MigL

And you have no idea what getting a PhD entails. At that level, it is not memorizing presented facts in order to pass a test, but involves a great deal of original research, theoretical or experimental. And his posts readily indicate he knows what he is talking about; yours, sadly, do not.

SAP logical ? That piece of crap is so counter-intuitive, if I don't use it for any period of time, I have to re-learn it from scratch. Sometimes too many bells and whistles make things less useful. Same with process suites like DeltaV ( especially cheaper versions of it ), but I used to love the old Siemens APACS.

That is evident to quite a few except yourself, it seems.

Keep in mind that amounts and 'strength' of the various chemical ingredients also matter. Toothpaste, for example, may contain Fluorides, Peroxides, Bicarbonate, and various surfactant soaps. The MSDS of all these will tell you they are not good. Similarly, cosmetics often contain Peroxides as a 'drying' agent for the skin. 20% hydrogen Peroxide will burn skin and leave a white ( no color ) contact patch, and as little as 3% will cause your eyes to immediately go 'blood-shot' if you mistake the storage with the disinfecting solution for your soft contact lenses ( personal experience from over 30 yrs ago ).

You are not discovering anything; you are attempting to build a model that describes the workings of what has already been discovered by experiment and observation. And you are not doing it very well, as you don't constrain your model by the experimental and observational discoveries, nor building a self-consistent mathematical model which can make quantitative predictions. And furthermore, when called out on these failing aspects of your 'model' ( very loose term ), you whine about it and blame others for pointing out your deficiencies. If you don't like the criticism you've gotten on this forum, you can always direct your web browser to another site.

And you still ignore Swansont's suggestion. Another misunderstanding ?? Its getting to the point that whenever ( much more often lately ) someone presents a groundbreaking fundamental new 'theory', and they refer to it as a 'framework', I immediately think it was a crackpot idea, developed with considerable ( but incorrect help ) from an AI, and I refuse to read it, much less follow any provided links. Maybe I'm getting jaded, but I can't get excited or interested in the many new fundamental ideas presented in the last several months.

Not quite. Focal length matters. Haven't got a clue what the rest of your post is going on about.

I would agree. Those 'experiences' are a result of self-awareness. As far as I can tell, self-awareness is not a learned trait. Humans are born self aware; babies don't care about anything else, only things that make themselves content or uncomfortable. Self-awareness is in the 'wiring' not the 'program'.

There seem to be quite a few Brits in the area of my home town, a place called St. Angelo dei Lombardi ( earthquake in 1980 ), near Avellino. They have bought up homes in the surrounding small towns to use as summer cottages, or even live there full time. I still own a home/property there and will be visiting more often once I retire. People are friendly, life is relaxed, and food and drink are fantastic. Very little to do for young people, so they tend to move North for work and only vacation in the area during August.

Oh, you must be a farmer from Iowa ... 😄😄

Nice wine, but go an extra step with a good Amarone. I know the Basilicata region ( just South of my home town ), but are you sure you don't mean Matera, the ancient city with cave dwellings ?

Enough anecdotes will make a data set. I, myself, was shy and introverted all through my teens and high school; read a lot, wore glasses,didn't participate in sports, and had little social life. In University, I seemed to have much more free time, was partying in clubs most every night, started working out in a gym the summer I finished high school, got contact lenses, became much more confident, and had an active social life. I had the same genetic make up during these times, but the circumstances of my environment had changed, whether through my own doing, or external factors. I know of many other such anecdotes and I'm sure others do too; how many do you need to call it a data set ?

I didn't realize we had a wine enthusiast ( snob ? ) on board 😄 No self respecting Italian drinks white wines; always reds, even with fish. The only time I'll bring out a white is for sipping with a lady friend. With dinner, I am partial to a wine/grape grown in the area where I was born ( the Irpinia region of Campania ), called Aglianico and cultivated since Roman times, which is also enjoying a resurgence. It similarly has some acidity, which cleans and refreshes the palate, enhancing the taste of foods you pair it with. Taurasi is 15 min away from my home town; their Aglianico is reasonably priced, available in Canada, and my favorite. Oddly enough, when visiting Italy, I can usually drink a couple of bottles ( and I have ) with a good dinner, but if I buy bottles imported into Canada, half a bottle is about when my head starts spinning.

Agreed. But there is a possibly huge unobservable part of the universe. If we don't assume that these vast unobservable parts are the same as our observable part, then we cannot say they follow the same Physical laws.

Not quite. Imagine there is no light, and there has never been light. You are trying to describe a light bulb to produce light. How would you describe it if you've never seen one in the darkness ??

The reason for the isotropy and homogeneity of the Cosmological Principle is quite simple. It is the only universe we can describe. If it were anisotropic and non-homogenous ( as this notion of cosmological coupling suggests ) we wouldn't have a hope in hell of describing it.

Heeeey ! I came here for the celebration, and it's almost over ? I'm always late to the party ...

The central BHs in most all galaxies were actively ingesting mass-energy billions of years ago, as evidenced by far quasars. All nearby galaxies are rather stable, with no active central BH, as they went dormant long ago. That suggests BHs are not significantly growing in mass-energy. What evidence do you have that Cosmological Coupling is increasing their mass ? And please define Cosmological coupling as I've not heard of the term.

I think Mr Dhillon is getting very confused. If Chortons are ( by his own words ) " not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime " , then there cannot be space-time during that era ( now he's got me doing it too ). So, as you previously pointed out, how can he assign units involving time and dimensions to these Chortons that are needed to generate space-time. Talking about time, when there was no time yet, is non-sensical ( and I don't care if other well known Physicists do it ); it isnot just a language issue due to unsuitable words. Dhillon's whole idwa needs to be scrapped; it is delusional to insist he can fix it.

What ? The 'source' of gravity is energy and momentum. For systems that have trivial momentum, their energy is the main contributor to their gravity, and since energy is conserved ( even when a star collapses to a Black Hole ), their gravity does not 'travel'. If the system is re-arranged, by introducing momentum, then the 'changes in gravity' would travel outwards at the SoL, and if the 'changes in gravity' are asymmetrical, then gravitational waves would be produced. IOW, Black Holes retain the relic gravitational field of the mass-energy that collapsed to form the BH, and would have little, effect on a regional basis. I hope that wasn't supposed to be the supporting evidence, Professor ...

Does PRE not indicate a time, or sequence, prior to the concept of time and sequence being established ? Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything. You cannot speak of time before there was time.

OH, you are so immature ...

I don't even know WHAT we are discussing. The link has been removed, as per our rules. Doesn't anyone read the rules before posting on the forum ? I bet these guys don't get invited over very often; they seem to think they can do whatever they want in other people's homes.

I read this as ... 10o North of the North pole, Chortons activate: there is no geometry, no metric, no spacetime. As you go further North of the North pole, limits are reached or cross the Planck threshold: Chortons emerge as quantized curvature nodes on a pre-spacetime quantum graph. As you keep going North, more Chortons form and align: they collectively give rise to a coherent geometric lattice. This lattice defines the emergent latitude and longitude. There is NO space-time. All these things could have happened all at once, in reverse order, or still waiting to happen after trillions of years. Because the concept of time, duration, and sequence, is non-sensical without geometry. What you may have shown is that sufficient local energy density produces a localized curvature of the geometry, but that is well established. You then used AI, in all its 'wisdom', to extend this globally, using stationary but massless 'particles' ( not imaginary in the standard mathematical sense, but rather figment of the imagination ), all while keeping the universe from being still-born from collapsing in on itself at Planck energies and scales. Has anyone else noticed the amount of new advanced theoretical Physics proposals being posted lately ? I guess AI makes every layman think they are a theoretical Physicist these days.

??? Sexual orientation is not a personality trait. What used to be called 'gay behavior' is ( limp wrist, lisp, flamboyance, etc. - sorry about the obvious stereotypes ), but it is not an accurate indication of sexual orientation