Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #231213
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.29--6.19am.Seattle.2018> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <ptlsvj$nke$1@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.28--6.37am.Seattle.2018> <ptm9sb$1hnu$2@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.28--7.39am.Seattle.2018> <ptofee$19m3$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.checkmate |
| Subject | The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. |
| Organization | blocknews - www.blocknews.net |
| Date | 2018-11-29 06:19 -0800 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Kensi replied:
> > "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
> > isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.
>
> No, not really.
Yes, really. WikiPedia: <<
If the cosmological constant is positive,
-- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy. >>
Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off.
> "Dark energy" could, if we knew more about what exactly it is.
" The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model. " -- WikiPedia
> I hope the LHC will shed some light on dark energy,
Good luck, they're only off by 120 orders of magnitude.
No need for such wild imaginations, like
the graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds.
Choose your cult:
SuperDeterminism ( Spinoza, Einstein and Me ):
Sure, our ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" ) is real,
-- we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive;
but "Local Realism" (causality) doesn't need our recognition.
qBism uses an AgreedUpon (SI) standard to reduced the wavefunction
to AgreedUpon probabilities upon which one might (subjectively) bet.
One might (subjectively) bet that entanglement is a real phenomenon,
"knowing" |Up> in one location will be |Down> in another;
no faster than light anything; no bullshit worlds.
YouTube.COM/watch?v=LQvCTZgNRNw
YouTube.COM/watch?v=95fKJF5frtE
MultiVerse ( Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene and ComicCon ):
Before EachAndEvery NanoChange, a universe duplicates itself;
because ComicCon SciFi pays better than real science.
> > Many of today's scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. We've surpassed him, decades ago,
> in a very many ways ( especially quantum physics ).
No, you're way _ behind him.
Back to alt.checkmate | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: By definition, geniuses are rare. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-27 05:16 -0500
Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-27 06:33 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 06:08 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 09:51 -0800
Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-28 06:37 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 09:48 -0500
99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-28 07:39 -0800
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 10:03 -0700
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:37 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:36 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:35 -0500
The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-29 06:19 -0800
Re: The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:21 -0500
We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-29 08:31 -0800
Re: We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 06:11 -0500
Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-30 05:09 -0800
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 11:29 -0500
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:00 +0000
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:27 -0500
Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-30 13:46 -0800
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-30 16:41 -0600
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:28 -0500
Kensi is the KoOky one. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 06:28 -0800
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:33 -0500
See ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 06:48 -0800
Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:55 -0500
I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 07:04 -0800
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:13 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:09 +0000
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-01 22:18 -0800
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-02 09:31 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. % <%@%> - 2018-12-02 07:35 -0700
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-02 14:47 -0800
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
Re: See ? ! "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-01 11:47 -0500
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:43 -0700
Re: See ? ! Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:10 +0000
Re: See ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 07:17 -0600
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-03 08:05 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:44 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:49 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:54 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 13:02 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:10 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:22 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:43 -0700
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 21:52 -0600
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:09 -0500
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-12-01 11:48 -0600
Re: Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:28 -0500
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 15:23 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-28 12:33 -0600
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-28 15:54 -0500
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 18:51 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-11-28 13:54 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 14:57 -0700
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-28 20:26 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 06:45 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-29 05:17 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 09:43 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 17:40 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:15 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:17 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-29 17:22 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 07:46 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 00:55 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-30 09:49 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 08:50 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 09:59 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:08 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 13:19 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:09 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:48 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 18:48 -0700
csiph-web