QWC's niche

[quantum_wave]

QWC’s niche

Quantum Wave Cosmology is a niche in cosmology that consists of a group of “not easily refuted” ideas about a universe composed of nothing but energy.

A few QWC ideas include:

The universe is composed of one commodity, energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the universe has potentially always existed.

All space contains energy density to some degree; there are no voids in space.

If there are no voids then each point in space has some level of energy density.

The energy density at any given point in space is always fluctuating within a range of energy density.

There is a natural way for energy to become organized into particles that contain fluctuations in an orderly fashion.

Quantization of energy in nature is how energy can become organized into particles.

Quantization would have to enable mass to form, endure, and to interact with other mass.

Quantization would have to enable gravity to function in the presence of mass and so gravity must be consistent and compatible with what causes mass.

An organized orderly change in the energy density of a given space associated with the presence of mass implies that there is a force associated with mass at the level of formation, endurance, and interaction, i.e. quantization of energy requires a force that can operate in a quantized energy environment.

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy.


QWC presents these ideas as protoscience that people who know what they are talking about can’t refute but that cannot currently be tested. Are any of them inconsistent or incompatible with science?

[Reiku]

Well, yes, because in the end all matter are forms of trapped light. Somehow photon energy very early on in the universes history underwent a change and fluxed into solid matter. This is why it is known (being fundamental in the sense of primordial), that everything is simply a form of energy. This is even backed up with the mathemematical description of E=Mc^2. In a small bit of matter, there is tons of energy. There is enough energy in your body to power a city for a week!

[quantum_wave]

Well, yes, because in the end all matter are forms of trapped light. Somehow photon energy very early on in the universes history underwent a change and fluxed into solid matter. This is why it is known (being fundamental in the sense of primordial), that everything is simply a form of energy. This is even backed up with the mathemematical description of E=Mc^2. In a small bit of matter, there is tons of energy. There is enough energy in your body to power a city for a week!You say yes, meaning that you feel my list is inconsistent or incompatible with science so would you be able to say where my list goes astray when compared with your statement. What items on my list don’t apply to the formation of mass from photons as you see it?

QWC does have a description of quantum action and quantum waves in some detail and your statement only suggests, “somehow photon energy” …was … “fluxed into solid matter”. If pressed for details I could answer frequently asked questions about the details of mass and gravity in QWC. Can you put any detail into the mechanism of how photon energy is fluxed into matter or how gravity works?

As far as E = mc^2, the equivalence principle seems to work well when a quantum relationship between mass and energy is described, like offered by QWC.

[quantum_wave]

So we seem to agree on most of the points in the OP. I interpret your paragraph to mean that you see photon energy as the mode of transition from some primordial condition to our current expanding universe.

What is the unit of energy in your scenario; is it quantum? Where does the mass come from or are you predicting that photons have some tiny mass? What is the force; or is the momentum of the photon the source of the force in the inertia of mass that forms from them?

What I’m saying is that mass has inertia. The energy of mass goes up when a force is applied to it that causes it to move. Initial movement requires an initial force. In QWC each arena like our expanding universe is expanding out of a big crunch. The greater universe consists of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas, some are expanding out of their big crunch and some are contracting to form their big crunch. The initial source of energy in each arena is the energy commodity that emerges from a big crunch and the initial momentum is expansion momentum that is transferred from the expanding energy and imparted to mass as mass forms during the expansion, so as mass forms it has momentum.

If the expanding energy becomes mass and is quantized when mass forms then the initial inertia of particles comes from the expansion within which they formed. The force that sustains the mass and causes gravity is quantum action. So mass is composed of quantum energy and the force of quantum action. Mass has initial momentum imparted to it when it forms within an expanding arena. Any problem with that?

[Reiku]

I meant you where fundamentally correct.

[Reiku]

Can you put any detail into the mechanism of how photon energy is fluxed into matter or how gravity works?

I could try some mathematical descriptions.

[quantum_wave]

I meant you where fundamentally correct.So you did, thank you.

I could try some mathematical descriptions.Let's not go there in this thread, but if you direct me to a thread where you do that I will particpate.

QWCs niche should remain the topice of this thread and I will offer some detail of quantum action, mass and gravity that has the beginnings of mathematical descriptions of QWC.

[Reiku]

So you did, thank you.

Let's not go there in this thread, but if you direct me to a thread where you do that I will particpate.

QWCs niche should remain the topice of this thread and I will offer some detail of quantum action, mass and gravity that has the beginnings of mathematical descriptions of QWC.

I'll post it then in a PM.

[quantum_wave]

The protoscience view I want to convey in this case would be that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. The math would be based on the quantum of energy. What is a quantum of energy? A quantum is the tiniest natural increment of energy (e) that can have a meaningful impact, i.e. a quantum of energy is necessary to affect mass. Anything less than a quantum of energy will have no effect on mass.

The mass of a particle is maintained by a force. That force corresponds with the quantum of energy. The force would be quantum action, i.e. the process of establishing the presence of a quantum of energy in mass. In order for mass to continue to exist, quantum action must be continuous within mass.

Quantum action in mass produces quantum waves. Any given quantum action and its resulting quantum wave has a net zero energy if you look at the combined actions involved. The combined action includes the formation of a high density spot in space that contains a quantum of energy, and the burst of that high density spot into a spherically expanding sphere of energy. The amount of energy in the expanding sphere is one quantum of energy. The reason that the combined actions have a net zero energy is because it takes a quantum of energy to form a high density spot, and the burst of the spot produces a quantum wave that contains a quantum of energy. No energy is produced or lost as a result of quantum action, but the energy and the force together produce quantum action. Mass which consists of energy quanta will be maintained as long as quantum action is continuous within the mass.

Quantum waves produced by quantum action in mass have a trough and a peak. The trough forms when the high density spot forms because the spot represents the repositioning of energy from the surrounding environment into a concentrated sphere of high density energy call a high density spot at the center of that tiny spherical energy environment. The trough is negative energy because energy is used to form the spot. The spot itself represents one quantum of positive energy contained within a spherical high density spot in space. When the spot bursts into expansion, the resulting spherically expanding wave contains one quantum of positive energy. Thus the net energy of one complete quantum action is zero but that energy is separated into a trough and a peak. It is the ability of quantum action to separate energy into a spherical trough and a spherical peak that enables mass and gravity.

All of the negative energy occurs externally to the wave that will be produced and so the leading edge of the quantum wave structure is a trough of negative energy that passes out of mass as gravity. As the peak of the wave, the positive energy, passes through mass, some of the positive energy of the wave is used to maintain the mass. The greater the mass of the object, the more of the positive energy is contained to maintain mass and the greater the differential between the emitted negative energy and the emitted positive energy of the quantum waves.


The differential between the trough energy and the peak energy emitted from mass changes as the mass increases. The greater the mass becomes, the greater the differential. The greater the differential, the greater the gravitation force emitted.

How can the trough of the quantum wave structure cause gravity? The answer is in the mechanics of quantum action.


The premise is that quantum waves are pervasive in space, all space including space occupied by mass and space between mass. Quantum waves are spherically expanding energy waves each containing a quantum of energy. They emanate from a high density spot that forms at the convergence of intersecting quantum waves. The energy contained in the convergence increases as the intersection of quantum waves proceeds which they do as they expand spherically.


As soon as there is a quantum of energy in the convergence we have a "high density spot" formed at that instant in the space where the convergence exists.


At that very instant, the energy density of the spot is much higher than the energy density surrounding the spot. This low energy density is the reason that the quantum wave emanated by quantum action is negative energy. Here is how. The wave begins with the rush of energy surrounding the spot. The energy surrounding the spot rushes into the low energy density surrounding the spot creating a pull of the surrounding universe toward the spot. This pull is the trough of the quantum wave generated by the formation of the high density spot within mass.


The high density spot cannot exist for more than that instant because the quantum waves that intersected (overlapped) to force the convergence continue to expand and the spot of high energy density disburses itself in the form of positive energy which forms the peak of the quantum wave.


Within mass there is continual quantum action and high density spots are forming and bursting at all times to maintain the mass. Though the trough of the waves pass out of mass as energy shifts toward the high density spots as they form, the push of the peak of the quantum wave doesn't immediately follow the pull trough. Only the uncontained portion of the peak of the wave immediately follows the trough. As the peak passes through the mass some of its energy is contained in subsequent high density spots and is delayed relative to the trough. Therefore the structure of that particular wave as it emerges from the mass has a trough and a peak, but the energy in the peak is slightly delayed and so the wave structure has slightly less positive energy. The result is that the trough that is generated by the formation of the high density spot has a full quantum of negative energy while the peak contains less than a full quantum from that particular burst. Ultimately the delayed peak energy passes out of the mass but the delay has had an effect called gravity.

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.


If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy, i.e. -e +e = 0, the pull trough is –{e} and the push peak is +e.

But since some the peak of the wave is delayed by containment, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative, i.e. –e +(+e * 1/c) = f where e is a quantum of energy minus and plus, c is the percent of containment, 1/c is the containment ratio, and f is the gravitational force emanated in the form of negative energy. The mass is equal to the number of quanta making up the mass, i.e. m = e * q, where m is mass, e is energy per quanta, and q is the number of quanta in the mass. Quantum waves expand at the speed of light.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment ratio and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment ratio, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

Is this clean or do you see a problem with it?

[quantum_wave]

It is clean protoscience IMHO.

Add this idea to the list of QWC ideas in the OP:

Matter consists of matter waves.

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy. Matter waves are the net wave presence of matter composed of energy in quantum increments.

Is this new statement consistent and compatible with science? I want to keep QWC in the realm of protoscience so if you don't agree let me know.

[Saxion]

Matter, i would like to add, may choose a more fundamental component that agrees with quantum wave.

So far, physicists cannot determine whether a particle or a wave, but what we can determine is that if there was a little degree of freedom, as everything rushed out of the gravitational singularity, then that particles primordial existence would have acted as a wave, PROVIDED there was no Alpha Observer, otherwise a God... another unless, is whether everything was guided by Pilot Wave, in which case again, began as a wave of probabilities that where actual with one direction.

[quantum_wave]

Matter, i would like to add, may choose a more fundamental component that agrees with quantum wave.

So far, physicists cannot determine whether a particle or a wave, but what we can determine is that if there was a little degree of freedom, as everything rushed out of the gravitational singularity, then that particles primordial existence would have acted as a wave, PROVIDED there was no Alpha Observer, otherwise a God... another unless, is whether everything was guided by Pilot Wave, in which case again, began as a wave of probabilities that where actual with one direction.Thank you Saxion. The Pilot Wave approach to quantum theory is covered nicely in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in an article about Bohmian Mechanics, here ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/).

In Quantum Wave Cosmology I have not taken a position on the philosophical issues that Pilot Wave brings up about the infinitesimal quantum realm, but I have never viewed it as determinism.

QWC does encompass consciousness where the premise is that determinism is defeated by the ability to decide and choose consciously and that free choice then determines the quantum impressions on our brain. I think this is opposed to the deterministic view that instead of uncertainty, every particle has locality and momentum and as a consequence our thoughts and actions are determined for us; at least that is what I think it says.

But that is a topic for a different thread. My question in the OP centered around protoscience and pseudoscience.

Proto-science: Protoscience encompasses subjects that are out of the reach of scientific testing at the present time. It talks about things that are too big to view in their entirety or too small to observe with current technology. But to be protoscience, these ideas must pass the tests of consistency and compatibility without invoking the improbable or the supernatural. Protoscience is differentiated from pseudoscience; pseudoscience is non-science while proto-science is within the broad definition of the scientific method and is expected to lead to falsifiable theory.

To pass the test of consistency, the ideas must all work together to describe a framework where no internal conflicts exist.

To pass the test of compatibility, the ideas must work with all known science fact and repeatable observation.

To avoid improbability, the ideas must be traceable to probable possibilities as opposed to idle or wild speculation.

To avoid invoking the supernatural, the probable possibilities must be expected to stem from natural causes.

In Quantum Wave Cosmology the listed ideas are considered protoscience and are intended to support reasonable and responsible ideas about the quantization of energy, the cause of mass and gravity, the cause of the initial expansion of our observable arena, and the landscape of the greater universe. Generally speaking it address the infinite and the infinitesimal where we cannot make actual observations but where mechanics and events must be taking place to produce what we can observe.

The problem with pursuing protoscience is that if it doesn't comply with the above requirements, it becomes pseudoscience. This thread hopes to present the basic QWC ideas so that if there is a violation of the rules of protoscience someone can point it out.

[quantum_wave]

...

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.


If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy, i.e. -e +e = 0, the pull trough is –{e} and the push peak is +e.

But since some the peak of the wave is delayed by containment, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative, i.e. –e +(+e * 1/c) = f where e is a quantum of energy minus and plus, c is the percent of containment, 1/c is the containment ratio, and f is the gravitational force emanated in the form of negative energy. The mass is equal to the number of quanta making up the mass, i.e. m = e * q, where m is mass, e is energy per quanta, and q is the number of quanta in the mass. Quantum waves expand at the speed of light.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment ratio and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment ratio, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

...This equation –e +(+e * 1/c) = f has an error and should have been –e +(+e * (1-c)) = f. For the record the that whole section should read:

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the combined negative trough energy and the positive uncontained peak energy.


If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy, i.e. -e +e = 0, the pull trough is –{e} and the push peak is +e.

But since some the peak of the wave is delayed by containment, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative, i.e. –e +(+e * (1-c)) = f where e is a quantum of energy minus and plus, c is the percent of containment, i.e. the containment ratio, and f is the gravitational force emanated in the form of negative energy. The mass is equal to the number of quanta making up the mass, i.e. m = e * q, where m is mass, e is energy per quanta, and q is the number of quanta in the mass. Quantum waves expand at the speed of light.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment ratio and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment ratio, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

[AlphaNumeric]

As far as E = mc^2, the equivalence principle seems to work well when a quantum relationship between mass and energy is described, like offered by QWC.Except you have nothing quantitative, just desperate arm waving. You can't say it's 'protoscience', it's basically just a few concepts you've thought up. No derivation, no axiomatic beginning, nothing of that kind at all. So it's worthless.
I could try some mathematical descriptions.To almost quote a well known phrase, that would be like "The blind, deaf and dumb leading the blind".
Well, yes, because in the end all matter are forms of trapped light. Somehow photon energy very early on in the universes history underwent a change and fluxed into solid matter.You do realise there's more to quantum mechanics than photons and things photons make?

Of course you don't. How silly of me....

[quantum_wave]

And no questions from AN, no challenges to the ideas, no request for explanation or supporting ideas ... what was the point of this antagonistic post? Do you understand what protoscience is?

[quantum_wave]

Except you have nothing quantitative, just desperate arm waving. You can't say it's 'protoscience', it's basically just a few concepts you've thought up. No derivation, no axiomatic beginning, nothing of that kind at all. So it's worthless.
To almost quote a well known phrase, that would be like "The blind, deaf and dumb leading the blind".
You do realise there's more to quantum mechanics than photons and things photons make?

Of course you don't. How silly of me....No one has anything quantitative in regard to the two levels of order that QWC address. I’m talking about ideas that address things like what causes mass, what causes gravity and what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. So stating that there is nothing quantitative is correct, but that is the nature of protoscience. That is why I asked you if you know what protoscience is. Don't use my thread to go into some self serving rants just because I asked you that. It is a serious question.


You used the phrase, "Desperate arm waving". That is just antagonism on your part. Why say it?

These concepts that I “just thought up” are the very concepts that the great minds in physics “thought up”. Planck, Bohr, Born, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Neumann who united the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, Einstein, (edit: and let's not forget Gamow) many very great names fall into the category of people who came up with these ideas.

You have to take into consideration your audience when you post about the fundamentals of the universe beyond where standard theory goes. Most people have budding thoughts about the universe, infinity, life, God, etc. Some have thoughts about alternative ideas. If they frequent a science forum they might have some interest the things I’m interested in but probably only a few have put in a lot of rigor on cosmology. If I filled my posts with cut and paste from Wiki it would be a real turn off. The way I present them are "ideas" for discussion. Still the audience is tiny. You don't need to talk as if you have some God given insight that qualifies you to wave this all off as meaningless.

I think things through before I post. I know physics, I know logic and I know that what I post makes sense, is consistent, and is compatible with accepted science. I also know that my audience wants the logic to resonate with where they are in their personal search of the nature of things. Spewing out someone else’s math or ideas wouldn't be of any help to anyone and I wouldn’t have any reason to do it.

What caused the expansion that we observe in the universe around us? Science doesn’t have the answer. I have ideas and they aren’t idle speculation. It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that there was a big crunch before the big bang is it? A big crunch is part of QWC. No one has quantified that. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe or test things at that level, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible with established science.

It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that our expanding universe emerged from a big crunch is it? The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC.

The formation of matter as we know it after the initial expansion of our universe began isn’t very original is it? QWC is based on matter forming from dense energy. That is not original but it does begin to fall into the category that you would call “made up” ideas. But QWC addresses the quantum structure of matter from energy in a logical way so that readers can see how I suggest it happens. They don't have to agree and only a few read deep enough to understand what I actually am saying.

The fact that in QWC matter is composed of quantum increments is not original thought. The standard particle model has various fundamental particles; My ideas aren't original, but what is original is that QWC simply goes to the next step and says that a particle with mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. QWC has the idea that the particles of the standard particle model that have mass are also composed of these quantum increments. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe things at that level yet, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible.

[AlphaNumeric]

These concepts that I “just thought up” are the very concepts that the great minds in physics “thought up”. Planck, Bohr, Born, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Neumann who united the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, Einstein, (edit: and let's not forget Gamow) many very great names fall into the category of people who came up with these ideas. cannot observe things at that level yet, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible.They actually produced results, developed things from underlying concepts, things which could be tested, quantitative results. You have none of those.

You cannot say things like "The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC." unless you have a derived quantative framework within which you have a description of space and time on some level as well as a description of energy and matter within that theatre. Otherwise you are simply saying "Sounds like a nice concept, I'll tell people that's included in my work".

See how it works? You lay down your initial assumptions and then develop them in logical steps, until you develop some kind of framework whose physical interpretation is coherent and solid. Why do string theorists know string theory includes gravity? Because from its axioms you rapidly find within the framework a spin 2 massless particle. Everywhere else in mainstream physics this is the graviton. It then turns out it behaves in a way which gives you an expression which is the Einstein Field Equations in tensor form. So there's justification the axioms of string theory lead to gravity. Then string theorists can legitimately talk about how string theory includes gravity. Can you provide any similar justification for your babbling about big crunches in QWC? I doubt it.

[quantum_wave]

AN, in hopes of keeping my thread going as a discussion, which I have worked hard to achieve, I will give you a couple of links to a definition of protoscience which I think you are unaware of. You mentioned in both of your posts here that I haven't been quantitative. I said that is the reason this is protoscience and not theory. It occurs to me that you are not trying to discuss it in that context but seem to want to belittle me because I don't have any quantificaion. If these links widen your perspective, by all means participate, but if you don't care about the links or what I say, why come here?No one has anything quantitative in regard to the two levels of order that QWC address. I’m talking about ideas that address things like what causes mass, what causes gravity and what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. So stating that there is nothing quantitative is correct, but that is the nature of protoscience. That is why I asked you if you know what protoscience is. Don't use my thread to go into some self serving rants just because I asked you that. It is a serious question.




They actually produced results, developed things from underlying concepts, things which could be tested, quantitative results. You have none of those.

...
Can you provide any similar justification for your babbling about big crunches in QWC? I doubt it.http://www.123exp-science.com/t/01554063951/

Protoscience
In the philosophy of science, a protoscience is an "area of science" which is in its formulative or speculative stages, and may in the future become established as a science, or be discarded as a falsified claim or unfruitful approach.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html#anchor176433

WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?
Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.
WHAT IS "NON-SCIENCE"?
Non-Science Defined: Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief system, e.g., religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics.
WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?
False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).
SUMMARY
Science is a limited discipline that studies only naturally occurring events, while offering natural explanations for the phenomenon under study. The data must be consistent, observable, predictable, and testable, while any conclusions or theories must be tentative.

[Enmos]

First off, I'm not a big fan of Quantum theory or anything related, it seems too contrived to me. But I have to say I'm not that knowledgeable in this area. But you asked ;)

The universe is composed of one commodity, energy.
Check.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the universe has potentially always existed.
Check.

All space contains energy density to some degree; there are no voids in space.
No objection.

If there are no voids then each point in space has some level of energy density.
Check.

The energy density at any given point in space is always fluctuating within a range of energy density.
Ok.

There is a natural way for energy to become organized into particles that contain fluctuations in an orderly fashion.
How would that work ? Wouldn't that take a specific event such as a big bang ?

Quantization of energy in nature is how energy can become organized into particles.
Explain ?

Quantization would have to enable mass to form, endure, and to interact with other mass.
Explain ?

Quantization would have to enable gravity to function in the presence of mass and so gravity must be consistent and compatible with what causes mass.
Explain ?

An organized orderly change in the energy density of a given space associated with the presence of mass implies that there is a force associated with mass at the level of formation, endurance, and interaction, i.e. quantization of energy requires a force that can operate in a quantized energy environment.

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy.

QWC presents these ideas as protoscience that people who know what they are talking about can’t refute but that cannot currently be tested. Are any of them inconsistent or incompatible with science?
Ok, the three above are over my head. I need you to explain the three before these first :)

[quantum_wave]

First off, I'm not a big fan of Quantum theory or anything related, it seems too contrived to me. But I have to say I'm not that knowledgeable in this area. But you asked ;)

Check.
Check.
No objection.
Check.
Ok.

How would that work ? Wouldn't that take a specific event such as a big bang ?

Explain ?
Explain ?
Explain ?

Ok, the three above are over my head. I need you to explain the three before these first :)And you followed through, thank you for taking a look.

True, there is something that seems contrived about QWC too. But the simple fact is that something works to cause mass and gravity and science doesn’t know what it is. Something caused the Big Bang and science doesn’t know what it was. This protoscience is to encourage an exchange of thoughts. You don’t have to be immersed in science to enter into brainstorming. One rule of brainstorming is that there are no dumb ideas. So I am brainstorming so my ideas are as good as anyone else’s IMHO.

The first five statements are the set of ideas that imply an energy background throughout a universe that is potentially infinite and that has potentially always existed. I have been careful to be sure I refer to QWC as protoscience ideas and that is why I gave AN those links just before you posted. Protoscience is not yet quantified or mathematically defined.

Anyway, the first five statements that you pretty much could go along with are the infinites that we discussed on BetrayerofHope’s thread. BTW I am sure he was OK with our discussion there. Those five statements are "aether talk" :). To summarize:

Aether

There is a comparison of the energy background in QWC to the superseded scientific theory called the aether. Superseded means that as far as science is concerned the theory has been tested and no aether was detected.


In QWC the aether cannot be detected because the background is “dragged” by mass because of the close association between mass, gravity and the aether.


The space surrounding mass is filled with tiny energy density fluctuations (the aether). They are much smaller than any particle and QWC’s idea is that particles as we know them are composed of those fluctuations. Those fluctuations in energy density in turn are an extension of mass because the aether occupies all space including the space within particles. QWC’s idea is that there is aether space within mass and on the other hand mass exists within the aether. Mass stands out from the background because of quantization.

Quantization simply means that there is a point where, when you put enough of those tiny energy density fluctuations into a small enough space something special happens. This is the part that seems contrived but there has to be some contrivance behind the consistency of mass and gravity. QWC says that the consistency is in the level of energy density that, when it exists, quanta form from the energy background. Quanta are necessary for matter to exist. So the existence of mass depends on the energy background.

QWC goes into some detail on the formation of mass and gravity but one post is not the way to pass it along to you. You did what you said and took a look, and I appreciate it.

[Enmos]

Hi Qw, thanks for explaining some of that. I'm, however, still not sure how you arrive at the idea that the universe is infinite.
The idea that the universe has "been around" forever does, in my mind, not mean that it must be infinite.
What I find contrived about quantum science is that it invents things to fit the observations and then when new observations are done they change the model abit so it kind of fits the new observations. I know that sounds like what mainstream physics does but the quantum physicists are just too damn specific with their 'made up' models for comfort.
It's almost as bad as horoscopes :D ;)
But who am I.. it seems to work after all :shrug:

[quantum_wave]

Hi Qw, thanks for explaining some of that. I'm, however, still not sure how you arrive at the idea that the universe is infinite.
The idea that the universe has "been around" forever does, in my mind, not mean that it must be infinite.
What I find contrived about quantum science is that it invents things to fit the observations and then when new observations are done they change the model abit so it kind of fits the new observations. I know that sounds like what mainstream physics does but the quantum physicists are just too damn specific with their 'made up' models for comfort.
It's almost as bad as horoscopes :D
But who am I.. it seems to work after all :shrug:I think that because it works there has to be a mechanism that is consistent at all times, physics, quantum mechanics, energy quanta and quantum waves, but I can't say it isn't made up. It is made up but it is the best made up idea that wins. That is not the same thing as saying the first liar always loses, but the best liar does have an advantage :p until a consensus forms or until evidence and testing are possible.

If you can accept that the universe has "been around" forever, then you are at the same place I was when I had trouble with the concept of a "beginning". Either God did it, or the universe has always existed (if you believe that energy cannot me created from nothing as I do).

Now to me, if the universe had no beginning, time would be infinite. If the universe was destined to reach complete entropy in the future (Big Bang Theory), no useful energy left anywhere, then I say, "What luck. We live at a time before that happened."

Then I consider two possibilities. It is going to end and hasn't yet, or it isn't going to end.

If it is going to end and hasn't yet, there is a higher and higher probability that it will end soon. If it is never going to end, then there is an 100% probability that we will have time left no matter when we live.

And from those two possibilities, the highest probability always comes out when the second possibility is considered to be true, i.e. it is never going to end.

If I consider that it hasn't ended yet and is never going to end, I take the fact that we still have an hospitable environment to live in as a good sign. So I think about a cosmology that would perpetually provide hospitable living conditions and I come up with the idea that our expanding universe will not expand forever. If it did, at some point there would be no hospitable living conditions.

What would be going on in the greater universe if our arena was expanding buy wouldn't expand forever? I come up with the idea of multiple arenas, some expanding and some contracting at all times across an infinite landscape.

The expanding arenas form galaxies as they expand, and the galaxies from many given arenas mix and merge out in the greater universe. Gravity causes those remnant galaxies to gather from various arena sources and collapse into big crunches. There could a potentially infinite number of arenas going through that process at all times.

Therefore, to me, the possibility that the universe is potentially spatially infinite fits nicely with energy that cannot be created or destroyed being potgentially infinite and a perpetual arena landscape to the greater universe.

It is my best explanation but cannot be proven or tested. The detail of quantum waves and quantum action that would have to be true to make QWC work are also my best ideas for what causes mass, what causes gravity, and what causes big crunches to bang, expand, form galaxies, and send those galaxies into the greater universe to rendezvous and form new crunches.

[Enmos]

I think that because it works there has to be a mechanism that is consistent at all times, physics, quantum mechanics, energy quanta and quantum waves, but I can't say it isn't made up. It is made up but it is the best made up idea that wins. That is not the same thing as saying the first liar always loses, but the best liar does have an advantage until a consensus forms or until evidence and testing are possible.
I am inclined to say that there must be better solutions out there the Quantum physics. There is of course a great possibility that I am wrong, but it all seems to unreal to me to be true.

If you can accept that the universe has "been around" forever, then you are at the same place I was when I had trouble with the concept of a "beginning". Either God did it, or the universe has always existed (if you believe that energy cannot me created from nothing as I do).A quick question. Are you religious ?

Now to me, if the universe had no beginning, time would be infinite. If the universe was destined to reach complete entropy in the future (Big Bang Theory), no useful energy left anywhere, then I say, "What luck. We live at a time before that happened."
Of course, IF the big bang was somehow the beginning of it all the universe would have been here already forever as well ;)
Then time would not be infinite. In fact, I do have a bit of a problem with time being infinite in your model as well. Time is just a tool with which we measure change, I'm not sure time in and of itself actually exists.
I guess there is no way to know, at this point (perhaps never), whether or not the big bang was the beginning of it all.

Then I consider two possibilities. It is going to end and hasn't yet, or it isn't going to end.

If it is going to end and hasn't yet, there is a higher and higher probability that it will end soon. If it is never going to end, then there is an 100% probability that we will have time left no matter when we live.

And from those two possibilities, the highest probability always comes out when the second possibility is considered to be true, i.e. it is never going to end.[/quote]
Hmm I find this rather shaky if you don't mind.
If it is going to end we have no way of knowing when that will be, but I think we can be reasonable sure that it won't be soon.
If it isn't going to end, it might just end for us anyway. We have no way of knowing whether or not the universe will keep this form forever.
For instance, if the universe is fluctuating there will be a big collapse somewhere along the line. That won't be beneficial to us I can assure you ;)

If I consider that it hasn't ended yet and is never going to end, I take the fact that we still have an hospitable environment to live in as a good sign. So I think about a cosmology that would perpetually provide hospitable living conditions and I come up with the idea that our expanding universe will not expand forever. If it did, at some point there would be no hospitable living conditions.
This bit is a bit naive. What mechanism would ensure a hospitable environment for us ? Are we that special ?
I guess you are subliminally referring to God ?

What would be going on in the greater universe if our arena was expanding buy wouldn't expand forever? I come up with the idea of multiple arenas, some expanding and some contracting at all times across an infinite landscape.
I find this an interesting view. But I don't think it will ever be possible to observe even hints that this might be so.
It tried to make a quick image of how I imagine it.. it didn't quite turn out exactly like I image it (lol) but it's good enough for now:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3259/exampleen0.jpg
Each cell represents a universette (coined on the spot lol).
Is that about right ?

The expanding arenas form galaxies as they expand, and the galaxies from many given arenas mix and merge out in the greater universe. Gravity causes those remnant galaxies to gather from various arena sources and collapse into big crunches. There could a potentially infinite number of arenas going through that process at all times.
It think you are misusing the term 'galaxy' here, or else I don't understand what you mean.

Therefore, to me, the possibility that the universe is potentially spatially infinite fits nicely with energy that cannot be created or destroyed being potgentially infinite and a perpetual arena landscape to the greater universe.
But is there really a need for this multi-universette universe ?
I don't see how it solves anything except that you thought it up to satisfy your infinite universe view.

It is my best explanation but cannot be proven or tested. The detail of quantum waves and quantum action that would have to be true to make QWC work are also my best ideas for what causes mass, what causes gravity, and what causes big crunches to bang, expand, form galaxies, and send those galaxies into the greater universe to rendezvous and form new crunches.
Colliding universettes ?

[quantum_wave]

There was a problem with quotes and /quotes in your reply. If you want to edit it then when I quote you it will give me something better to reply too.

I do see there was a question in there that didn't show up right, "Are you religious?".

I separate science and religion. Religion implies supernatural causes and certain dogma that is not part of science. My view of science is that there are answers to how the universe works and I am doing a personal bottom up construction of how I think it works. I am using "reasonable and responsible speculation" in a step by step process where each step has to be linked to the others and has to be consistent and compatible with accepted science.

God must remain a personal point of view and my view of God is very non-denominational and quite philosophical. It is not a subject that I include in QWC because QWC is and will remain protoscience. Religion can be referred to as non-science or pseudoscience because it invokes the supernatural and employs dogma.

In my view science can come from protoscience. Religion remains outside of science.

If you look at your last post and edit it a bit I will quote it and reply. However, the picture that you did looks like a blind date that I once had :D. But actually it isn't too bad as a layout of the greater universe though instead of boxes I would prefer swirls of rendezvouing galaxies at the intersections of expanding and collapsing arenas. Can you do that?

[quantum_wave]

Of course, IF the big bang was somehow the beginning of it all the universe would have been here already forever as well ;)
Then time would not be infinite. True if you consider "forever" meaning only since the beginning instead of "forever" meaning there was no beginning.In fact, I do have a bit of a problem with time being infinite in your model as well. Time is just a tool with which we measure change, I'm not sure time in and of itself actually exists.I agree in that time is a measurement of the passing of events. Time always passes while the universe exists whether or not there is any measurement of it passing.

[Per QW, ideas of QWC], "And from those two possibilities, the highest probability always comes out when the second possibility is considered to be true, i.e. it is never going to end."
Hmm I find this rather shaky if you don't mind.
If it is going to end we have no way of knowing when that will be, but I think we can be reasonable sure that it won't be soon.
If it isn't going to end, it might just end for us anyway. We have no way of knowing whether or not the universe will keep this form forever.
For instance, if the universe is fluctuating there will be a big collapse somewhere along the line. That won't be beneficial to us I can assure you ;)
The greater universe, in QWC, has arenas. If you look out and see our galaxy and beyond there are billions of galaxies, all moving away from each other. That is one arena, our arena, our expanding arena that exists withing a greater universe that has a potentially infinite number of arenas at all times. Some are expanding and some are contracting, buy ours occupies only a tiny patch of space even though we cannot see beyond it. I am going to post an essay I wrote to try to put it into perspective.

This bit is a bit naive. What mechanism would ensure a hospitable environment for us ? Are we that special ?
I guess you are subliminally referring to God ?I don't mean "us" humans that originated here on Earth. I am talking about conscious self-aware life forms that, in QWC ideas, would be prevalent throughout the universe where ever hospitable planetary environments exist. Those environments come and go and ours will too. But just because human life goes extinct, doesn't mean that conscious life forms all go extinct. Just because our arena eventually ends doesn't mean that all life ends; there are a potentially infinite number of arenas in the greater universe which QWC expects all support life forms.
I find this an interesting view. But I don't think it will ever be possible to observe even hints that this might be so.
It tried to make a quick image of how I imagine it.. it didn't quite turn out exactly like I image it (lol) but it's good enough for now:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3259/exampleen0.jpg
Each cell represents a universette (coined on the spot lol).
Is that about right ?Does each square represent an arena, with some expanding and some collapsing?
It think you are misusing the term 'galaxy' here, or else I don't understand what you mean.Here is what the QWC idea is. Our entire observable universe with all of its billions of galaxies that are moving away from each other is one arena. QWC's idea is that there are other arenas beyond ours, in fact there are a potentially infinite number of arenas out there, some expanding like ours and some collapsing into big crunches.
But is there really a need for this multi-universette universe ?
I don't see how it solves anything except that you thought it up to satisfy your infinite universe view.OK. But if the standard cosmology is correct, i.e. Big Bang Theory, and if the expansion that we observe is accelerating, then the ability of our universe to support life will end.

BBT says that it hasn't ended yet but will, just wait.

QWC says it may not end because the expansion must have had a cause. If that cause was the burst of a big crunch or a big bang as it is called then there was enough matter and energy to form a big crunch that pre-existed the big bang.

If the bang occurred when a certain finite amount of matter and energy collapsed into a big crunch, why would we believe that there was exactly only enough matter and energy pre-existing to form one crunch and exactly enough to cause the internal energy density required to cause the bang?

There is no reason to believe that there isn't enough matter and energy to form other big crunches and big bangs and nothing to say that if there could be many there couldn't be a potentially infinite amount of energy.

Therefore, the idea that all space contains energy and the average energy density of space is sufficient to cause matter to form, and when matter forms gravity causes big crunches, with an infinite amount of energy all these steps would support a perpetual greater universe with an arena landscape.
Colliding universettes ?Why not?

[Enmos]

Sorry, I missed your previous post about editing the quotes thing. I see you worked around it though :)

True if you consider "forever" meaning only since the beginning instead of "forever" meaning there was no beginning.I agree in that time is a measurement of the passing of events. Time always passes while the universe exists whether or not there is any measurement of it passing.
No, I meant if the Big Bang was the beginning of all it was also the beginning of time. In that sense, and if that is true, the universe has always existed regardless of the fact that it had a beginning.

The greater universe, in QWC, has arenas. If you look out and see our galaxy and beyond there are billions of galaxies, all moving away from each other. That is one arena, our arena, our expanding arena that exists withing a greater universe that has a potentially infinite number of arenas at all times. Some are expanding and some are contracting, buy ours occupies only a tiny patch of space even though we cannot see beyond it.
Ok, but how am I supposed to imagine these arenas ?
Are they the result of individual Big Bangs ? If so, there's nothing to keep them from 'overlapping'. And, there must have been an original single massive Big Bang that produced all the matter that all these universettes together contain today.
Or are they 'little' individual universes that all have a separate origin ? In that case are they connected, ie can they interact, or are they isolated ?
Also if area A expands will that cause the neighboring arena B to be compressed, and vice versa ?

I am going to post an essay I wrote to try to put it into perspective.
Cool. Please post the link here :)

I don't mean "us" humans that originated here on Earth. I am talking about conscious self-aware life forms that, in QWC ideas, would be prevalent throughout the universe where ever hospitable planetary environments exist. Those environments come and go and ours will too. But just because human life goes extinct, doesn't mean that conscious life forms all go extinct. Just because our arena eventually ends doesn't mean that all life ends; there are a potentially infinite number of arenas in the greater universe which QWC expects all support life forms.
Ok, but my question remains the same. Why would the universe have to provide a hospitable environment for intelligent beings ? What influence do you suggest these beings have on the universe to cause this effect ?

Does each square represent an arena, with some expanding and some collapsing?
Yep, that was my intention at least.. lol

Here is what the QWC idea is. Our entire observable universe with all of its billions of galaxies that are moving away from each other is one arena. QWC's idea is that there are other arenas beyond ours, in fact there are a potentially infinite number of arenas out there, some expanding like ours and some collapsing into big crunches.
Ok, that's clear.

OK. But if the standard cosmology is correct, i.e. Big Bang Theory, and if the expansion that we observe is accelerating, then the ability of our universe to support life will end.
Yea, but so what ?

BBT says that it hasn't ended yet but will, just wait.

QWC says it may not end because the expansion must have had a cause. If that cause was the burst of a big crunch or a big bang as it is called then there was enough matter and energy to form a big crunch that pre-existed the big bang.
Check.

If the bang occurred when a certain finite amount of matter and energy collapsed into a big crunch, why would we believe that there was exactly only enough matter and energy pre-existing to form one crunch and exactly enough to cause the internal energy density required to cause the bang?
I don't think it has to mean that there will only be one Big Bang and one Big Crunch.. or maybe I misunderstood.

There is no reason to believe that there isn't enough matter and energy to form other big crunches and big bangs and nothing to say that if there could be many there couldn't be a potentially infinite amount of energy.
You mean like this ?
1. Original Big Bang producing all matter.
2. Several Crunches in random places.
3. Several Big Bangs originating from the places the Crunches condensed to.
4. Each separate universe Cruches and Bangs over and over again.

Therefore, the idea that all space contains energy and the average energy density of space is sufficient to cause matter to form, and when matter forms gravity causes big crunches, with an infinite amount of energy all these steps would support a perpetual greater universe with an arena landscape.
Hmm.. If you consider a primordial state of the universe where no matter has ever formed yet, are you saying that space has already existed forever infinitely as well as energy contained within this space ?
If so, you are just pushing back the problem of where everything came from.
Please explain ?

Why not?
I was just asking. I have already asked several questions above related to this :)

[quantum_wave]

In QWC, the greater universe has always existed since energy cannot be created or destroyed. The arena landscape has always existed even though each arena is temporary, they keep forming from the remnants of previous arenas.

QWC considers space to be infinite and that all space is occupied by energy.

Energy and matter are different forms of the energy commodity and energy density fluctuates. It only takes a finite amount of energy to form a big crunch, and the greater universe has a potentially infinite amount of energy. So in a greater universe that has always existed, a potentially infinite number of arenas would exist at any given time.

Arenas form when the big crunch forms, and expansion begins in each arena when the big crunch bursts due to internal energy density. Matter, then stars and galaxies form as the energy density declines during the expansion.

Galaxies that form are all moving away from each other because the matter from which they form has expansion momentum. Matter has expansion momentum because the matter forms in the early stage after arena expansion has begun. It doesn't look like an explosion because as matter forms it has the separation momentum imparted to it from the initial arena expansion. At first gravity is strong enough to cause clumping so stars and galaxies can form. By the time galaxies form they have conserved the initial expansion momentum of the matter from which they formed and they keep moving away from each other. That is why all of the galaxies and local groups of galaxies that we observe are all participating in the arena expansion. All that we can see is only part of our own expanding arena.

The arenas overlap and in the conjunctions between expanding arenas the gravity can again overcome the expansion. Remnant galaxies mix and merge and new big crunches from from the galactic remnants of overlapping arenas. The process of forming a big crunch forces matter back into the energy commodity in the "dense" state inside the big crunch. When the energy density inside the crunch reaches a limit causing the bang (or burst as it is called in QWC), the dark dense state energy emerges from the big crunch and begins to expand.

As it expands matter begins to form again, the arena lights up with electromagnetic radiation, stars and galaxies form, their momentum sends them out into the greater universes, overlapping galaxy remnants mix and merge. Gravity causes big crunches to form. Those big crunches burst, matter forms that has expansion momentum because it formed within an expanding energy environment, stars and galaxies form and as the arena progresses, its galaxies mix and merge as arenas overlap ... it is perpetual :).

The process is perpetual. There was no "first" big bang. We are in an arena landscape that has always existed and that is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale. The landscape on the grand scale is a landscape of arenas, some forming into big crunches, and some expanding after the big crunches have burst.

[quantum_wave]

I posted the essay about the landscape of the greater universe in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85472). See post #14.

[Enmos]

Ok, thanks QW. I will read the essay later :)

A few questions:
1. Who designed the matrix ?
2. By what mechanism does the energy build up to critical mass ?
3. How do the expanding universes eventually overcome the momentum ?

Oh and 4. Where does the energy and space come from ? They simply always existed ?

[quantum_wave]

Ok, thanks QW. I will read the essay later :)

A few questions:
1. Who designed the matrix ?It has always existed.
2. By what mechanism does the energy build up to critical mass ?The critical density is reached as the big crunch grows and accumulates more and more mass in the form of galactic remnants, black holes, etc. As the mass of the crunch grows, the energy density of the core increases due to compression caused by gravity. The critical density requires a certain amount of mass and energy to accumulate before the crunch can burst. The limit of energy density is a natural threshold beyond which energy cannot be compressed. Compressed energy at the core is too dense for matter as we know it to exist. When matter ceases to exist under critical density conditions it forms energy in a different state called "dense" energy. In dense energy there is no mass or gravity, only the energy commodity. The dense state energy has one important characteristic, expansion potential, i.e. it is it potential expansion energy.
3. How do the expanding universes eventually overcome the momentum ? Expansion momentum that is characteristic of galaxies who's momentum carries them out into the greater universe is overcome by collisions, mingling, and mixing of galaxies when they rendezvous after leaving the arenas in which they formed. During the final expansion galaxies separate at an accelerating rate, but when they mix and merge as arenas themselves converge, their gravity is operating over the smaller and smaller distance between arena remnants from converging arenas. It is the inverse square rule at work :).

Oh and 4. Where does the energy and space come from ? They simply always existed ?Yes.

[Enmos]

I has always existed.The critical density is reached as the big crunch grows and accumulates more and more mass in the form of galactic remnants, black holes, etc. As the mass of the crunch grows, the energy density of the core increases due to compression caused by gravity. The critical density requires a certain amount of mass and energy to accumulate before the crunch can burst. The limit of energy density is a natural threshold beyond which energy cannot be compressed. Compressed energy at the core is too dense for matter as we know it to exist. When matter ceases to exist under critical density conditions it forms energy in a different state called "dense" energy. In dense energy there is no mass or gravity, only the energy commodity. The dense state energy has one important characteristic, expansion potential, i.e. it is it potential expansion energy. Expansion momentum that is characteristic of galaxies who's momentum carries them out into the greater universe is overcome by collisions, mingling, mixing of galaxies when the rendezvous after leaving the arenas in which they formed.Yes.

Thanks QW, I can't say I completely agree with your model though :)

I has always existed.
You too ? :D

[quantum_wave]

I was still editing :D.

[Enmos]

I was still editing :D.

You still forgot to correct it though ;)

[quantum_wave]

I was still editing.Thanks QW, I can't say I completely agree with your model though :)I am honored that you have taken some of the QWC ideas into your consciousness. No way to know what will happen after that :).

You too ? :DYou mean, I am one of others who have that idea, or are you asking if I think I have always existed? I'll answer that. No, I came into existence around the middle of the last century. Yikes.

[quantum_wave]

OH, now I see. I'll fix that :o.

[quantum_wave]

By its very nature science is tentative so all of science at all times is subject to change. However, causality means one thing leads to another. You can't go from one thing to another without a connection and you can only go forward in time. Nothing happens before its cause, and nothing happens that doesn't tie back to the past.

That is true in the ideas of QWC because there was no beginning; the universe has always existed.

[Enmos]

But if the universe has always existed 'it happened' before it's cause, because there never was any.

[quantum_wave]

But if the universe has always existed 'it happened' before it's cause, because there never was any.I see what you mean. If you look at it that way, pre-existence was the cause of existence.

[Enmos]

I see what you mean. If you look at it that way, pre-existence was the cause of existence.

You mean 'nothing'.. :p
Sorry but I don't see how nothing can spawn anything. This is the great problem with things as the beginning of the universe in all theories.

[quantum_wave]

No, I mean that what exists has a potentially infinite past.

[Harro]

HI quantum wave I like your theory I have no problem with it. Maybe time it self is a construct of mass which could account for the duality for finite time within an infinate time frame.

Here is a thought.
In relativity terms, energy expiences no time dimention or 0 and infinate time untill the quanta of energy peeks to form a possitive partical and a negative partical in the vaccum of space (the background quanta of energy) which then anilate each other, this action could be thought of as the feed back loop of the singularity to explain the speed of light is the speed of light. Which is infact a back ground energy hot spot that doesnt have enough energy potential to form mass.

[quantum_wave]

HI quantum wave I like your theory I have no problem with it. Maybe time it self is a construct of mass which could account for the duality for finite time within an infinate time frame.It is true that finite time and an infinite time frame present a circumstance for thought experiments like that. For example relative movement causes time dilation. Relativistic mass increases are necessary to conserve momentum. Special circumstances that can exist to dilate time are why Einstein came up with relativistic mass increases to conserve momentum when time dilation occurs. But in QWC we can generally say that time simply passes.


Space and time are not coupled in QWC as they are in General Relativity. Time in QWC is a continuum. In this context the only time that we can empirically measure is time that has past. No matter how you measure it there are no measurable increments small enough to match the reality of how time passes. It is a smooth progression. “Now” is instantaneous and is past before you know it. Time passes smoothly as a continuum of “infinitely short nows” and not a series of discrete increments. There is no “quantum of time”, only measurements of the length of time any given event takes to occur. In QWC the energy background, all quanta that stand out from the background, and all mass that is composed of energy in quantum increments are in constant motion and time does not effect that motion, the motion reveals the passing of time.
Here is a thought.
In relativity terms, energy expiences no time dimention or 0 and infinate time untill the quanta of energy peeks to form a possitive partical and a negative partical in the vaccum of space (the background quanta of energy) which then anilate each other, this action could be thought of as the feed back loop of the singularity to explain the speed of light is the speed of light. Which is infact a back ground energy hot spot that doesnt have enough energy potential to form mass.You may have something in regard to the passing of time until energy quanta stand out from the background. And I see you do equate the background to the vacuum of space. However the concept of positive and negative particles in the vacuum of space is not quite on target with what I intended to convey about the energy background.

Energy fills all space, but the energy density of the given environment determines the amount of energy quanta that stand out from the background. Time however passes the same in any energy density environment. In addition, vacuum energy density is associated with Big Bang Theory and General Relativity but not QWC. QWC has an aether made up of the energy background and energy quanta don't pop in and annihilate each other, they "stand out" from the background momentarily and are temporary convergences of energy caused by intersecting and overlapping quantum waves. Each energy quanta that stands out then bursts into a quantum wave. The process of the formation of quanta and the quantum wave that they generate is the force called "quantum action".

[Harro]

ok but in QWC theory, don't particles of mass (primordial mass, you could think of it as the amount of energy that gives mass mass) form from the back ground energy wave fronts?

Where the energy wave front intersects with another wave front "the hot spot", combined are just enough energy to support the smallest quanta of mass but not enough energy to sustain mass so it blinks in and out of the back ground energy or into existence by which I mean can be observed and is persieved as Light.

I propose the rate of this feed back loop happens at the speed of light. Which could explain why energy travels distance at the speed of light.

Perhaps there is a current theory already that explains why light travels at the speed of light. If so do you know a link so I can read it or if you know could you explain it to me please.

[quantum_wave]

I apologize for making this answer so long that it will be a struggle to actually read it, sorry. Try to get through it.ok but in QWC theory, don't particles of mass (primordial mass, you could think of it as the amount of energy that gives mass mass) form from the back ground energy wave fronts?OK, now I see what you were saying. Yes, the background is constantly jostled by quantum waves and as those waves expand spherically they intersect and overlap with each other. You are referring to the leading spherical edge of the quantum wave as a wave front and I refer to the entire wave because the quantum of energy is equally distributed throughout the entire sphere, not concentrated at the surface of the sphere. This is just a small distinction though and basically you can refer to the point of intersection as the leading edges. When they intersect they overlap and as they overlap, the overlap contains energy from both waves.Where the energy wave front intersects with another wave front "the hot spot", combined are just enough energy to support the smallest quanta of mass but not enough energy to sustain mass so it blinks in and out of the back ground energy or into existence by which I mean can be observed and is persieved as Light.Pretty close. There may or may not be light when the energy quanta form and stand out from the background or even when stable mass forms. Light as you know is electromagnetic radiation which is polarized and has transverse electric and magnet field components. The emission of the photon, i.e. electromagnetic radiation requires atoms and energy jumps associated with the energy of the electrons. The energy quanta that cause mass and gravity have the characteristics of quantum waves, i.e. convergences, high density spots that burst and spherical expansion regardless of whether or not the particles of the standard particle model of quantum physics have formed from them. The mass that forms out of the background does so before the standard charged particles form. This is the pre-particle mass that makes up dark matter. All charged particles evolve from this dark matter. Dark matter has mass, and feels and exerts gravity even before charges form that can cause light. In QWC, specific particles like quarks, protons, neutrons, and electrons evolve from dark matter.

The efficiency of the formation of common particles form dark matter is a function of the overall average energy density of the universe. That efficiency is less that 100%, probably much less if the visible mass of the universe is 4% or 5% and the dark matter is 40% or 45% while the background makes up the other 50% or so of the energy of the universe (don’t quote these figures because … well they are just wags :), Someone will inform me of the proportions as they understand them),

The energy quantum is always a precise increment of energy and forms from the background in an energy environment that supports mass, like you say. You could say they blink in and out but there is actually a flow of energy and the energy is always present so the blinking is more like converging and disbursing of wave peaks and troughs.

When quantum waves intersect and overlap, the amount of energy in the overlap increases as the waves themselves expand during the overlap period until it reaches a quantum of energy in the overlap. At that point the energy density in the overlap exceeds the ability of the converging waves to sustain the high density spot. Actually the waves just keep on expanding leaving the high density spot in the lurch, surrounded by lower and lower energy density as the waves that caused it to form move on. The high density spot, a quantum of energy by nature, “bursts” after the convergence culminates and the quantum of energy in the spot becomes a spherically expanding quantum wave itself.

The term “burst” implies a buildup of pressure in the spot. This build up is really an increase in the energy density of the spot relative to the energy density of the individual waves that cause the spot. If two waves of equal radius overlap then the overlap section has twice the energy density of each of the contributing waves. If three waves overlap then the overlap section has three times the energy density of the contributing waves, and so on.

In a simple idea of a matrix of energy quanta we can talk about twenty six contributing waves for each spot. Think of a three by three by three quanta matrix, i.e. twenty seven quanta and one occupies the exact center of the matrix. Depending on the synchronization of the quanta, it is possible for all twenty six of the surrounding quanta to burst, expand and converge at the center of the matrix, forming a high density spot that is twenty six times the average energy density of each of the contributing expanding waves. This matrix talk is just an example to convey the idea of how multiple energy quanta can contribute to an individual high density spot. You should note that only a small portion of the energy (1/26) of each contributing wave is used to generate one new high density spot. The rest of the energy, the other 25/26ths, gets caught up in the formation of other high density spots or just expands on out of the mass as the crest of the spherical quantum wave structure that emanates from mass and causes gravity.

In this case, at the point that the overlap of the twenty-six contributing waves accumulates a quantum of energy, the spot is at its highest possible energy density. How high that energy density gets depends on the energy density of the environment. If the environment is open space in the background then the energy density is very low, but if the environment is inside a proton then the energy density would be very high and the matrix would not only be much tighter but the number of waves contributing to each new high density spot could be much higher.I propose the rate of this feed back loop happens at the speed of light. Which could explain why energy travels distance at the speed of light. A good try :). The frequency of the formation of the high density spots occurs very rapidly but is variable depending on the energy density of the environment and the proximity to mass, dark matter, and aether. Actually, in QWC, the burst of the high density spot causes the radius of the expanding sphere of energy to increase at the speed of light. So the quantum waves, the wave fronts, travel at the speed of light. If you noticed from your reading that gravity waves that are emitted from mass are actually caused by the unique quantum wave structure, i.e. the leading trough and the following crest as the high density spot bursts, then you can see that in QWC, gravity travels at the speed of light,Perhaps there is a current theory already that explains why light travels at the speed of light. If so do you know a link so I can read it or if you know could you explain it to me please.In Quantum Wave Cosmology there are two aspects of quantum waves that simply depend on nature. One is the amount of energy in a quantum, and the other is the rate of expansion of the spherical quantum wave at the speed of light. It seems that the speed of photons and the expansion of the quantum waves are the result of the same force, i.e. quantum action which is way they are equal. The natural density of charged particle systems like atoms and particularly their electron components determines the speed of light and the rate of increase in the radius of the quantum waves. Electrons, at least in QWC, are composed of energy quanta. The determination of the speed of light is a natural and invariant because of the nature and density of the electron, the way energy builds in discrete increment in the electron, the precise jumps of energy as photons are emitted and of the interplay of particles associated with the emission of photons. In QWC this relationship has always existed just like energy and matter have always existed so it is expected to be the same throughout the greater universe and from one arena to another.

Ideas on QWC nucleosynthesis suggest that each arena goes through a period of matter formation from dense state energy. When this dark dense energy emerges form a big crunch it expands rapidly and mixes with the surrounding low energy density aether to form a frothy mix of expanding energy density that accommodates abundant and rapid matter formation as the energy density of the expanding ball decreases to the matter formation threshold. But that is another topic.

[Harro]

I have an idea once, that instead of the cosmos being added too, a prime mover. Maybe something is missing. Say one electron out of the entire cosmos was some how destroyed when the energy was equilibrium, so one proton was required to steel an electron from a neighbouring hydrogen atom which caused a chain reaction, the chaos ensured and why everything is just perfect now. Crazy I know lol
"flaw theory" what drives evolution and strives for perfection.

Sorry Quantum wave, I know of topic but I cant think of any more questions to ask just yet.

[quantum_wave]

Maybe "flaw theory" is off topic but I like the idea as a thought experiment. In QWC the question would be what happened to the energy of the "one electron" that was flawed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so all energy has always existed.

A flaw that caused the energy of even one electron to be destroyed would be supernatural and therefore not a part of QWC.

[Harro]

I like the "flaw theory" too. Which isn’t really a theory it’s an idea. So I guess I could call it the "flaw Idea". When I look at technology I see it progresses over time, getting better, more efficient, more user friendly and more reliable. The idea is that if the technology were perfect it wouldn’t need improvements. The same could be thought of in biological life and evolution, it could be the "Flaw Potential" or the potentiality of flaws that could give rise to new adaptations in changing environmental conditions. Maybe the universe has a similar cosmology? A universal cyclical model of birth, death and rebirth. Evident by black holes, hawking radiation, star formation and star death cycles.

As for the big bang, I’m a sceptic of the big bang theory Its more like a work in progress. Sounds to me like it is contrived or at best is incomplete and requires new models to make it work. It sounds like a flat earth centric model to me. That’s why QWC resonates better with me, it may not be complete but it might be closer to the truth, and even if its not I applaud the efforts you make.

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed there is only one conclusion, the universe is eternal. The universe may in fact mirror life, a continuous cycle of birth, death and rebirth. If the current theory of the big bang requires it to made up of 95% dark matter and dark energy, sounds more like the theory is about 5% complete. I’d suggest the dark energy and dark matter might have already been present in our neighbourhood arena.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Cosmological_composition.jpg

(Sighted from wiki)
Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang.
“While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future.” (probably 95% of it) “Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history.” (you can say that again) “The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperaturee, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.”

Sounds like some one needs to talk to Quantum wave lol

Have you heard of Nassim Haramein, the Resonance Project.
http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html
His work include geometry of cosmology and the origin of spin and theories on singularities.
Event Horizon 1 – 4 DVD
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ir5sQEg0rs4 follow the related links to watch them all.

Here is a list of more links from a talk back show on radio.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4lA0joPzrZI (talks about dimentions)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBlBs5M2oQ (talks about scale dependent infinity)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgh7vpJzSV0 (talks about the vacuum/space)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cTIC2O_kync (he calls the vacuum like a hard drive, maybe this could be linked to QWC threoy back ground quanta)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=W9U3gBatv7E (quantum back ground energy of the vacuum or eather)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=alEvlmFJpkE (concludes)

Grand Unified Field Theory
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ekGJC5HFDlE (funamental structure and geometry of the universe)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=mvRaQnaKL_0 (Dynamics of the universe, anti gravity ideas)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq4hjm-WB64 (feed back loop of information)

His ideas are way out there but I find it amazing.

[quantum_wave]

What fun it would be to be involved with something like the Resonance Project. Haramein is interested in many of the same things that I am. Of course he is a bit more qualified and talented than I am which probably explains why my posts make pretty insignificant waves on SciForums while he has taken the initiative to put together talented people and professional presentations. I have found the website interesting and beneficial. Thank you for the links which I will work my way through.

[electrafixtion]

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy.

Hypothetically, is QWC's energy quantum a constant based on observation?

If so, what happens to this formulation when observing mass only visibly detectable via cameras that specifically see into non visible (infra red, ultraviolet, etc.) light spectrums?

Is quantum action the force we observe as being altered or manipulated with respect to the Hutchinson Effect?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VyscSun3VkA

[quantum_wave]

Hypothetically, is QWC's energy quantum a constant based on observation?
If so, what happens to this formulation when observing mass only visibly detectable via cameras that specifically see into non visible (infra red, ultraviolet, etc.) light spectrums? The idea is that at the micro level the quantum is a constant, and at the macro level that each arena has a constant amount of energy as well. Both the quantum and quantum action at the level of the infinitesimal are constant amounts of energy and force just like the energy captured in a big crunch and the force of a big burst are are constants at the macro level where arenas fill the landscape of the greater universe.

Light spectrum are the result of wave length of electric and magnetic field components of electromagnetic radiation. The quantum associated with photon energy is not the same quantum of energy as the quantum associated with mass and gravity. The amount of energy in the photon is present in discrete increments but the increments contain different amounts of energy. This means that photons are composed of energy quanta and each discrete photon energy increment is composed of more than one energy quanta. The higher the energy of the photon, the higher the number of quanta of the photon. Photons have mass and feel gravity in QWC but they do not clump to form particles or exert gravity individually. Relativistic mass increase and the conservation of momentum at relativistic speeds involves the relationship between the speed of the photon and the mass of the photon, but at Newtonian measures the mass of photons is effectively zero.

The quantum of mass and gravity is a single quantum amount at the micro level and a single quantum amount at the macro level. All energy in matter that exists between the two levels of order are in quantum increments in QWC.
Is quantum action the force we observe as being altered or manipulated with respect to the Hutchinson Effect?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VyscSun3VkAI'm not sure about the Hutchinson Effect. Maybe someone can post an explanation for that.

[quantum_wave]

The ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology have been developed in a step by step fashion using the macro and micro limits of current technology as the departure points. That means that at the quantum level in the field of quantum mechanics, particle physicists have developed a standard particle model, and at the macro level there is the standard cosmology which is Big Bang Theory with inflation (BBT). Those are the departure points from which QWC picks up.

The standard particle model identifies particles and forces and quantum mechanics deals with the math that defines how the particles and forces are quantified and interact to form the universe as we see it. The standard cosmology starts at 10^-43 seconds and describes exponential inflation, nucleosynthesis, expansion and accelerating expansion along with the math to explain the nature of spacetime and the effect of gravity.

At neither end of the spectrum of scientific endeavor do we have completion. We don’t know what causes mass or gravity in the quantum world and we don’t know what caused inflation, expansion, or accelerating expansion or where matter and energy originated.

QWC takes little steps from the departure points to encompass ideas that make the most sense. It is a joint effort of all of those who view it and it is those who view it that shape it and help make sense out of it. They have been doing so in various forums for several years. This is not to say that anyone who has contributed to it buys into it. But many by commenting in passing have caused added steps that helped moved the project along. It has moved far enough for me to say that QWC encompasses ideas that satisfactorily complete the cosmology at both ends of the spectrum of scale and it does so within the definition of protoscience.

If we could observe a quantum of energy and the force of quantum action that takes place to cause mass and gravity it would not appear as it really is because of the uncertainty principle. We cannot observe the realty at that level without changing it. But QWC encompasses the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments, there are quantum waves that emerge from high density spots that burst and their energy expands spherically as co-moving coordinate systems until the waves intersect, overlap, form new high density spots, and those spots burst to continue the quantum action perpetually. Mass and gravity are the products of energy quanta and quantum action that takes place within and surrounded by an energy background.

If we could observe the greater universe beyond the 13.7 billion years since our "big bang", QWC encompasses the idea that we would see a finite arena that is expanding into a greater universe. And if we could see infinitely out into the greater universe it would look the same as the quantum world, only on a higher level of order. Big crunches are the same as high density spots, Big Bangs are the same as the burst of high density spots, and inflation and expansion of arenas as co-moving coordinate systems are the same as the spherical expansion of the quantum energy waves that emerge from the bursts of a high density spots. Arenas intersect and overlap to form new big crunches which in turn burst to continue the arena process perpetually.

There are two levels of order that can only be distinguished from each other by the difference in the length of time it takes their respective actions to take place and the difference in scale between them. The thresholds and limits of energy density have their counterparts at each level of order and the energy to matter to energy process plays out through quantum action at the infinitesimal level and through the formation and burst of big crunches at the level of the greater universe. The process at each level serves to defeat entropy and enable a perpetual quantum world and a perpetual arena filled universe.

And this arrangement benefits life which is undaunted by it all. Life and consciousness is characteristic of the arena process that is enabled by the quantum nature of the universe. Because of the generative and evolvative nature of life, consciousness will always have a home within the arena process in Quantum Wave Cosmology.

[AlphaNumeric]

The ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology have been developed in a step by step fashion using the macro and micro limits of current technology as the departure points. That means that at the quantum level in the field of quantum mechanics, particle physicists have developed a standard particle model, and at the macro level there is the standard cosmology which is Big Bang Theory with inflation (BBT). Those are the departure points from which QWC picks up.How can you have developed it from the limits of mainstream physics when you don't know any mainstream physics? Spending an afternoon reading Wikipedia and a weekend reading 'A Brief History of Time' doesn't mean you know much of anything about mainstream physics.

Despite my repeated requests, you never demonstrated any quantitative knowledge of those things. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we both know you won't.

[quantum_wave]

Except you have nothing quantitative, just desperate arm waving. You can't say it's 'protoscience', it's basically just a few concepts you've thought up. No derivation, no axiomatic beginning, nothing of that kind at all. So it's worthless.
To almost quote a well known phrase, that would be like "The blind, deaf and dumb leading the blind".
You do realise there's more to quantum mechanics than photons and things photons make?

Of course you don't. How silly of me....

No one has anything quantitative in regard to the two levels of order that QWC address. I’m talking about ideas that address things like what causes mass, what causes gravity and what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. So stating that there is nothing quantitative is correct, but that is the nature of protoscience. That is why I asked you if you know what protoscience is. Don't use my thread to go into some self serving rants just because I asked you that. It is a serious question.


You used the phrase, "Desperate arm waving". That is just antagonism on your part. Why say it?

These concepts that I “just thought up” are the very concepts that the great minds in physics “thought up”. Planck, Bohr, Born, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Neumann who united the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, Einstein, (edit: and let's not forget Gamow) many very great names fall into the category of people who came up with these ideas.

You have to take into consideration your audience when you post about the fundamentals of the universe beyond where standard theory goes. Most people have budding thoughts about the universe, infinity, life, God, etc. Some have thoughts about alternative ideas. If they frequent a science forum they might have some interest the things I’m interested in but probably only a few have put in a lot of rigor on cosmology. If I filled my posts with cut and paste from Wiki it would be a real turn off. The way I present them are "ideas" for discussion. Still the audience is tiny. You don't need to talk as if you have some God given insight that qualifies you to wave this all off as meaningless.

I think things through before I post. I know physics, I know logic and I know that what I post makes sense, is consistent, and is compatible with accepted science. I also know that my audience wants the logic to resonate with where they are in their personal search of the nature of things. Spewing out someone else’s math or ideas wouldn't be of any help to anyone and I wouldn’t have any reason to do it.

What caused the expansion that we observe in the universe around us? Science doesn’t have the answer. I have ideas and they aren’t idle speculation. It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that there was a big crunch before the big bang is it? A big crunch is part of QWC. No one has quantified that. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe or test things at that level, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible with established science.

It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that our expanding universe emerged from a big crunch is it? The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC.

The formation of matter as we know it after the initial expansion of our universe began isn’t very original is it? QWC is based on matter forming from dense energy. That is not original but it does begin to fall into the category that you would call “made up” ideas. But QWC addresses the quantum structure of matter from energy in a logical way so that readers can see how I suggest it happens. They don't have to agree and only a few read deep enough to understand what I actually am saying.

The fact that in QWC matter is composed of quantum increments is not original thought. The standard particle model has various fundamental particles; My ideas aren't original, but what is original is that QWC simply goes to the next step and says that a particle with mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. QWC has the idea that the particles of the standard particle model that have mass are also composed of these quantum increments. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe things at that level yet, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible.

They actually produced results, developed things from underlying concepts, things which could be tested, quantitative results. You have none of those.

You cannot say things like "The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC." unless you have a derived quantative framework within which you have a description of space and time on some level as well as a description of energy and matter within that theatre. Otherwise you are simply saying "Sounds like a nice concept, I'll tell people that's included in my work".

See how it works? You lay down your initial assumptions and then develop them in logical steps, until you develop some kind of framework whose physical interpretation is coherent and solid. Why do string theorists know string theory includes gravity? Because from its axioms you rapidly find within the framework a spin 2 massless particle. Everywhere else in mainstream physics this is the graviton. It then turns out it behaves in a way which gives you an expression which is the Einstein Field Equations in tensor form. So there's justification the axioms of string theory lead to gravity. Then string theorists can legitimately talk about how string theory includes gravity. Can you provide any similar justification for your babbling about big crunches in QWC? I doubt it.

AN, in hopes of keeping my thread going as a discussion, which I have worked hard to achieve, I will give you a couple of links to a definition of protoscience which I think you are unaware of. You mentioned in both of your posts here that I haven't been quantitative. I said that is the reason this is protoscience and not theory. It occurs to me that you are not trying to discuss it in that context but seem to want to belittle me because I don't have any quantificaion. If these links widen your perspective, by all means participate, but if you don't care about the links or what I say, why come here?

http://www.123exp-science.com/t/01554063951/

Protoscience
In the philosophy of science, a protoscience is an "area of science" which is in its formulative or speculative stages, and may in the future become established as a science, or be discarded as a falsified claim or unfruitful approach.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html#anchor176433

WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?
Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.
WHAT IS "NON-SCIENCE"?
Non-Science Defined: Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief system, e.g., religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics.
WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?
False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).
SUMMARY
Science is a limited discipline that studies only naturally occurring events, while offering natural explanations for the phenomenon under study. The data must be consistent, observable, predictable, and testable, while any conclusions or theories must be tentative.

How can you have developed it from the limits of mainstream physics when you don't know any mainstream physics? Spending an afternoon reading Wikipedia and a weekend reading 'A Brief History of Time' doesn't mean you know much of anything about mainstream physics.

Despite my repeated requests, you never demonstrated any quantitative knowledge of those things. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we both know you won't.These are your repeated attempts and my reponses. Let's let them speak for themselves. Anyone reading the content of the thread will get the idea.

[Harro]

How can you have developed it from the limits of mainstream physics when you don't know any mainstream physics? Spending an afternoon reading Wikipedia and a weekend reading 'A Brief History of Time' doesn't mean you know much of anything about mainstream physics.

Despite my repeated requests, you never demonstrated any quantitative knowledge of those things. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we both know you won't.

Alpha Numeric, Perhaps with your knowledge in mathemetics and physics you could help QWC along in suport?

Or perhaps you could help debunk some of the ideas being proposed so to arrive at a more tuned theory or show how what is proposed in QWC as false or cant possibly be correct?

I'm sure any assistance or input would be appreciated as has been out layed and requested in the opening post.

[quantum_wave]

Thank you Harro. It doesn't look like Alphanumeric is going to respond. Maybe giving support is out of the question because AN is busy working with String Theory. If QWC is even close to reality then he has a lot to lose by supporting it though any support would be appreciated.

On the other hand I would think that he would be eager to debunk specific ideas I have mentioned instead of waving QWC off with challenges for quantification. He knows that I refer to QWC ideas as protoscience and not theory. He certainly understands that quantification is what moves ideas from protoscience to science theory. We will see if he returns to help me out here.

In the mean time I have a few improvements to make to ideas previously posted here. I will move forward to clarify ideas about the energy background and the aether and how mass and the aether are connected. The problem with detecting the aether is that it doesn't have an absolute reference frame. It is as much a part of mass as gravity is.

Also, I need to update the discussion of photons and photon mass ideas.

I'll get to work on that while AN works on how he can help or attack the ideas of QWC.