Physics GRE Discussion Forums

Bean wrote:GR (the original put forward by Einstein, not those making use of bundles and unions (well, not mathematical unions, but I'm choosing to presume that "readers" (genuine readers/scoffers/crack-pots/etc) understand what I mean)) does not actually imply any such thing and while interpretations such as the many-world interpretation may be taken to imply such, said interpretations may also often be taken to imply only that there exist other coordinate charts/atlases/manifolds (in which case the coordinate adjective would be redundant) not necessarily that those coordinate bases/fields/whatever you choose to call them are fully compatible with "our" universe's (of course transformation is possible but that doesn't mean that the coordinates located with respect to "something" in "our" universe are compatible from the conceptual standpoint with the coordinates located with respect to "something" ' of another universe/thing/"whatever you want to believe, with or without evidence that may or not be true, is 'out there'".

grae313 wrote:

Bean wrote:GR (the original put forward by Einstein, not those making use of bundles and unions (well, not mathematical unions, but I'm choosing to presume that "readers" (genuine readers/scoffers/crack-pots/etc) understand what I mean)) does not actually imply any such thing and while interpretations such as the many-world interpretation may be taken to imply such, said interpretations may also often be taken to imply only that there exist other coordinate charts/atlases/manifolds (in which case the coordinate adjective would be redundant) not necessarily that those coordinate bases/fields/whatever you choose to call them are fully compatible with "our" universe's (of course transformation is possible but that doesn't mean that the coordinates located with respect to "something" in "our" universe are compatible from the conceptual standpoint with the coordinates located with respect to "something" ' of another universe/thing/"whatever you want to believe, with or without evidence that may or not be true, is 'out there'".

Really, dude? Really? This is one sentence. Within this sentence are four and a half parenthetical statements, including a parenthetical statement inside a parenthetical statement inside a parenthetical statement. Three embedded levels of parenthetical statements! Do you think this is good writing? Do you realize that the point of communicating is to communicate? You are why scientific writing is dismal and pathetic.

bean wrote:You are assuming here that there exist coordinates with which "we may locate ourselves" outside of "our" universe (I say "our" solely because our denotes ownership, and, as far as I know, no one has as yet drawn up legal papers assigning ownership of this universe which has the consequence that the ownership implied by our does not technically apply ). GR (the original put forward by Einstein, not those making use of bundles and unions (well, not mathematical unions, but I'm choosing to presume that "readers" (genuine readers/scoffers/crack-pots/etc) understand what I mean)) does not actually imply any such thing and while interpretations such as the many-world interpretation may be taken to imply such, said interpretations may also often be taken to imply only that there exist other coordinate charts/atlases/manifolds (in which case the coordinate adjective would be redundant) not necessarily that those coordinate bases/fields/whatever you choose to call them are fully compatible with "our" universe's (of course transformation is possible but that doesn't mean that the coordinates located with respect to "something" in "our" universe are compatible from the conceptual standpoint with the coordinates located with respect to "something" ' of another universe/thing/"whatever you want to believe, with or without evidence that may or not be true, is 'out there'". For instance (in exaggeration), for all we know "our" universe may reside on a manifold (not the manifold describing "our" universe clearly) where coordinates are expressed (location-wise and locally as should become obvious) with respect to their jerk (acceleration dot) in which case your query of where are we would not be compatible with the coordinates of this "outer-manifold" at a fundamentally conceptual level:
BOB: "I want to know what 'our' universes location is in this 'bigger place' so let me ask this other guy who just must know everything what 'our' universe's (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,...,x_D) parameters are."
TALL GUY WITH WHITE BEARD, HALO, AND LONG WHITE ROBE: "Well... which one is yours?."
BOB: *points to the universe with the big neon letters "BOB'S UNIVERSE" sitting on top*
TALL GUY WITH DESCRIPTIVE ACCESSORIES: "Oh. That one. Hmm... it's (0,1,2,3,...,D) with respect to your jerk when examined with respect to the 'bigger place''s (as you so elocquently put it) average jerk."
BOB: "So it's (0,1,2,3,...D) with respect to your father when examined with respect to my son?"
TALL GUY ...: "... Yeah. Sure. Whatever ."

Youe see. It just doesn't work too well.
Basically, no one knows with certainty, and, since the projections for the smallest time interval from the present to when we may actually be able to observe another universe (once again choosing to presume that you understand what I mean) indicate that we've quite a waiting time, it is somewhat unlikely that anyone will know with certainty in your (or my) lifetime.)

Really, dude? Really? This is one sentence. Within this sentence are four and a half parenthetical statements, including a parenthetical statement inside a parenthetical statement inside a parenthetical statement. Three embedded levels of parenthetical statements! Do you think this is good writing? Do you realize that the point of communicating is to communicate? You are why scientific writing is dismal and pathetic.

WontonBurritoMeals wrote:

WontonBurritoMeals wrote:

quizivex wrote:Oh my... thank goodness zxcv, doom et al. from the 2008 censorship squad are no longer here... There's clearly no purpose of these pictures besides random humor mocking the absurdity of the original posts. But since the pictures are black people, the censorship squad would call the posters racist regardless, and the thread would evolve into a flame war over political correctness.

http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php ... iday#p8645

Oh my... thank goodness zxcv, doom et al. from the 2008 censorship squad are no longer here... There's clearly no purpose of these pictures besides random humor mocking the absurdity of the original posts. But since the pictures are black people, the censorship squad would call the posters racist regardless, and the thread would evolve into a flame war over political correctness.

WontonBurritoMeals wrote: To be fair, we are practically the only physics forum on the internet that is even semi-free of new-agers. That and my picture was in reference to a particular internet joke and not making fun of black people.

-WontonBurritoMeals

quizivex wrote:@Wonton: I know it wasn't racist... it wasn't even close.

I was only making fun of some of the hypersensitive whiners that used to frequent the forum back the year I was applying. In their eyes, any reference to a black person is automatically racist, and any sentence of the form "Jews tend to be ___" is automatically antisemitic regardless of what fills the blank. Some of the old school members may remember these people.