is:

On 2018-09-21 at 11:53 AM, PrimalMinister said:

It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it?

and

On 2018-09-21 at 12:27 PM, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

and

On 2018-09-21 at 12:46 PM, PrimalMinister said:

I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet

and

On 2018-09-21 at 1:19 PM, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion. Philosophy becomes science.

Ok, interesting! I fail to see why it is self evident but that may be just my lack of understanding so far. Can you please describe: what is a pixel in the context of your theory? Please include a proper mathematic model in your description.

Sorry for repeating but I also would like to take part in the discussion about the original topic. If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

Look, I am asking you to explain to me

Sorry, was that comment directed at me? (bold by me)

It's probably just a language issue on my part, but I have to ask before trying to answer.

10 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

I've thought about the statement above and found it interesting. That is one reason why I engage this discussion.

9 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet. There is plently of evidence to suggest the big bang and evolution happened so why don't we don't we just say this is truth, this is the theory of everything and trust the scientific process will fill in the gaps.

I have read through the posts and I can't find an answer, I'm still curious: How are these two theories unique and how are they, or will be, able to explain everything? If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

*)I've have been gone for a while and trying to catch up. I've seen the interesting discussion about definitions in the topic, and at this point my question may be imprecise. 

9 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet,

Is the Big Bang intended to explain the universe or the observable universe?

Lets try this angle: Why is evolution theory needed, why does it not follow from an "improved" Big Bang theory?

Or, the other way around, why are two theories enough? Why is there no room in the universe for new discoveries that does not fit within big bang/evolution?

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet.

Does Big Bang explain the universe or the observable universe? 

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

Can you explain why I would take the above statement as a fact? I have lots of scientific questions regarding the first time after Big Bang, where the theory applies. I have lots of other questions that I think would need new theories outside of Big Bang to answer. Are you suggesting that my second set of questions about nature is invalid? Or maybe that future revisions of Big Bang theory will explain them all? I think all theories are applicable within some scope. Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

it looks like a theory of everything to me.

To me it does not look like a theory of everything. It looks like two different theories describing different aspects of nature. I beleive that a theory of everything would describe how GR and evolution follows, and is explained by,  "the theory of everything".

*)I usually use "theory of everything" as a notation of a theory explaining fundamental forces including gravity. In the context of this topic I am prepared to deviate from that.

32 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I hope to sign up 3000 scientists to give one hour of their time

How about some interactions and discussion with those of us in this forum that are interested enough to spend far more than one hour without getting paid?