MigL

I would agree. A 'Theory of Everything' needs to deal only with the fundamental interactions and how they account for the 'reality' we measure and observe. I would not expect Maxwell's equations to be applied to Psychology, even though we know mental processes and states are governed by the voltages of electrical impulses in the brain. Similarly, I would not apply a 'Theory of Everything' to a rock fracture, even though we know that process is governed by a combination of gravity and electromagnetic interaction. Once complexity rears its head, the best we can do is perturbative computational analysis.

Mental health is not a gauge condition ( physicist will know what this implies ). IOW, how you measure, or your starting point, does not affect the assessment of it. It is an absolute; you have mental health or you have varying degrees of mental disorder. One more point ... It can also be argued that men and women, blacks and whites, straights and all the letters of LGBQT+, have different life experiences, and would need an education more suitable to those shared experiences. Who is in favor of bringing back segregation ? ( or should we be sharing those life experiences in order to better understand each other as people ) Most of the problems we have with gender, group color, sexuality and even religion stems from our tendency to make it an 'us vs them' issue because we don't recognize it as simply an 'us' problem.

This was a silly thread about the nonsense of religious beliefs, then it became real serious with people discussing the torture of cats 😮 .

I don't mind you putting down religion and gods, but be careful what you say about cats 😁 .

IIRC, these regions of differential expansion/inflation are the result of symmetry breaking for that region, and, from A Guth's original paper on inflation, the boundary of the region would be a source of magnetic monopoles. None have ever been detected, and most question their existence.

It may be true for some animals, such as lions, where a 'dominant' male has several female consorts, based on his size and strength, as that is their evolutionary advantage. Our evolutionary advantage is, supposedly, our intelligence; not size or strength. That being said, intelligent, highly successful men do tend to have ( or can afford ) more mistresses ... ( does that count ? 😄 😄 )

It is worse than that; it only controls the ignorant. They are the only ones that can be controlled by an imaginary construct. It is similar to telling little kids "Be good, or Santa Claus won't bring you any gifts at Christmas" Religion needs to stop treating people like little kids ! You do realize that 'omnipotence' means knowing how you will choose ?

I believe you have it backwards. It is rational, thinking people who have come to the conclusion that 'faith' is just an irrational emotion based on hope. Hope that some higher power will deal with your problems because either through ignorance, incompetence, or tragedy, you are incapable of doing so yourself. That being said, I don't begrudge people who need religion/faith; some people need a 'crutch' to deal with life's problems. I and many others, don't need such an emotional crutch, so why do religious people 'judge' me, and say I am destined to spend the afterlife, another imaginary, unverifiable, urrational concept in a place called hell ?

Science does not simply make sense, although there is a need for self-consistency. Science must be 'verifiable' to the extent that there has to be possible falsification. ( usually in the form of experimental evidence ) Religion, a 'faith', has no such requirement, and could not possibly come close to meeting any such requirement.

A 'theory of everything' seems a little too ambitious. Keep in mind we don't have a viable GUT yet, that unifies Electroweak and Color interactions, and if we did, verification of such candidate theories would require energies that could only be achieved by a collider the size of the Moon's orbit. Then, one that unifies a viable GUT with Gravity, would require verification energies several orders of magnitude larger. And at those energy densities, you are simply creating micro black holes; not verifying anything.

Different co-ordinates are used to simplify problems. First example that comes to mind is the 2nd order partial differential wave equation for the Hydrogen atom. Would be extremely difficult in Cartesian, but a switch to Spherical-Polar allows for separation of variables, and vastly simplifies the problem. Some co-ordinate systems may become un-usable in certain circumstances, making their use unsuitable, but under no circumstances should a switch in co-ordinates predict differing outcomes if either is suitable.

No, what do you suppose you would see when you get to the actual edge of the bubble ? If no answer makes any physical sense, then there might not be an actual edge.

ALL effects, including lack of viscosity, are quantum effects.

If that was J Bekenstein's TeVeS ( Tensor/Vector/Scalar gravity ) generalized relativistic version of MOND, then, being relativistic, it would be able to handle lensing. However it does have its problems; one large problem being stellar gravitational stability with Bekenstein's parameters.

Another way to avoid the nasty integrals Mordred is talking about is through the use of Feynman diagrams. Feynman diagrams are a pictorial representation of the integral formulation, and the transition amplitudes as a weighted sum of all possible histories of a system from initial to final state. The 'participants' are usually indicated by ' > < ' where arrows on each bracket indicate time evolution and all possible interactions are indicated by 'squiggly' lines joining the vertices of the brackets. ( sorry about the crude representation; Wikipedia has much better diagrams ) These possible histories can give rise to other 'participants' ( solid lines ) as well as squiggly interaction lines, and can get very complicated. Also the fact that there can be an infinite number of possible histories, leads to possible infinities when summed; fortunately, a technique called renormalization works rather well at eliminating these infinities from QED and QCD. In the case of gravity, these perturbative contributions, or possible histories, don't just arise between the two brackets themselves; because gravity is self-coupling, they arise on ( and perturb ) each individual bracket also, leading to additional infinities which resist every attempt of renormalization.

The simple answer is that as gravity is self-coupling, and this quality produces these 'divergences', or infinities, cannot be eliminated by renormalization, as they were with QED and QCD. And that negates any predictive use of the 'theory'. Mordred sometimes forgets most of the rest of us are dummies.

I'm not required to read it. You haven't posted anything worth discussing, as you are required. And what you have posted is easily shown to be wrong, as Swansont and Mordred did.

Please explain what you 'see' when you get to the 'edge' of one of these bubble universes.

Didn't we just do this a couple of days ago ? If nothing else, you gotta admire the ambition of the OP. Never mind trying to understand Newtonian gravity, electromagnetism, optics, wave particle duality, or quantum mechanics. Lets bypass all that trivial stuff, and go right for the top; a theory of everything ! Being ambitious and getting out of your comfort zone, is one thing; lacking the required pre-requisite knowledge, and simply making W A Guesses is another altogether. Good luck. ( look at what happened to the last poster to introduce this topic

You seem confused about very many things ...

I'm willing to take bets ... I say in 10 days your demerit points will have exceeded your post count.

A Friedmann died in 1925, at the age of 37.

The 'final parsec problem' is not an observational problem; we know that SMBHs merge. Computational modelling, however, fails to predict this, and SMBH merger simulations stall at about one parsec due to an effect termed dynamic gravitational drag. This suggests we don't have all the variables, or appropriate boundary conditions, in our computational model. Dark matter, and its interaction in relation to dynamic gravitational drag, could be a solution. This in no way explains what dark matter is, but it might point to some properties of dark matter that allow for the overcoming of the final parsec problem, and help discriminate between possible dark matter contending models/particles. It is akin to the galaxy rotation curve problem; dark matter is a possible solution.

Most people who 'find' science have no further need to find God. I suggest you never did 'find' science, because science provides a very clear path for making sense of the world, without invoking mystical beings. Your posts are sufficient proof that you need to do a lot more searching to find science.

The word universe means 'all that there is'. Talking about the 'outside' and 'shape' of the universe ( or depth, width and center ) means that there is something outside of 'all that there is'. Nonsense by definition. I had hopes for this thread when you first started it, but then you started posting nonsense like the above. You're quickly running out of chances.