Dark Energy Just Went {Poof}

This is why I keep telling people to use real numbers in their equations.

If you have to resort to using the alphabet and random symbols or totally made up nonsense to make your equations work they just maybe your doing them wrong!

I use 'n' as the 14th letter of the alphabet.

You can write it any font or case you want but in my books it will always be the 14th letter in my alphabet.

As far as all that other gobbledygook they claim is math I tend to use long form for critical things since all of my work is based in tangible reality. If it can't be represented by the numbers 0 - 9 and to a precision of 5 decimal places or less I have no use for it.

Yeah, that's CR4's idea of the Greek letter pi. Looks a lot like an 'n' but is really the Greek version of our 'p.'

I guess what I don't understand is your vehemence against symbolic mathematics. You may not use it for your own purposes, and that's fine, but our technological society depends heavily on mathematical constructs and so it can't be just, as you say, all 'gobbledegook.' It definitely has practical value and it works. Exceedingly well.

It's your vehemence I don't understand. It goes well beyond simply seeing no practical value in it for yourself. You seem to actually revile it and, worse, revile people who use it. That part I don't understand at all. For example, I don't wear ladies' slippers, but I don't revile them every time I pass a shoe store and tell other people they have to wear boots. What would be the point? Simply because I prefer boots? That doesn't make any sense. What do their preferences have to do with mine? Nothing.

You've mentioned this before and so obviously you have strong feelings about it, but this also leads me to suspect there's more to this tale than you're saying. Mostly, though, I'm just curious as to the 'why.' Please bear with me.

You would have to know my life history and the way too many bad experiences I have had with math teachers and professors who were basically clueless and too often useless people who were out of touch with reality and largely terrible at their jobs of teaching me anything practical about the subject beyond how to use the basics for what I have ever needed to figure out.

Most everyone tried to tell me there were thing that could be done with that supposed math that were so outrageously and easily disproven with basic math and rational sense they were laughable to the point of sad.

The thing is if you go through enough pompous fools triing and teach you something that is easily disproven with basic math and common sense time after time while being told that it is 'You who doesn't get it' a very strong skepticism and doubt sets in.

As far as Pi goes for me I have it memorized to 3.14159265 and I have never did any real life mechanical or electrical calculations that needed precision past 3.1415 in any of my real life design or troubleshooting situations.

Sure, there are other ways to do things (always in some way more complicated than needs to be) but none I have found to be less complicated for what I need, and so far I have yet to ever find anything that made more sense and was easier than how I do things now.

As far as anything more complicated than what I can do with basic math that's what I have a $200+ calculator and multiple computers for. I put my real numbers in and it gives me what I need (most of the time) from there.

Too bad you didn't have better teachers and life experiences. That poisoned your attitude toward mathematics unnecessarily. That happens a lot. Teachers who have no clue how to present a topic, some having not mastered it themselves, and there are lots of book-smart fools out there, but not all are. There are some pretty sharp people out there. I was lucky enough to study under several who also had lots of common sense. Learnt basic woodworking from one of them whose speciality was algebraic topology - a pretty difficult branch of mathematics. We became good friends. After finals he treated the class to the local pub and got us thrown out three hours later. Just about the only thing I remember from that class.

That's interesting. Just about everything practical that became really useful to me in life can be traced back to what my woodwork teacher taught me.

Very little algebra involved, but enough. Using letters for 'unknowns' and number for 'knowns' - and with the appropriate formula you end up with a number to substitute for an 'unknown'. Double check the result.

Then you use this number when you cut the wood. Letters and numbers were necessary to design and make something.

All my doors shut properly and shelves don't fall down.

Or have I missed the point of this thread!.

One example I have happened in one of my EE degree math classes as it was sort of funny but made a perfect point of how out of touch math professors are with this stuff.

One day we were going over some that gobbledygook and the professor started explaining how certain formulas can be used to exchange the value of any real number into any other real number and its supposedly 100% mathematically provable to work (passed the bidirectional proof test or some crap like that.)

Anyway, he was all impressed with this nonsense and said as future engineers it will be a very andy mathematical tool to have.

I asked where we would use such a thing in any real life situations.

He replied, "It's valid for most anywhere where a mathematical value you get doesn't work for what you need."

I then said, "If I gave you a real life situation could you prove it?"

He said, "Of course! easily! Where do you want me to prove it?"

I then replied, 'Well, what are you doing after class?"

He said, "Nothing. I am free for the next few hours so I can show you any way that will prove it works."

I then said."Great! Let's go to my bank any you can show me how to use this formula to turn my $35 I have in my checking account into $35 million and I will happily give you half of that for proving it because I have doubts it works in reality as you say."

Yea.. The whole class got a real good hard laugh and, No, we did not got to my bank and get it proven to me that it wasn't anything but overly complicated gobbledygook being taught by some fool who was out of touch with reality, just like I suspected all along.

And that's just one of my better examples of some pseudo mathematical crap being taught by some fools not living up to what it was claimed to be good for.

Simply put, I trust real numbers and things I can represent with real numbers that translate into reality and nothing further.

Lol! Yeah, I've met few, too. This one guy, the company's VP of Technology, kept coming into the lab to check on a program he was running on one of the computers. Kept checking to see if it was done. The fifth or sixth time he came in, I was curious and so I asked him what his program was calculating that took so long. He explained. I asked him how his program was going about it. He told me and so I whipped out my calculator (a humble HP 33e) and told him his approach on that computer (one of the early Apple computers, pre-Macintosh) would take approximately 10¹³ times the age of the Universe to complete (give or take a few eons), so there was "...little point in coming back to the lab today. Or tomorrow for that matter." Then I computed the number his computer was supposed to compute using my calculator because there was a shortcut that some famous mathematician a couple of centuries ago came up with (Euler or Gauss or some such). Ah well. He was pretty embarrassed and stormed out of the lab.

For me I started out with high school math teachers who proved to be useless drunks and out of touch goofs with anger management issues. The bottom of the bottom who could still hold a job.

Once I got out of high school and went to trade school I got lucky and had several excellent math classes with some excellent old school hands on math professors who knew how to present things as they are in reality and not in over complex theory. That's where my real foundations came from.

They taught exclusively on what is useful and practical, lots of the tricks and cheats on how to reduce what looks complex into it base components and work from there, not what looks all impressive yet does little useful for the apparent work and processes involved.

That's what my applied math skills and capacities are based on. I measure and interact with life and what I do with real numbers so I have no use or reason to trust anything less.

I've seen the other ways abused and fail too many times, often on bonehead simple applications at that, to have any reason to ever think it's worth the work involved.

Sort of made me a real pain in the ass in my math classes when I went back for my EE degree. Someone knowing the tricks and shortcuts to reduce complex problems into something simple and workable with basic math.

And no, I did not do well in my math classes. I was doing things the smart way people in real life jobs use to get what's in front of them solved as fast as possible with whatever resources they have as reliably as possible not the systems way of taking the simple and making it into a long drawn out complex problem that only a few can work their ways through and get the correct answers from.

You're still a pain in the arse lol! Can't have too much of a good thing!

He isn't the only one, it seems to be in the genes of an engineer.

It is really funny when peeps get all incensed when shown their folly.

How about imaginary numbers? Have you ever used a Fourier transform in signal analysis, Mr. EE major?

I wish I could help you with mathphobia, but there is no physical therapy, or internal medicine to help with that. I suffered immensely in school during stages where I had to learn something new in mathematics, but in each case, once the concept was clear, and how to operate it was clear, I gained speed and accuracy with it. I even competed in number sense, and slide rule competitions (how archaic is that?).

There are a lot of concepts I struggle with in mathematics, and I also struggle with reading music, and learning to speak in other languages. I think this is left-brain, right-brain kind of stuff. Some of us (probably like you and I) are linear thinkers, some think in curves, multiple dimensions, etc.

Mathematics is a language. Unless one gets immersed in that language early on, and stays in the mathematics culture, it is very hard to prevent it from evaporating.

I agree that some teachers have no business teaching mathematics, as they themselves are far from fluent. One of my graduate school chemistry professors in quantum chemistry was Henry Eyring. He was a numbers kind of guy. He explained calculus (differential and integral) to our class as a primer before moving off into advanced differential equations dealing with electromagnetism, quantum phenomema, Hamiltonians, perturbation operators, Hermitian polynomials, etc.

He explained it all in way real numbers way in 30 minutes so that everything was crystal clear. What a fluent genius he was. He should have had the Nobel Prize for his Transition State Theory.

Not my area of EE.

Your question is about as valid to me as asking a person with a Doctorate in skin diseases about skeletal issues.

Not my area and or interests plus without a real life example to work from I have no possible way to give an answer.

I would hardly call sitting for hours on end with a high end calculator crunching numbers in order to fix or design and build the many things both electrical and mechanical which I do frequently a phobia.

I have no fear of applied maths. I have a strong distrust and general lack of use for the abstract end of things.

There are a lot of things you can't figure out without using algebra, calculus, or computer programs, etc., all of which use variables.

Correction - I should have said .....add the 2 rows in pairs, you get 2* N lots of (N + 1), so the answer is 1/2*N*(N + 1).

Surprised nobody picked me up on it. Thanks for the GAs though.

I am sorry, I have not been in fact check mode much lately, floating down river is so much easier than swimming upstream. Only live fish can do the latter, or the ladder.

He was referring to pi = π (greek letter pi) = The first 50 decimal digits are 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

• Arndt, Jörg; Haenel, Christoph (2006). Pi Unleashed. Springer-Verlag.ISBN 978-3-540-66572-4. Retrieved 2013-06-05. English translation by Catriona and David Lischka. page 240

In Arkansas, pi R round, cornbread R square. In Clintonville AR, there is no pie, and he still did not...(fill in the blank here).

There is a lot of interesting mathematics related to the computation of pi, included on the Wikipedia article for pi. pi wikipedia

Really? you have no use for it? How do you ever get sections of a circle right?

In some areas pi r square

That's just wrong.

Let me dispose of that for you. _{Does someone have a fork I can borrow?}

Don't eat more than π/2, as some of the rest of us want some.

No worries: π/2 leaves three quarters for everyone else.

Half each shared fairly! - OK, you cut, I choose. Or I cut, you choose.

I have no use beyond 3.1415 in practical application calculations work.

At that value it typically gives me a calculated value that falls well below manufactured as to be built tolerances for anything I need to build.

It's like machining a component. If the tolerance is +- .005" there no point or purpose in doing the calculations to values less than .001. Basic least significant digit principle.

I have no use beyond 3.1415 in practical application calculations work.

maybe that's because you peaked early in life...

My areas of work just don't need it to go any further.

For what I do close enough to work properly, AKA 'being within tolerance limits', is all that matters.

I know,... I'm just being difficult at the moment.

We know the old chemist and engineer joke. Only the engineer gets there for all practical purposes, and there is a there, there.

"...For what I do close enough to work properly, AKA 'being within tolerance limits', is all that matters..."

And why not!

I vaguely recall a clip from the original (1951) "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Prof Barnhardt (Sam Jaffe) had his very complex formula for space travel written all over the chalkboard when Klaatu (Michael Rennie) rubbed out bits and corrected it in places.

Later, Barnhardt when meeting with Klaatu, was pointing out the inaccuracy of the Klaatu corrections, where Klaatu agreed, but said to his formula worked and was 'good enough' to successfully travel between plants.

Back here on Earth, I use 'good enough' approximate values to solve all sorts of engineering problems. The precision if often unnecessary.

bees travel between plants. Humans travel between road signs. What travels between planets? Klaatu?

My debit card's PIN is the last four digits of pi. Not nearly as popular as the first four.

At least you made me look. That is just irrational.

Done so soon? Whoa! I'm impressed!

if it weren't for Complex (j) and Imaginary (i) numbers that are used everyday today... this world would really be set back 100 years.

here are (6) numbers that shaped the world.

Okay, I get the significance of 0, the golden ratio, e, and pi in shaping the world (or our understanding and interacting in the world).

While I really like the number 13, I don't see why it was significant in shaping the world. The article doesn't give a reason other than that 13 is the period that the cicada emerges to mate. What about other insects/bugs/creatures and numbers associated with them? Why are cicadas held above all others?

While I really like the number 13, I don't see why it was significant ....

yes that was a vague one... I'm would have gone with Fibonacci sequence myself. And how the Fibonacci sequence presents itself in nature time and again. Or at least prime numbers.

As far as the number 13 other than being a prime number, maybe its is the superstition affect it had on the religious organizations at the time.

What about other insects/bugs/creatures and numbers associated with them?

One thing, there are difference species of cicadas and I believe, that emerges not at 13 years, but another prime, I believe every 17 years (I saw this on a documentary), yet another prime number, and through out 100 years repeats the fewest...

With this happening, there isn't the competition for resources between the two. as short as their life span is.

Phi sort of implies the Fibonacci sequence in a roundabout way as the ratio of two adjacent Fibonacci numbers, F(n)/F(n-1), approaches phi as n tends towards infinity.

I agree that including '13' in the mix was a bit strange. Where the other five were specific numbers, he's using 13 as a proxy for a group of numbers; namely, primes. Ah, well.

yes,... it leaves for some,... speculation.

And therein lies my problem!

Proxy representations giving a false value or incorrectly implied meaning or significance that does not truly or accurately represent the whole of what they are standing in for.

For me it's like writing a sentence but not connecting its context to the larger context of the overall subject of discussion.

Standing on its own and depending on how the words in it are arranged it may mean one thing, but in the greater context of a paragraph it may carry a totally different context and meaning.

--------------

Take these four above sentences and rearrange them.

Each sentence has it own meaning yet if they are rearranged the overall meaning of what I posed will vary by quite a wide range. And to go even further if those various alternate meanings were reduced to a simple proxy summation for each how would those implied by false proxies fit or read in the greater discussion of this thread?

That's my problem with certain types of math. Regular Cascade failure effects of the whole due to tiny inconsistencies and or errors underlying the base work every proxy component in it stands for.

Rather how making one number equal to any other number. If you follow the steps each direction it passes a proof test perfectly and by mathematical rule must be valid in reality yet when attempted be implemented in reality it's so easily shown to be wrong it's just embarrassingly dumb to think it's a valid proof of anything real or otherwise.

Chaos, or even binomial distribution statistics may yet be shown to rule the universe.

Why just yesterday, I pulled some gas flow meter data produced by bubbles displacing water from chamber to another, and saw a distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers.

"I believe every 17 years (I saw this on a documentary), yet another prime number, and through out 100 years repeats the fewest..."

Yes, they coincide every 221 years (13 x 17).

The documentary did it with other species also... it was pretty fascinating.

They actually had a calendar set up with each box representing (1) year... and each species represented by a colored flower. Great visual to see which over lapped were.

Wonder if it's on YouTube... (I'd check but I have an appointment to go to).

I see it all as what's relevant to any specific area of knowledge, work or actions.

Every major action or subject of any kind has some unique number or sequence of numbers that is applicable and represents a commonality to it but that in itself does not make those numbers or numbers sets universally valuable everywhere else. Many may crossover from field to field but to me they are just numbers all the same.

I am not a banker so 'e' has no value or practical application to me and 13 is just the number that's >12 and <14.

Same with the 'Golden ratio' and 'i'. No use in what I do hence no concern for them or their existence.

Just because they may be found in something I work with doesn't mean they have any relevantly unique or special value and purpose. They're just numbers to me.

So that's why time seems to be moving so fast when I get up in the morning, then drags through the afternoon.

BTW:

Zero was invented independently by the Babylonians, Mayans and Indians (although some researchers say the Indian number system was influenced by theBabylonians). The Babylonians got their number system from the Sumerians, the first people in the world to develop a counting system. (un-named sources mostly Democrats).

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea is a good read.

An explanation of the video:

"Uploaded on Mar 28, 2017

Laszlo Dobos, of Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, and Istvan Szapudi, of the University of Hawaii in the USA, have developed a model that explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without the need for dark energy.
The frame at top left (red) shows the expansion according to the conventional 'lambda cold dark matter (LCDM)' model. The central top frame (blue) shows the expansion of the universe in the new AvERA model taking structure into account. On the top right (green) is the simpler Einstein-de Sitter model, accepted in the second half of the twentieth century. In each case one dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster.
The frame at bottom centre shows how the scale of the universe increases over time in the three different models, using the same colours as above.
Units of scale in each are Megaparsecs (Mpc), and 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million km.
Credit: István Csabai et al.

• Category
• Science & Technology
• License
• Standard YouTube License"

If I were to take a conductive material and expose it to a magnetic pulse would the induced current in the conductive material generate a magnetic field?

Would the polarity of the induced field be the same as the excitation field or opposite of the excitation field?

If the conductive material were free to move would the induced magnetic field cause it to accelerate towards or away from the source of the excitation field?

If a "Big Bang" occurred would it be accompanied by a magnetic pulse?

How would the field decay in relation to time?

If I were to take a conductive material and expose it to a magnetic pulse would the induced current in the conductive material generate a magnetic field?

Yes it would.

Would the polarity of the induced field be the same as the excitation field or opposite of the excitation field?

It would repel the field.

If the conductive material were free to move would the induced magnetic field cause it to accelerate towards or away from the source of the excitation field?

Away.

If a "Big Bang" occurred would it be accompanied by a magnetic pulse?

A magnetic pulse is caused by charged particles moving rapidly. The big bang, in my understanding, was the expansion of space itself, not matter moving through it.

How would the field decay in relation to time?

A magnetic field in space can be detected by the splitting of emission lines in the spectra of excited gasses (Zeeman effect), and it would most likely be obvious if the expansion of space were driven by magnetic fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect

A decaying magnetic pulse imparting acceleration to the universe would fit the laws of electromagnetic induction. An acceleration that is decreasing would also support that hypothesis.

BUT, apparently, the universe is still accelerating, even beyond the acceleration that took place during inflation.

The GDP of the universe just took another hit.

"BUT, apparently, the universe is still accelerating" - So is the RATE of that acceleration increasing or decreasing?
Ionic repulsion would also impart a decreasing RATE of acceleration as the mass density decreased.

Whether it be a magnetically induced acceleration from a decaying "pulse", a charge induced acceleration, or a magical "Dark Energy (the hand of G-d perhaps)" acceleration cannot occur without a "force."

"Whether it be a magnetically induced acceleration from a decaying "pulse", a charge induced acceleration, or a magical "Dark Energy (the hand of G-d perhaps)" acceleration cannot occur without a "force.""

If it is indeed "dark energy", plenty of energy and hence force available. My bet is still on Einstein being right and it may be just his cosmological constant Lambda, which 'opposes' Newton's gravitational constant G.

BTW, we do not quite understand either of them at a fundamental level!

There are many mathematical models that fit the observed data. A mathematical model is not an explanation. The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Dark energy is the explanation of the acceleration. If someone can prove that there is no acceleration, then dark energy will go poof, but not until then.

Did you actually read the article I linked, or are you just spewing pea soup all over the forum?

They said directly in the article that the entire need for dark energy arises from using the wrong approximations substituted into General Relativity. The problem for many years, no one had a computer that could deal with the maths without inserting the approximation. Now that is all avoided. Please do try to keep up with the class, sir.

Now let's take a deep breath, and smile!

There is no article linked, just a graph that means nothing. And you didn't understand a word I said.

OK, thanks for the link. It says as you said that dark energy is not the reason for the acceleration, but as far as I can tell, it does not explain what is. The bubbles theory is all very interesting, but they still assumed dark matter is distributed as millions of particles without any evidence. I agree with their last sentence: "With the new model, Csabai and his collaborators expect at the very least to start a lively debate."

I would say mission accomplished, and move on to the next.

Hi SG, looks like you are the only one in the thread that questions the conclusions of the article? I also wonder if anyone has bothered reading the actual paper ("Concordance cosmology without dark energy")?

I found it not very convincing, due to the fact that they considered "mini-universes", each consisting of a large inhomogeneous patch of a larger whole. They admitted to not having the 'minis' properly stitched together in their model, so I think the jury is still out on their work.

I did not see how they accounted for the other CMB-oriented observations that support the cosmological constant, a.k.a. 'dark energy', or the 'L' in the concordance model (LCDM).

Another problem is that they say their model assumes spatial flatness, which without dark energy would require three times more matter (common + dark) than what we indirectly observe.

-J

Thanks for your input Jorrie, and the link. You and I have spent a lot of time on this subject in years past. Though nothing is absolutely proven, it will take some new evidence and other astrophysicists agreeing with the result to sway my acceptance of dark energy. People are quick to jump on the bandwagon of a new idea, not only in science but in politics. It takes study and time to get the truth.

May be dark energy is merely the true error of the numerical computation of the model before. huh? Is it not?

Guys like this making it complicated

However, I stick to Tesla's perspective.

Space and everything else is a disturbance to the perfect and infinite realistic concept of nature. That everything is made out of nothing. Conversely speaking, nothing creates everything. A chasing of the wind..

I don't know why its simple, or may be I am just lazy to find out.

It is because, if you place two babies under the bath water, the waves cancel them out!

As though the waves has the final say. Yet, nope.

If you can understand ...

-10 + 10 = 0

-9 + 9 = 0

...

-2 + 2 = 0

-1 + 1 + 0

0 + 0 = 0

1 + (-1) = 0

2 + (-2) = 0

...

9 + (-9) = 0

10 + (-10) = 0

... then you will understand how destructive interference works.

I certainly did understand.

Note: I am not selling a belief, but I will tell you what is sound truth for me. There's actually a good insight about zero. Obviously, Zero actually created everything, you see. String theorists might brag they combined the quantum mechanics and classical physics with their theory, but what actually simplifies all equations of the universe is the fact that there is ground zero. Zero which we call nothing but really make a sense of it all. And, what is amazing is zero and the infinite are coexistent. You can achieve a quantity of nothing only if you're infinite likewise being infinite if you are perfect. Circle has no beginning and no end, pie is a non-terminating number. By this, we could easily correct the minds of "who created, the who?". He's been there all along, ever existing no beginning and no end. And its true. I wonder how the world deny such beautiful truth and revelation of somebody who is more superior than us and revealed in such description before science and mathematics raveled the thought of perfection and infinity. Such a total denial. That infinity=n/0 and infinity*0=n; n-is a limitless number of possible creation. This also, they deny totally. Life is a mere fluctuation of perfection in the universe, whether it be a negative energy or a positive one, it comes from nothing. As saying of Solomon goes "everything is vanity and a chasing of the wind" I am a believer of nothing and so, infinity too. The two absolutes in science (0 Kelvin, 0 Pa). What's my proof?- Space.

How do you know that zero, infinity, or even space actually exists anywhere except within the confines of your mental constructs?

Can you mathematically show any of the three?

Before I thought about it, it has already been there. Beautifully, it existed and we are conformed by it. It's nature we can not build it by a mind construct.

Just do not let me measure it. Us having been bounded by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, made out of corruptible flesh are mortals and we are designed that way, and so limited.

But, do you observe your consciousness does not feel old, your thoughts and consciousness stays on the present tense. Given that neurons and receptors does not deteriorate with time then you will be certainly feel the "now or current". See old fellows still dressed young. my mind certainly feels the same even I get older everyday.

Math is indeed the language of the universe. Theoretically, all things can be credited and debited to zero, like laws of "conservations" energy and momentum. The 2 existed and eventually human created rockets, run the economy so on and so forth. It worked.

It worked therefore it existed. It existed therefore it worked.

The universe exist and defined by the 2 fundamental units of physics. Mass and velocity or momentum. There's no momentum there is no existence.

See this wonderful logic.
7/0=∞; So, 7=0*∞ and you could do that with any number you want if you control the variation of zero and infinite. And it can be represented by any number- n, which can be any units of the fundamental measurement in physics.

Crazy people says you can not quantify the infinite (Who says you can given you in a finite nature?) and even asked you its some evidence of its existence. They say its only a concept and idea because there is no proof and its immeasurable.

The proof actually is a counterproof. Without it, there's no proof valid we or anything exist.

Equality is

n=∞*0, the left side is a counterproof of the right side. n-(any fundamental units represented by a number) existed. So,∞↑↓ and 0↑↓ exist. The combination of the two in any perfect proportions created everything and is not limited.

Science is going there eventually, proving and discovering the perfect infinite and nothing. But, most of them denied. _{Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.}

_{Taken from Psalms 102}

_{²³ In the course of my life^[a] he broke my strength;
he cut short my days.
²⁴ So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.
²⁵ In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
²⁶ They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
²⁷ But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.
²⁸ The children of your servants will live in your presence;
their descendants will be established before you}.”

Space is ground zero and it will always remains the same in eternity. Forget multiverse. There's only one universe bounded by absolute zeroes. And you can not run over the infinite and zero, sooner or later you pass through the boundary of symmetry. You and me are trapped in eternity. You be careful to plan where to spend it since there's no going back when we reach the boundary, like others ahead of us.

Sounds like spiritual advice, so I read it.

In some people, the mind gets old before the body wears out. It just happens that others are fortunate to be of sound mind their entire number of days.

We are given what we are given, up to each to maximize the fruitfulness of it.

Take care.

Funny though, they can easily say and accept the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen and helium in general but would deny n=0*∞. Is it fair enough?

I have not seen anyone disprove what you have stated.

Oh, God, this is getting too metaphysical for me. I'm a nice, quiet guy, so I'm out of here {poof}

<unsubscribe>

Yeah. I know it went off the skids, but I wasn't intending to do much about it.

I leave it to the dedicated astrophysicists to figure all of it out, and then let the world know they are doomed. (speaking as if someone had the idea that we were not already doomed, tongue in cheek).