## Friday, 8 May 2020

### Born to do Math 168 - Stuff That's Big: "Intergalactic, Planetary, Planetary, Intergalactic"

Born to do Math 168 - Stuff That's Big: "Intergalactic, Planetary, Planetary, Intergalactic"
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
May 8, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: IC is, basically, about big structures.

Rick Rosner: The Cosmological Principle that the universe is homogeneous lover large distances in terms of how the universe formed with the galaxies roughly evenly distributed. You're looking at, taking a step back, a billion-light year swathe of the universe. That's a huge scale of regularity. What we like to say, recently, is the universe is less homogeneous spatially and more homogeneous temporally, the universe is older than it looks and has been around longer than the apparent age of the universe. That could, possibly, account for some other stuff like when a bunch of galaxies are orbiting each other. They do it in a single planet, like the planets are in a solar system. The deal is, if you give the planets a few hundred million years or a couple billion years after they form, they will, eventually, sort themselves out by orbiting around the central star in a common plane. Because, otherwise, they would collide with each other. It may take a billion years to work out the collisions and have the planets lined up, so things don't collide as in planets, except asteroid. You can't have planets hitting one another because you have planets working in a sync with the sync being the same orbital plane.

They are seeing the same things with galaxies rotating around each other. I think that would take than the age of the universe. If you give everything longer than the other apparent age of the universe, then, maybe, that accounts for that.

Jacobsen: Is the summary statement homogenous orbital planes, rotational planes?

Rosner: It takes a long time for dynamic systems like gravity-based systems of a central body or bodies being orbited by a bunch of other bodies. At the solar system level, it takes hundreds of millions of years for things to finishing crashing together and for stuff to coalesce into planets. The Earth-Moon is supposed to have formed through the collision of a couple of planets. They smashed into each other and the Earth reconstituted itself with part away becoming the Moon. Those form over hundreds of millions of years. I assume on a galactic scale this will take far longer. You will not have galaxies forming these systems. It may take a bunch of billions of years. Because you're talking about objects moving across much larger distances.

Jacobsen: Increasingly large distances over time with the expansion rate of the universe.

Rosner: I don't know about that. The distances galaxies are at in the current iteration of the universe.

Jacobsen: What do you mean by the "current iteration of the universe"?

Rosner: Yes, that's an unfortunate phrasing. I tend to disbelieve the while expanding thing. Unless you are adding information to the universe. The average distance among galaxies has been more or less uniform or consistent for more than the apparent age of the universe. Distances among galaxies are not increasing much over time, necessarily, or, at least, over the time scales that we're talking about.

Jacobsen: Does this really imply any metaphysical statements into metaphysics or simply meaning more dynamic and advanced statements about physics itself?

Rosner: A couple of things, we've talked about that you can hypothesize that there is no limit to the size of things that can exist. We live in a big universe. There is nothing that says that the universes that could exist are limited on size. No limit is known to the size of possible universes. That's thing one. Thing two is, I'm not sure how much redundancy in an efficient system of existence with the system of existence being equivalent to physics. There are the normal subatomic particles, fundamental particles, that make up most of normal matter. Then there are these exotic other families of particles, where these families have the same sets of particles that the particles we're used to have. But it is a whole other family of exotic particles. It is like the Smith family with 12 members. Then the Smootles have the same 12 members: a grandma, a parakeet, a poodle. Then the Canoodles have the same 12, but are weirder while having the same structure. All roles in the family are kind of the same. I would say that there has got to be a reason for it not being a real redundancy. It either has to be a kind of necessary bookkeeping this. The rules of existence saying that you have this kind of stuff.

Or they perform some function. That you don't have symmetries if the symmetries are inefficient. You don't have unnecessary extra shit in physics. So, when you look at it, it is 100% efficient, but it is reasonably close. So, the structures found at every scale all contain information that is essential for something or a couple things. The structures found at every scale are necessary and an unavoidable product of the dynamics of physics. In terms of the physical manifestation that the universe is probably made out of. Everything is unavoidable in terms of structures from small to large. On the information end of it, every structure from small to large has a role to play informational and dynamically.

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

American Television Writer

(Updated July 25, 2019)

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*

According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing hereRick G. Rosner may have among America's, North America's, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher HardingJason BettsPaul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main "Genius" listing here.

He has written for Remote ControlCrank YankersThe Man ShowThe EmmysThe Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercialDomino’s Pizza named him the "World’s Smartest Man." The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named "Best Bouncer" in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.

Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los AngelesCalifornia with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com

(Updated January 1, 2020)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com.

Endnotes

[1] Four format points for the session article:
1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents: