https://youtu.be/wteiuxyqtoM

So according to Einstein, and they claim this is
scientifically confirmed, there's this thingie called
"Simultaneity."

YES, as a matter of fact I did have to rely on the
spell checker for that one...

So, Einstein... two observers... two different
observations... BOTH are right.

Reality in two different states: TWO version of
reality: The Multiverse.

How do we test this? One word:

Interactions.

You devise an interaction. Meaning, IF Observer-A
is correct, and the lightening strikes at the same
time, a green light will turn on. And if Observer-B is
correct then a red light will turn on but a green light
will not. If BOTH observations are correct, you will
see a green and a red light.

The problem here is devising an experiment where
both observers remain in fairly close proximity to
each other. But it is possible. So it does meet the
requirements of science -- the Multiverse is legitimate
science, a hypothesis!

And, again, it is claimed that "Simultaneity" has been
confirmed, so the Multiverse might even qualify as
a "Theory" in itself.

But, again, you can prove it or falsify it by imposing a
situation (environment) where the phenomenon being
observed INTERACTS with something else, and the
result of that interaction is dependent upon specific
observations.

You can even take this further!

For instance, if the lightening strikes at the same time
then a green light goes on. If a green light goes on a
gun fires. If the gun fires the cat (hi, Schrodinger!) dies.
If the cat dies the mouse makes it to the cheese. if
the mouse makes it to the cheese the elephant is
released...

Using computers and "Gates" -- binary yes and no,
zeroes or ones -- you can build the internet, music,
movies... the entire cyber world! Using simple tests
you can start with a tiny interaction and then build
massive discrepancies in reality. You could have
two completely different realities.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 23:21:38 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote:

https://youtu.be/wteiuxyqtoM

So according to Einstein, and they claim this is
scientifically confirmed, there's this thingie called
"Simultaneity."

YES, as a matter of fact I did have to rely on the
spell checker for that one...

So, Einstein... two observers... two different
observations... BOTH are right.

Reality in two different states: TWO version of
reality: The Multiverse.

How do we test this? One word:

Interactions.

You devise an interaction. Meaning, IF Observer-A
is correct, and the lightening strikes at the same
time, a green light will turn on. And if Observer-B is
correct then a red light will turn on but a green light
will not. If BOTH observations are correct, you will
see a green and a red light.

The problem here is devising an experiment where
both observers remain in fairly close proximity to
each other. But it is possible. So it does meet the
requirements of science -- the Multiverse is legitimate
science, a hypothesis!

And, again, it is claimed that "Simultaneity" has been
confirmed, so the Multiverse might even qualify as
a "Theory" in itself.

But, again, you can prove it or falsify it by imposing a
situation (environment) where the phenomenon being
observed INTERACTS with something else, and the
result of that interaction is dependent upon specific
observations.

You can even take this further!

For instance, if the lightening strikes at the same time
then a green light goes on. If a green light goes on a
gun fires. If the gun fires the cat (hi, Schrodinger!) dies.
If the cat dies the mouse makes it to the cheese. if
the mouse makes it to the cheese the elephant is
released...

Using computers and "Gates" -- binary yes and no,
zeroes or ones -- you can build the internet, music,
movies... the entire cyber world! Using simple tests
you can start with a tiny interaction and then build
massive discrepancies in reality. You could have
two completely different realities.

From your cited video:
****************************
Einstein tells us that both are correct within their own frame of
reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity from
different reference frames. There can never be agreement on the
simultaneity of events.
****************************

Note the phrase "within their own frame of reference". Note your
cited video says nothing about multiverse. Different frames of
reference do not a multiverse make. Einstein's relativity doesn't
inform multiverse any more than does Galileo's relativity. That's not
what most people mean by multiverse. As always, you are free to ape
Humpty Dumpty to please yourself.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Note the phrase "within their own frame of reference". Note your
cited video says nothing about multiverse.

Are you on the Autism Spectrum? Are you Asperger's or worse? If
so that would explain many of your comments in this group. If not
you are a fucking idiot. No, wait; I'm serious. You're either on the
Autism Spectrum or you're a drool soaked, knuckle dragging jackass.

BECAUSE Einstein is describing a Multiverse.

If someone claims to have seen an animal, and describes a horse in
great detail, then outside the Autism Spectrum they have just told
you that they saw a horse, even if they never used the word.

If there's three walnut shells and one of them hides a pea, and I
point out which two do not conceal the pea then I have in fact
told you which shell the pea is under... even if you condition wants
you to claim that I did the opposite... "You didn't tell me where it
is! Liar! Fibber! You told me wear it isn't!"

Again, if you are on the Spectrum then this and many other threads
do make a lot of sense. You're too binary.

....one of your kind once, we were in a car; she was thrown into confession over an "Office Park" because parks have swing sets
and sometimes amusement rides -- they're for fun! -- not office space.

Human origins is not a great fit for you, nor any kind of fit. Evolution
isn't logic. That's Intelligent Design or good ol' fashioned creationism.

There's no shame for you. So you're not capable of handling this stuff.

So what?

Someone people can't even check the oil on their car, they don't know
how, and they're still quite intelligent and accomplished. And you can
be as well, just not here.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:

jillery wrote:

Note the phrase "within their own frame of reference". Note your
cited video says nothing about multiverse.

Are you on the Autism Spectrum? Are you Asperger's or worse? If
so that would explain many of your comments in this group. If not
you are a fucking idiot. No, wait; I'm serious. You're either on the
Autism Spectrum or you're a drool soaked, knuckle dragging jackass.

BECAUSE Einstein is describing a Multiverse.

If someone claims to have seen an animal, and describes a horse in
great detail, then outside the Autism Spectrum they have just told
you that they saw a horse, even if they never used the word.

If there's three walnut shells and one of them hides a pea, and I
point out which two do not conceal the pea then I have in fact
told you which shell the pea is under... even if you condition wants
you to claim that I did the opposite... "You didn't tell me where it
is! Liar! Fibber! You told me wear it isn't!"

Again, if you are on the Spectrum then this and many other threads
do make a lot of sense. You're too binary.

....one of your kind once, we were in a car; she was thrown into
confession over an "Office Park" because parks have swing sets
and sometimes amusement rides -- they're for fun! -- not office space.

Human origins is not a great fit for you, nor any kind of fit. Evolution isn't logic. That's Intelligent Design or good ol' fashioned creationism.

There's no shame for you. So you're not capable of handling this stuff.

So what?

Someone people can't even check the oil on their car, they don't know
how, and they're still quite intelligent and accomplished. And you can
be as well, just not here.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

There are all sorts of different things that different people mean when they say "multiverse." You would like to add on to the 4-9 different definitions of multiverse currently in use a definition in which each frame of reference is a distinct universe
and the multiverse is made up by all those different frames of reference. Why not? It's not a use of the word common among physicists, but there are so many uses of it out there that it's hard to see the harm in your adding one more.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

There are all sorts of different things that different people mean when they say "multiverse."

"He didn't mean Multiverse when he described a Multiverse. He meant a
different Multiverse."

Einstein described a Multiverse, and it's testable.

You would like to add on to the 4-9 different definitions of multiverse currently in use

Doesn't matter. Regardless of which definition you choose, it's still the Multiverse.

There's many different types of pie. They are all pie. You can't say, "No! That's apple
pie so it's not pie because someone else was thinking of banana cream pie!"

They're pie.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:54:54 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:

jillery wrote:

Note the phrase "within their own frame of reference". Note your
cited video says nothing about multiverse.

Are you on the Autism Spectrum? Are you Asperger's or worse? If
so that would explain many of your comments in this group. If not
you are a fucking idiot. No, wait; I'm serious. You're either on the
Autism Spectrum or you're a drool soaked, knuckle dragging jackass.

BECAUSE Einstein is describing a Multiverse.

If someone claims to have seen an animal, and describes a horse in
great detail, then outside the Autism Spectrum they have just told
you that they saw a horse, even if they never used the word.

If there's three walnut shells and one of them hides a pea, and I
point out which two do not conceal the pea then I have in fact
told you which shell the pea is under... even if you condition wants
you to claim that I did the opposite... "You didn't tell me where it
is! Liar! Fibber! You told me wear it isn't!"

Again, if you are on the Spectrum then this and many other threads
do make a lot of sense. You're too binary.

....one of your kind once, we were in a car; she was thrown into
confession over an "Office Park" because parks have swing sets
and sometimes amusement rides -- they're for fun! -- not office space.

Human origins is not a great fit for you, nor any kind of fit. Evolution
isn't logic. That's Intelligent Design or good ol' fashioned creationism.

There's no shame for you. So you're not capable of handling this stuff.

So what?

Someone people can't even check the oil on their car, they don't know
how, and they're still quite intelligent and accomplished. And you can
be as well, just not here.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

There are all sorts of different things that different people mean when they say "multiverse." You would like to add on to the 4-9 different definitions of multiverse currently in use a definition in which each frame of reference is a distinct universe

and the multiverse is made up by all those different frames of reference. Why not? It's not a use of the word common among physicists, but there are so many uses of it out there that it's hard to see the harm in your adding one more.

Sure. And since every person has a unique view of reality we
can treat each version as a separate universe. Billions of
universes!

Or not.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova wrote:

Sure. And since every person has a unique view of reality we
can treat each version as a separate universe. Billions of
universes!

Wow, that's your take on TESTING and even falsifying or confirming
the Multiverse?

impressive.

You're not usually this.. um.. this "Articulate."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:54:54 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-5, JTEM trolled:

jillery wrote:

Note the phrase "within their own frame of reference". Note your
cited video says nothing about multiverse.

Are you on the Autism Spectrum? Are you Asperger's or worse? If
so that would explain many of your comments in this group. If not
you are a fucking idiot. No, wait; I'm serious. You're either on the
Autism Spectrum or you're a drool soaked, knuckle dragging jackass.

The above is JTEM aping Nando.

BECAUSE Einstein is describing a Multiverse.

If someone claims to have seen an animal, and describes a horse in
great detail, then outside the Autism Spectrum they have just told
you that they saw a horse, even if they never used the word.

The above is JTEM conflating perception with reality. As you should
know, perceptions might be based on reality, but they are not the same
as reality. This is a common confusion among willfully stupid trolls.

If there's three walnut shells and one of them hides a pea, and I
point out which two do not conceal the pea then I have in fact
told you which shell the pea is under... even if you condition wants
you to claim that I did the opposite... "You didn't tell me where it
is! Liar! Fibber! You told me wear it isn't!"

The above is JTEM pretending that his personal and unique definition
of "multiverse" is logically valid. As Lincoln noted, saying a dog's
tail is a leg doesn't make it one.

Again, if you are on the Spectrum then this and many other threads
do make a lot of sense. You're too binary.

....one of your kind once, we were in a car; she was thrown into
confession over an "Office Park" because parks have swing sets
and sometimes amusement rides -- they're for fun! -- not office space.

Human origins is not a great fit for you, nor any kind of fit. Evolution
isn't logic. That's Intelligent Design or good ol' fashioned creationism. >>
There's no shame for you. So you're not capable of handling this stuff.

So what?

Someone people can't even check the oil on their car, they don't know
how, and they're still quite intelligent and accomplished. And you can
be as well, just not here.

The above is JTEM posting a self-parody.

There are all sorts of different things that different people mean when they say "multiverse." You would like to add on to the 4-9 different definitions of multiverse currently in use a definition in which each frame of reference is a distinct universe

and the multiverse is made up by all those different frames of reference. Why not? It's not a use of the word common among physicists, but there are so many uses of it out there that it's hard to see the harm in your adding one more.


Here's a list of the "sorts of different things that different people
mean when they say "multiverse".":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>

Note that none of them are based on different frames of reference. If
that were a valid basis for describing "multiverse", then anytime the
same event was observed from different locations, their observations
would be multiverses.

The harm is in JTEM conflating his personal and unique definition with
those meanings, by claiming that Einstein's special relativity has any relationship to them. The harm is in you pretending that his
conflation has any merit.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

JTEM Truthed:

Are you on the Autism Spectrum? Are you Asperger's or worse? If
so that would explain many of your comments in this group. If not
you are a fucking idiot. No, wait; I'm serious. You're either on the
Autism Spectrum or you're a drool soaked, knuckle dragging jackass.

The above is JTEM

...being accurate.

If someone claims to have seen an animal, and describes a horse in
great detail, then outside the Autism Spectrum they have just told
you that they saw a horse, even if they never used the word.

The above is JTEM

...being accurate.

Point that Autistic mind towards Google & search on: unenumerated

Einstein describes the Multiverse: The universe simultaneously existing
in multiple states i.e. more than one version of reality.

It doesn't matter if he used THIS word or THAT word.

Another example in science?

It's like how Common Descent ALWAYS included evolution. Because if
a goat and a whale share a common ancestor than one or both evolved
a great deal since that time. So "Evolution" has been an idea present as
long as "Common Descent" has been, and Common Descent is VERY
old...

conflating perception with reality.

Wow. You really ARE an idiot! It's not just an act...

BOTH OBSERVERS ARE RIGHT!

It's not perception. It's not it /Looks/ this way but...

BOTH are correct.

You dirt eating, drool soaked ignoramus!






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:03:11 -0800 (PST), JTEM continued to troll:

Einstein describes the Multiverse: The universe simultaneously existing
in multiple states i.e. more than one version of reality.

"Different frames of reference" is not the same as "multiple states".
Even willfully stupid trolls should be able to understand the
difference.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

"Different frames of reference" is not the same as "multiple states".

No, you knuckle dragging ignoramus. The "Different frames of reference"
is referring to the viewers and NOT what is viewed. Two people on the
train can't see different things and both be right BECAUSE they share the
same frame of reference.

Even willfully stupid trolls

Wow. You're arguably retarded and not just Autistic!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:49:27 -0800 (PST), JTEM continued to troll:

jillery wrote:

"Different frames of reference" is not the same as "multiple states".

No, you knuckle dragging ignoramus. The "Different frames of reference"
is referring to the viewers and NOT what is viewed. Two people on the
train can't see different things and both be right BECAUSE they share the >same frame of reference.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, your own cite describes two
observers in different reference frames, one on the train, and one off
the train. It is those different reference frames which prevents them
from agreeing about simultaneity. For you to describe "two people on
the train" misses the whole point of the topic you raised, a common
problem among willfully stupid trolls.

Even willfully stupid trolls should be able to understand the difference.

Wow. You're arguably retarded and not just Autistic!

Sez the willfully stupid troll.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Autistic and likely retarded, jillery trolled:

JTEM continued too enlighten all:

No, you knuckle dragging ignoramus. The "Different frames of reference"
is referring to the viewers and NOT what is viewed. Two people on the
train can't see different things and both be right BECAUSE they share the >same frame of reference.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, your own cite describes two
observers in different reference frames

Like I said, you're not just Autistic. You're retarded.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709313954911027200

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 23:22:29 -0800 (PST), JTEM continues to troll:

Autistic and likely retarded, jillery trolled:

JTEM continued too enlighten all:

No, you knuckle dragging ignoramus. The "Different frames of reference"
is referring to the viewers and NOT what is viewed. Two people on the
train can't see different things and both be right BECAUSE they share the >> >same frame of reference.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, your own cite describes two
observers in different reference frames

Like I said, you're not just Autistic. You're retarded.

Apparently JTEM wants to help Nando sound smart.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

[...]

So I pointed out that the Multiverse is falsifiable, at least in theory,
which does indeed elevate it to the status of a genuine scientific
hypothesis. And we can't discuss this and the possible ramification,
much less the Real World means one might conduct such a test,
because you're too fucking Autistic. Einstein mere described a
Multiverse, he didn't enumerate the concept, and your Autism can't
move past this. AND THIS IS WHY anyone should take you serious.

According to that fucked up excuse of a mind of your's...

How much longer do you want to parade your disability?

We're on Day-4 already. Just how fucked up are you?






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709843474858622976

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 13:43:38 -0800 (PST), JTEM continues to compete
with Nando for the title of "Most Willfully Stupid Troll":

jillery wrote:

Nothing below. Quelle surprise.

So I pointed out that the Multiverse is falsifiable, at least in theory, >which does indeed elevate it to the status of a genuine scientific >hypothesis. And we can't discuss this and the possible ramification,
much less the Real World means one might conduct such a test,
because you're too fucking Autistic. Einstein mere described a
Multiverse, he didn't enumerate the concept, and your Autism can't
move past this. AND THIS IS WHY anyone should take you serious.

According to that fucked up excuse of a mind of your's...

How much longer do you want to parade your disability?

We're on Day-4 already. Just how fucked up are you?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Autistic & not just stupid, jillery wrote:

Nothing

So Day-5 of your spazzing out, because Einstein merely describes
the Multiverse and does not use the word itself.

You're a laughing stock!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/25145388699

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

All billions multiplied by billions different kinds of Gravity-Multiverses exist in the absolute reference frame of Cosmic Vacuum.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)