What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

[quantum_wave]

Of course the rules of the Pseudoscience forum and the overall rules of SciForums apply to this thread. I have an additional rule as part of the OP. The thread is solely about this Google document, "What is Quantum Wave Cosmology", (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9) that I have published using the “publish” feature available in the Google docs. Some of you are familiar with Google docs and those who are not can easily familiarize your selves here (https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=writely&passive=true&nui=1&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2F&followup=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2F&ltmpl=homepage&rm=false).

My rule is that any comments that don’t reference statements by me in the Google doc will be considered off topic and at my discretion will either be ignored or responded to with a comment and a reminder of my rule and a link to the Google doc so you can go to it easily.

The meaning of this rule will become clear as the thread progresses (if it progresses at all) because the Google doc is constructed to cover many eventualities.

I don’t expect very many people to participate, maybe no one will, but to comply with my rule you have to actually quote the Google doc. If you participate in this thread and don’t reference the Google doc you are demonstrating bad behavior (you’re shuddering at the thought, aren’t you). Keep in mind what the Google doc says because that is the only information you will get about how I manage the document itself. The document will change from time to time at my discretion but I have standards that I follow in making changes and those standards are stated in the document.

Some of you will be very creative in getting around my rule but one of the things I will try to be good at is pointing out when you have failed to comply. There is no penalty for non-compliance except that I get the pleasure of pointing out various characteristics that you demonstrate in your off topic posts and you will have the fun of feeling like you are ripping me apart without actually referring to what the document says. That means that you will be able to create straw man arguments and attack those straw men without actually doing or saying anything on topic. I will respond to off topic posts at my pleasure.

Of course out of boredom someone may actually follow this additional rule and then I don’t know how it will come out. If your read the Google doc there are some hints but then part of what the Google doc is intended to do is to inform you about Quantum Wave Cosmology, what it is, what my motivation is, what my methodology is, what I have learned about forum behavior over the years that I have been updating QWC in various forums and in many threads under several IDs. It even includes my speculative ideas that are up for discussion, though that is the last thing that most of you will be participating in if my experience with some of you is any indication.

[prometheus]

Reposted from the open govt forum:

I really must at this point refer you to the "idea" espoused by guest, since it is basically the same level as yours, only yours uses scientific jargon whereas guest's uses other language. You honestly cannot see that what you have done is made something up off the top of your head that has no basis or justification in any physical sense whatever can you? And you accuse me of living in a fantasy?

Perhaps we should take this back to the thread in pseudoscience since it's not really about the governance of sciforums any more, but I point out that in your Google documents, what you refer to as axioms are not axioms. I would characterise them as attempts at physical postulates, but not very good ones.


If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be.


Postulates should not contain the word if and should be directly applicable to our universe. Since the stated postulate implies the non existence of the universe it is irrelevant to the universe as it is.


If at first there was something, something has always been and always will be.


This is demonstrably false - see the FRW solution of the Einstein field equations.


The universe is energy.

This is vacuous and vague.


All points in space have energy density.

Why? Postulates should be self evident. What causes the energy density.


The energy density at all points in space is always fluctuating.

Again, why?

The next step would be to take your postulates and use them to rigorously derive the consequences of them which you don't do. With all your waffle and gibberish you done nothing and so you can't point to what exactly the predictions of your idea are. My point is that we don't need to compare predictions with observation because there aren't any predictions - it's simply made up and you presumably have the nous not to make stuff up calling it physics that contradicts what we already know to be true.

I keep chuckling at your fantasy accusation. I remind you that I actually am a physicist doing physics, and you are not a physicist failing to do physics.

[prometheus]

I have published using the “publish” feature available in the Google docs.

For the uninitiated, this is not a scientific publication and there is not even the screening of something like the arxiv. (http://arxiv.org) As you might expect, peer review is a long way away.

[quantum_wave]

Reposted from the open govt forum:

I really must at this point refer you to the "idea" espoused by guest, since it is basically the same level as yours, only yours uses scientific jargon whereas guest's uses other language. You honestly cannot see that what you have done is made something up off the top of your head that has no basis or justification in any physical sense whatever can you? And you accuse me of living in a fantasy?

I refer you to the document at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9, part 7, “7.0 And finally, if you believe in God, you must accept the idea that science does not invoke the supernatural, and so God or no God, QWC remains my personal view of the cosmology of the universe. I do not invoke the supernatural or fanciful figures in QWC, and if you characterize QWC as invoking the supernatural or fantasy such claims should be supported with the exact statement that I have made that you consider to fall in either of those categories, using the quote function.”

End of quote

As long as you equate the entire document to invoking fantasy creatures we will not be in agreement. I can’t very well get into the meaningful part of your post while this huge departure from reality remains on the table.

If you cannot distinguish between a series of speculations that start with the question, “what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe”, and the invoking of fantasy creatures, we have nothing to discuss.

However, I will work on the axioms without waiting for you respond. I created the Google doc by cut and paste from various previous posts. I had intended to use the axioms that AlphaNumeric helped me with back in 2006 (I used the ID, "Bogie"). http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2280941&postcount=242

They were:
1) If ever there was nothing, nothing could ever exist.

2) Whenever something exists, something will always exist.

3) The universe is energy that has always existed and will always exist.

These are still open for discussion but at least now they reflect the help that AN provided back in 2006. If Oli ever returns to trash me he may repost his link that he says falsified the first Axiom.

If you ever are able to distinguish between my ideas and Guest’s invocation of fantasy let me know so we can get into you comments about the axioms.

[Oli]

They were:
1) If ever there was nothing, nothing could ever exist.
2) Whenever something exists, something will always exist.
3) The universe is energy that has always existed and will always exist

As I have previously pointed out, "axiom" No.1 isn't actually axiomatic.
Therefore anything following that premise cannot be considered valid.
Nos. 2 & 3 are suppositions, not axioms.

[quantum_wave]

As I have previously pointed out, "axiom" No.1 isn't actually axiomatic.
Therefore anything following that premise cannot be considered valid.
Nos. 2 & 3 are suppositions, not axioms.OK, as my document says, I am not a scientist so I can use some help getting the axioms straight. You mentioned a link but there was no link in the post. Do you want to post the link?

What I consider self evident is that noting can come from nothing. That is what I want an axiom to convey.

[Oli]

You mentioned a link but there was no link in the post. Do you want to post the link?
The post didn't contain the link initially, I screwed up.
And you mentioned it.
So I edited the post to add the link and guess what?
Fifteen minutes after I did that I looked at "Who's online" and YOU were listed as reading that linked thread.
How strange that you claim you haven't seen it... :rolleyes:
It's the thread entitled "Nothingness and the rise of something" and (one more time) it's here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761).
The links to the relevant documents are in the first post.

What I consider self evident is that noting can come from nothing. That is what I want an axiom to convey.
Then you're in trouble.
1) Simply because you "consider" it to be self-evident doesn't mean that it is actually so (and the links given in the thread named above show that it may actually NOT be so).
Axioms are axioms BECAUSE they are self-evident it's what axiom means.
If you're having trouble wording your "axiom" it could be because it's not really an axiom. And it doesn't matter how you phrase, reword or otherwise tart up a non-axiom the "best" you'll do is fool some people for a while: it still won't BE an axiom.

[Ophiolite]

With reference to your entire google.doc, where is the executive summary, or abstract? I am attacking your speculations at this point on the basis of sub-standard presentation. Until the presentation is improved I have no idea whether or not I find the speculations plausible. Do you intend to correct this?

[quantum_wave]

The post didn't contain the link initially, I screwed up.
And you mentioned it.
So I edited the post to add the link and guess what?
Fifteen minutes after I did that I looked at "Who's online" and YOU were listed as reading that linked thread.
How strange that you claim you haven't seen it... :rolleyes:
It's the thread entitled "Nothingness and the rise of something" and (one more time) it's here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761).
The links to the relevant documents are in the first post.

Please use the quote feature to show where I said I haven't seen it :bugeye:. I wanted you to post the link to this thread because I figured there would be some discussion.

Then you're in trouble.
1) Simply because you "consider" it to be self-evident doesn't mean that it is actually so (and the links given in the thread named above show that it may actually NOT be so).
Axioms are axioms BECAUSE they are self-evident it's what axiom means.
If you're having trouble wording your "axiom" it could be because it's not really an axiom. And it doesn't matter how you phrase, reword or otherwise tart up a non-axiom the "best" you'll do is fool some people for a while: it still won't BE an axiom.Maybe so. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is something to be considered. I even started a thread on the subject of symmetry breaking (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81539) a year ago that didn't resolve the question. I know you saw that thread. I did my own research on the subject at the time. Take a look that the rest of the thread that you linked me to and see the outcome; hardly conclusive.

My thought back a year ago after getting no answer to my questions and doing my own research was that if the symmetry breaking divided nothing into matter and anti-matter, where did the anti-matter go. I personally reject the theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.

[quantum_wave]

With reference to your entire google.doc, where is the executive summary, or abstract? I am attacking your speculations at this point on the basis of sub-standard presentation. Until the presentation is improved I have no idea whether or not I find the speculations plausible. Do you intend to correct this?Yes. I have never been happy with that part of my presentation because QWC is completely alien to what people consider standard theory and I find it difficult to summarize it. Are you saying that paragraph 1 cannot serve as an introduction in place of an abstract, or maybe as the abstract?

1. What is Quantum Wave Cosmology?

Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe. I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics. Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC. But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things. At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC. Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

In a nutshell QWC is energy quantization at two levels. Quantization takes place through a similar process at each level. "Quantum action" causes mass and gravity at the quantum level and "arena action" causes expanding and collapsing arenas at the level of the greater universe. Quantum action and arena action are the terms used for the quantization process at their respective levels.

In QWC the two levels of order are the higher level of order referred to as the greater universe, and the lower level of order referred to as the quantum level. The higher level of order consists of the large scale, the big picture, etc., where our expanding observable "universe" is demoted to the status of just one of a potentially infinite number of temporary arenas, some expanding and some collapsing across the landscape of the greater universe (read the QWC Step One and Two document to see how arenas form). The lower level of order is the quantum realm where matter is composed of energy in quantum increments that would themselves be too small to detect but of which all detectable particles are composed.

Both levels of order have a dominant force called quantum action and arena action respectively, and the associated particles are called a "high density spot" and a "big crunch" respectively. The quantization process differs at each level primarily in the amount of energy that makes up the quantum at each level, and the duration of the particle at the respective levels. Both particles decay into spherically expanding waves of energy, the quantum waves, and though these waves of energy can potentially expand infinitely, in practice their expansion is interrupted as they intersect and overlap. Those overlaps allow the processes of quantum action and arena action to be perpetual. The perpetual nature of quantum action allows for the presence of mass and gravity at the quantum level, and allows for the defeat of entropy at the arena level.

Since this is my personal cosmology, I begin with axioms that are self evident to me:

1.1 If ever there was nothing, nothing could ever exist.

1.2 Whenever something exists, something will always exist.

1.3 The universe is energy that has always existed and will always exist.

[Oli]

Please use the quote feature to show where I said I haven't seen it :bugeye:.
OK, as my document says, I am not a scientist so I can use some help getting the axioms straight. You mentioned a link but there was no link in the post.
Post #6.
You claim there's no link (which there wasn't for, ooh, maybe 20 all of minutes) and NOW (within the hour) you say "there's no link".
Since it IS there and you believe it isn't is that not saying you haven't seen it?

Maybe so. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is something to be considered.
But you apparently haven't considered it since you claim that the opposite is axiomatic.

Take a look that the rest of the thread that you linked me to and see the outcome; hardly conclusive.
Conclusive or not it still negates the axiom being axiomatic.

My thought back a year ago after getting no answer to my questions and doing my own research was that if the symmetry breaking divided nothing into matter and anti-matter, where did the anti-matter go. I personally reject the theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.
Ah, you personally rejected it.
On what grounds?
Can you refute the mathematics in the linked documents?
Or is it simply that you don't like the idea because it doesn't fit with QWC?

[quantum_wave]

Post #6.
You claim there's no link (which there wasn't for, ooh, maybe 20 all of minutes) and NOW (within the hour) you say "there's no link".
Since it IS there and you believe it isn't is that not saying you haven't seen it?No, it isn't. I explained also that I wanted you to post the link on this thread which you did. Thank you.

But you apparently haven't considered it since you claim that the opposite is axiomatic.


Conclusive or not it still negates the axiom being axiomatic.


Ah, you personally rejected it.
On what grounds?
Can you refute the mathematics in the linked documents?
Or is it simply that you don't like the idea because it doesn't fit with QWC?Do you accept the theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking or are you just rapping my chops?

[Oli]

No, it isn't.
You stated quite clearly
You mentioned a link but there was no link in the post

I explained also that I wanted you to post the link on this thread which you did.
Correct. In a later post.

Do you accept the theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking or are you just rapping my chops?
Whether I accept it or not it negates your axiom.
How can anyone sensibly say the equivalent of "It is self-evident that all swans are white. But some of them may be other colours, the jury is still out"?

If there is any conflicting theory/ data/ supposition then the initial premise CANNOT be axiomatic.

[quantum_wave]

You stated quite clearly



Correct. In a later post.
Is this a big point that needs to be resolved before we can get to the symmetry breaking? If not, then let's go to that.

Whether I accept it or not it negates your axiom.
How can anyone sensibly say the equivalent of "It is self-evident that all swans are white. But some of them may be other colours, the jury is still out"?

If there is any conflicting theory/ data/ supposition then the initial premise CANNOT be axiomatic.You may be right but that doesn't sound right to me because you could negate every axiom using your reasoning.

The reason I asked if you accepted it or not was to see if you were well versed enough to answer a few questions. Do you follow the math to the point that nothing is split into something?

[Oli]

You may be right but that doesn't sound right to me because you could negate every axiom using your reasoning.
Not quite true: you can come up with postulates (or even other conditions) that may negate an axiom (e.g. non-Euclidian geometry).
But an axiom, by definition, is something that is self-evidently true.
If it's self-evidently TRUE then there cannot be any contrary option.

The reason I asked if you accepted it or not was to see if you were well versed enough to answer a few questions.
I accept it as a distinct possibility.

Do you follow the math to the point that nothing is split into something?
I haven't spotted any obvious flaws in it.
Have you?

[Ophiolite]

Are you saying that paragraph 1 cannot serve as an introduction in place of an abstract, or maybe as the abstract?
Assessment:
It fails completely as an abstract. It is obscure, ambiguous, unstructured and too long.

Solution:
Here is an example of what you should be doing. I consider your paragraph one.

The Original
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics. Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC. But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things. At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC. Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

The Original Reformatted
You have six thoughts here, contained in six sentences. Editing will be easier if we split this up thus -

Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.

I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.

But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

The Editing
Now we proceed to eliminate all irrelevant phrases, words and ideas, while simultaneously clarifying, yet ensuring nothing important is missed.

Sentence One
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
Superficially this looks OK, but if it is your cosmology (indicated by my) why do you need to qualify it as personal.
Since cosmology is about the origin of the universe the phrase of the universe is redundant.
The revised sentence is then
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my cosmology.

That is too abrupt and carries some ambiguous implications. This is better:
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology.

Sentences Two and Three
Sentences two and three contain similar ideas and should be combined. The ideas are a) the name fits the concept b) the idea evolved c) the ideas and their evolution can be found on the internet.

I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.

This captures those ideas,
The evolution of the concept since 2003 can be followed on the internet. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept.

But this is probably more elegant.
"Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present.

Sentences four, five and six
The final three sentences also contain linked ideas of evolution and documentation.
But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

These can also be simplified. The first of these sentences is nice story telling, but is banal and incidental. You are not telling a story you are presenting a hypothesis. Stick to relevant facts.

A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

The Final Edit
So we now have an introductory paragraph that reads.

Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept, whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present. A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

Conclusion
We have gone from six sentences and one hundred and twenty words to three sentences and forty six words. I do not believe we have lost anything of value and we have certainly gained in clarity.

It took eight times as long to explain what I was doing as to do it. This is just basic editing that is an essential of any good quality scientific writing. We can get away with slop in posts, but not in the exposition of a hypothesis. If you take so little care explaining your ideas why should we treat them at all seriously?

Once you have done this for the entire document it might then be possible to see what else is wrong with it.

[quantum_wave]

Take a look that the rest of the thread that you linked me to and see the outcome; hardly conclusive.

Conclusive or not it still negates the axiom being axiomatic.

My thought back a year ago after getting no answer to my questions and doing my own research was that if the symmetry breaking divided nothing into matter and anti-matter, where did the anti-matter go?
Did you skip over this question? You replied:

Whether I accept it or not it negates your axiom.
How can anyone sensibly say the equivalent of "It is self-evident that all swans are white. But some of them may be other colours, the jury is still out"?

If there is any conflicting theory/ data/ supposition then the initial premise CANNOT be axiomatic.

You may be right but that doesn't sound right to me because you could negate every axiom using your reasoning.

The reason I asked if you accepted it or not was to see if you were well versed enough to answer a few questions. Do you follow the math to the point that nothing is split into something?



I accept it as a distinct possibility.

I haven't spotted any obvious flaws in it.
Have you?

That is what I am getting at. The flaw is that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking doesn’t account for where the anti-matter went? “Where is the anti-matter” is still unanswered and falsifies the theory. Maybe the only reason it lingers is that there is no other explanation of how something can come from nothing.

Why does something have to come from nothing anyway? Isn’t it much more evident that the universe has always existed? Hence, that thought is the stimulus for my attempt at an axiom that conveys that thinking.

Here are the ideas. If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be unless there are supernatural forces. QWC does not invoke the supernatural so starting with nothing means there nothing could ever be.

But observations prove the contrary. There is a whole universe out there and it didn't come from nothing unless you invoke the supernatural.

The thread you linked to that brought up Symmetry Breaking said that before the universe came from nothing and nothing was referred to as perfect symmetry. Does the math account for the energy to break the perfect symmetry? Why doesn't it account for where the anti-matter went? Isn't energy left over when matter and anti-matter annihilate each other? If so, and if the matter and anti-matter came from nothing and annihilate each other how can there be energy left over?

[quantum_wave]

Assessment:
It fails completely as an abstract. It is obscure, ambiguous, unstructured and too long.

Solution:
Here is an example of what you should be doing. I consider your paragraph one.

The Original
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics. Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC. But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things. At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC. Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

The Original Reformatted
You have six thoughts here, contained in six sentences. Editing will be easier if we split this up thus -

Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.

I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.

But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

The Editing
Now we proceed to eliminate all irrelevant phrases, words and ideas, while simultaneously clarifying, yet ensuring nothing important is missed.

Sentence One
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
Superficially this looks OK, but if it is your cosmology (indicated by my) why do you need to qualify it as personal.
Since cosmology is about the origin of the universe the phrase of the universe is redundant.
The revised sentence is then
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my cosmology.

That is too abrupt and carries some ambiguous implications. This is better:
Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology.

Sentences Two and Three
Sentences two and three contain similar ideas and should be combined. The ideas are a) the name fits the concept b) the idea evolved c) the ideas and their evolution can be found on the internet.

I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.

This captures those ideas,
The evolution of the concept since 2003 can be followed on the internet. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept.

But this is probably more elegant.
"Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present.

Sentences four, five and six
The final three sentences also contain linked ideas of evolution and documentation.
But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

These can also be simplified. The first of these sentences is nice story telling, but is banal and incidental. You are not telling a story you are presenting a hypothesis. Stick to relevant facts.

A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

The Final Edit
So we now have an introductory paragraph that reads.

Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept, whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present. A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

Conclusion
We have gone from six sentences and one hundred and twenty words to three sentences and forty six words. I do not believe we have lost anything of value and we have certainly gained in clarity.

It took eight times as long to explain what I was doing as to do it. This is just basic editing that is an essential of any good quality scientific writing. We can get away with slop in posts, but not in the exposition of a hypothesis. If you take so little care explaining your ideas why should we treat them at all seriously?

Once you have done this for the entire document it might then be possible to see what else is wrong with it.OK, I applied your version of the final edit to the first paragraph of the document: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

I'll take a crack at applying the same process to the rest of #1. I might not be up to your standards but give me a while and let's see what I come up with.

[prometheus]

That is what I am getting at. The flaw is that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking doesn’t account for where the anti-matter went? “Where is the anti-matter” is still unanswered and falsifies the theory. Maybe the only reason it lingers is that there is no other explanation of how something can come from nothing.

You have absolutely no basis for this statement at all - I don't think for a second that you understand spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Just to humour me, perhaps you could explain how a massive scalar field theory can spontaneously break O(N) to O(N-1) and what is significant about the properties of the fields after the symmetry has been broken. Since you understand SSB well enough to dismiss it as a mechanism for the generation of the excess of matter over antimatter you should find this a cinch.

[Oli]

Did you skip over this question? You replied:
I missed it.
But, of course, you've managed to ignore all of my other points.

That is what I am getting at. The flaw is that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking doesn’t account for where the anti-matter went? “Where is the anti-matter” is still unanswered and falsifies the theory.
You mean the anti-matter from YOUR "theory" of symmetry breaking?
Ah, I'd have to see your calculations.

Why does something have to come from nothing anyway?
It doesn't have to, any more than it has to have always existed.
Isn’t it much more evident that the universe has always existed?
Nope, it's not at all evident.

If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be unless there are supernatural forces.
That's an unsupported supposition.

But observations prove the contrary. There is a whole universe out there and it didn't come from nothing unless you invoke the supernatural.
Nope, observation says nothing, and can say nothing, (let alone prove) that there was nothing beforehand.

The thread you linked to that brought up Symmetry Breaking said that before the universe came from nothing and nothing was referred to as perfect symmetry. Does the math account for the energy to break the perfect symmetry?
The maths shows that perfect symmetry (when it's nothing) could be unstable.

Why doesn't it account for where the anti-matter went?
What anti-matter?

Isn't energy left over when matter and anti-matter annihilate each other? If so, and if the matter and anti-matter came from nothing and annihilate each other how can there be energy left over?
Haven't you just contradicted yourself with those two sentences?

[quantum_wave]

I missed it.
But, of course, you've managed to ignore all of my other points.


You mean the anti-matter from YOUR "theory" of symmetry breaking?
Ah, I'd have to see your calculations.


It doesn't have to, any more than it has to have always existed.

Nope, it's not at all evident.


That's an unsupported supposition.


Nope, observation says nothing, and can say nothing, (let alone prove) that there was nothing beforehand.


The maths shows that perfect symmetry (when it's nothing) could be unstable.


What anti-matter?


Haven't you just contradicted yourself with those two sentences?OK Oli, maybe I was a bit presumptuous. I thought that symmetry breaking created matter and anti-matter.

[Oli]

Does a pencil falling over after being balanced on its tip create matter/ anti-matter?

[AlphaNumeric]

That is what I am getting at. The flaw is that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking doesn’t account for where the anti-matter went? “Where is the anti-matter” is still unanswered and falsifies the theory. Maybe the only reason it lingers is that there is no other explanation of how something can come from nothing.Please don't pretend you know about spontaneous symmetry breaking beyond what you read on Wikipedia. You've previously commented you don't like it when Prom and I rip into you but if you're going to try to BS people that you understand such things as electroweak theory then you're just asking for it.

There's many different kinds of symmetries and ways to break them. Such things as CP violation can perhaps account for the different amount of matter versus antimatter. This can be done spontaneously or not. Do you even know the difference? If I gave you a Lagrangian could you tell me if it breaks, or could break, a particular symmetry, which symmetries and how? I doubt it. If you want to be taken seriously stop trying to pretend you know more than you.

[quantum_wave]

Does a pencil falling over after being balanced on its tip create matter/ anti-matter?Cosmological constant reference? I don't get the point.

[Oli]

Not a cosmological reference.
It was an example (the first I was ever given, IIRC) of symmetry breaking.
A pencil balanced on its tip is in symmetry (admittedly a precarious one, but...), as soon as it falls the symmetry is broken.

[quantum_wave]

Please don't pretend you know about spontaneous symmetry breaking beyond what you read on Wikipedia. You've previously commented you don't like it when Prom and I rip into you but if you're going to try to BS people that you understand such things as electroweak theory then you're just asking for it.Please link to the statement where I said I don't like it when Prom and you rip into me". I might have said that you say I say things that I didn't say and then you attack the straw man you created.

And you are doing the same thing by characterizing my discussion of symmetry breaking as if I was pretending to know something beyond Widipedia. A straw man.

Please read the OP and the Google doc. Try to stay on topic and avoid the straw men.

[quantum_wave]

Not a cosmological reference.
It was an example (the first I was ever given, IIRC) of symmetry breaking.
A pencil balanced on its tip is in symmetry (admittedly a precarious one, but...), as soon as it falls the symmetry is broken.Oh, OK. Now back to the question about matter and anti-matter. Were the created by spontaneous symmetry breaking in your view, i.e. when the pencil fell?

[quantum_wave]

You have absolutely no basis for this statement at all - I don't think for a second that you understand spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Just to humour me, perhaps you could explain how a massive scalar field theory can spontaneously break O(N) to O(N-1) and what is significant about the properties of the fields after the symmetry has been broken. Since you understand SSB well enough to dismiss it as a mechanism for the generation of the excess of matter over antimatter you should find this a cinch.http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308223&postcount=4

I don't see a reply to this post. We have nothing to discuss until the Guest fairy dust issue is off the table. Please re-read the post.

[Oli]

Oh, OK. Now back to the question about matter and anti-matter. Were the created by spontaneous symmetry breaking in your view, i.e. when the pencil fell?
Short answer: not necessarily.
For example the pdf from the link about nothing breaking up has
While not crucial to our scenario of a natural origin for our universe, it is interesting to note that the earlier universe in the Hartle-Hawking case is only earlier from our point of view, where the arrow of time points away from the big bang in the direction of increased entropy. Our sister universe will have an arrow of time pointing opposite to ours since that is the direction of increased entropy on the negative side of the time axis. The two universes then are mirror images of one another, both emerging simultaneously from the same point in space and time. They are not likely to be identical however since we expect from our current models of cosmology and particle physics that random processes play a major role in the development of structure.
Which could mean that the sister universe is anti-matter (speculation on my part).

Or baryogenesis could account for the lack... (I'm not sure if that's the same thing as C/P Violation, but I presume somebody will step in).
If it's not then C/P violation is another possible answer.

[AlphaNumeric]

Please link to the statement where I said I don't like it when Prom and you rip into me". The thread of yours in the feedback or whatever it is forum, as well as the threads of yours in the astronomy forum. You've not liked the replies Prom and I have given you and you've previously put us on ignore.

Or did you just put us on ignore because you want to play hard to get?

And you are doing the same thing by characterizing my discussion of symmetry breaking as if I was pretending to know something beyond Widipedia. A straw man.Clearly throwing the phrase around in a discussion as if its old hat to you is an attempt to make people think you're familiar with it. Given your utter lack of grasp of even basic scientific concepts, never mind the particulars of quantum field theory I question if you even grasp the Wiki pages on it. Prom asked you about O(N) breaking to O(N-1), did you follow what he meant?

And the 'bogie' persona of yours on PhysOrg wasn't exactly a shining example of how to do science. And I'm quite happy to admit that the 3 statements you wanted to be axioms are not self evidence and so are tenuous to develop a theory from, never mind the fact they are vague and imprecise. I see in the 2.5 years since then you've not manage to actually do anything of any worth, just make up more BS.

[quantum_wave]

Short answer: not necessarily.
For example the pdf from the link about nothing breaking up has

Which could mean that the sister universe is anti-matter (speculation on my part).

Or baryogenesis could account for the lack... (I'm not sure if that's the same thing as C/P Violation, but I presume somebody will step in).
If it's not then C/P violation is another possible answer.OK, here is the thing. An axiom can be negated by any theory that refutes it, right. There are a million theories out there, all with their own math, and some that work together and some that don't.

How do I even address an axiom that says the universe has always existed if I don't know what theories are out there, if I don't know if the theories are mathematically sound and work together mathematically, and if the theories cannot be tested.

Short answer, I can't, at least not to anyone's satisfaction.

Now consider my objective as stated in the document, 2. What is a “personal cosmology”?

"I am not going to live forever and science has not yet even come to a consensus on the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. While I am still alive I want a physical picture of the universe in my mind, i.e. a personal description of the cosmology of the universe that science professionals do not even pretend to have, let alone that they support or even condone. No one should believe that QWC is fact or science except to the degree that ideas can be called emerging science, but if the answers were available through science then QWC would not exist. That is what a personal cosmology is about, one man’s personal ideas about the universe beyond the consensus of the professionals but that is collaborated, well thought out, and cannot be easily refuted."

You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option) or I have to have statements about what is self-evident to me even if they don't stand up as axioms.

[Oli]

How do I even address an axiom that says the universe has always existed if I don't know what theories are out there
No, you're missing the point.
An axiom is something that cannot be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be true, but is self-evidently true and accepted as such by everyone.
Your "axiom" was not self-evident (in that someone, anyone, could simply say "I can't see that"), nor was it true because there are conflicting data/ theories.

That is what a personal cosmology is about, one man’s personal ideas
So it's a personal view.
And will never be anything more.

You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option) or I have to have statements about what is self-evident to me even if they don't stand up as axioms.
There's the fundamental problem. The statement "which is not an option" regarding abandoning your personal view.
That makes it simply your individual dogma.
Not science, not protoscience, but dogmatic pseudo-science and a refusal to face facts.
You think a real scientist wouldn't give up his view of things if shown that it didn't conform to known facts?
Hell, I've lost count of the number of projects I've worked on (consuming thousands of man-hours* and tens of thousands of pounds of real money, not to mention that that time and money could have been used on something else) just to have someone turn up and say "We had another look and X is a real problem, it will never work".
Should I have said "Fuck you, I've put too much time and effort into this to give up and even though it won't work I'm carrying on"?
Being wedded to a personal view simply because it's personal and you've put time into it means nothing whatsoever if it goes against the facts.
That's part of life.
And NOT junking the rubbish to start again with something (hopefully) better is nothing more than than throwing good money/ time/ effort down the drain with the bad.
That's just compounding the folly.
You learn that shit happens, keep the good bits (if there are any) and lose the rest.

* Not just my time either.

[quantum_wave]

No, you're missing the point.
An axiom is something that cannot be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be true, but is self-evidently true and accepted as such by everyone.
Your "axiom" was not self-evident (in that someone, anyone, could simply say "I can't see that"), nor was it true because there are conflicting data/ theories.


So it's a personal view.
And will never be anything more.


There's the fundamental problem. The statement "which is not an option" regarding abandoning your personal view.
That makes it simply your individual dogma.
Not science, not protoscience, but dogmatic pseudo-science and a refusal to face facts.
You think a real scientist wouldn't give up his view of things if shown that it didn't conform to known facts?
Hell, I've lost count of the number of projects I've worked on (consuming thousands of man-hours* and tens of thousands of pounds of real money, not to mention that that time and money could have been used on something else) just to have someone turn up and say "We had another look and X is a real problem, it will never work".
Should I have said "Fuck you, I've put too much time and effort into this to give up and even though it won't work I'm carrying on"?
Being wedded to a personal view simply because it's personal and you've put time into it means nothing whatsoever if it goes against the facts.
That's part of life.
And NOT junking the rubbish to start again with something (hopefully) better is nothing more than than throwing good money/ time/ effort down the drain with the bad.
That's just compounding the folly.
You learn that shit happens, keep the good bits (if there are any) and lose the rest.

* Not just my time either.I'm not disputing your appraisal, what I am saying is read #2 and realize that I will ultimately have to go where you, where science, where Prom and AN, where the community will not go if I want to fill in the gaps in the best that science has to offer.

I won't need to do that if you, science, Prom or AN, or anyone else can answer the question, "what caused the initial expansion of the observable universe". What is the answer to that question from your view point? Do you think that there will be an answer ever, let alone in my lifetime? No, and neither do I.

That is why QWC exists at all. It is unabashed speculation with a methodology. It is the best I can do and I want it to be better and better, but I what a scenario that answers the question.

The step by step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible speculations are speculations. They cannot be tested and they introduce a minimum new physics to accomplish the task of filling in where science leaves off.

[Oli]

I'm not disputing your appraisal, what I am saying is read #2
You lost me.
#2?

That is why QWC exists at all. It is unabashed speculation with a methodology. It is the best I can do and I want it to be better and better, but I what a scenario that answers the question.
The step by step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible speculations are speculations. They cannot be tested and they introduce a minimum new physics to accomplish the task of filling in where science leaves off.
If they cannot be tested then what's the point?
If they can't be tested then, frankly, the whole thing is either philosophy or mental masturbation (which is, at times, what philosophy is).

[quantum_wave]

You lost me.
#2?
Section 2 in the Google doc.

If they cannot be tested then what's the point?
If they can't be tested then, frankly, the whole thing is either philosophy or mental masturbation (which is, at times, what philosophy is).Read section 2 in the document. :o Do you mean you didn't read the Google doc and you have been thinking I was calling QWC science? http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

I have been talking about new physics, arenas comparable to our expanding known "universe", a landscape of arenas making up the greater universe, a quantum level where a single quantum of energy might be comparable to a single string in energy content. This is speculation and I thought I had been clear about that.

But I do acknowledge that you are a new face and one that I have appreciated.

[Oli]

This is speculation and I thought I had been clear about that.
Ah, I have memories of previous "incarnations" of QWC being touted as "protoscience" in other threads.

[prometheus]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308223&postcount=4

I don't see a reply to this post. We have nothing to discuss until the Guest fairy dust issue is off the table. Please re-read the post.

In other words, "you keep asking questions I can't answer so I'm going to blithely refuse to answer any of them." There's always an excuse - it's the wrong forum or I don't like the way the question was phrased or some such.

I think anyone reading this can see that what you're doing is wasting your time. Remember, if you want your ideas to get anywhere it's up to you to put the work in to convince people why they are any good. Just because you don't like the fairy theory that guest pointed out was identical to yours except for using different words (he used fairies, you say "quantum action" which is a gross misuse of a scientific term) doesn't mean it isn't a fair and accurate representation.

Anyway, before the guest theory and the ensuing hissy fit, I'd already pointed out that QWC cosmology said nothing and misused scientific terminology left right and centre as I'm sure other people had also done. (actually, it was in the second post I made to you. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2235151#post2235151))

I have no doubt you'll just completely ignore me again, but that's good because it makes you look conniving and immature. I have no doubt that you have no genuine understanding of any proper physics you are talking about, like spontaneous symmetry breaking for example.

[quantum_wave]

Ah, I have memories of previous "incarnations" of QWC being touted as "protoscience" in other threads.Yes, protoscience is a good description. Let us say that science takes us all the way to today's version of the best science we humans can do, and let's say that is Big Bang Theory with inflation, the Cosmological Principle, and on the particle front, the Standard Particle Model. I call that Science and we all agree it includes the leading edge of consensus on theory.

I say that science leaves off and protoscience begins with the question, "What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe", and I set out to speculate starting back in 2003 on forums, through Internet discussions, searches, off line discussions, etc. Read sections 3 and 4 of the document now, http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9. That is why I call it protoscience.

The stark reality is that if I or anyone in the world (accept Prometheus) wants ideas about that realm of reality that science has not yet unfolded to us, that person has one avenue; speculation.

Prometheus does not recognize the existence of any speculation that doesn't invoke fantasy but there are real scientists doing speculation every second of every day. They are hesitant to talk about their personal speculations because they know that speculation is not science but they do it because it is pre-science, often referred to as emerging science or protoscience. I simply have no fear of a peer reprisal and so I talk about my speculation freely and ask others to do the same. Some do.

Do you deny this and call all speculation fairy dust like Prometheus does, or do you agree that before the scientific method can be applied, there has to be pre-science in the form of ideas?

Some agree that there is pre-science. And then they agree that there has to be a methodology in pre-science. Mine is that you don't start with preconceived ideas, you start from the bottom up. That means you look at the fact that the galaxies in our observable universe are all moving away from each other (accept in local groups) and you ask what caused them to move like that. As I have found and you would too, you start with a small step and that leads to a new point in speculation, i.e. a next step. If you do the step by step bottom up speculation in a reasonable and responsible fashion with collaboration from anyone who wants to contribute across the Internet, you have a connected set of speculative ideas. I my case I am the moderator of the set of ideas that is my personal view of cosmology and I call it Quantum Wave Cosmology.

Some hate it and use every tactic to belittle it. Most science oriented people outwardly talk it down but might themselves have some speculative ideas that peer pressure keeps them from airing. Then there are old guys like me who fear nothing that Prometheus or AlphaNumeric can say because I know they are trapped in their lives of dedication to rigor and my technique is so different that they are unable to appreciate it.

Where do you stand. That is a rhetorical question for everyone. Where do you stand on what you are willing to talk about because it is a certainty that you think about these things.

[prometheus]

It doesn't work like that. You make an observation and then take that to it's logical conclusion to make a prediction (or many predictions). You seem to think that science and pre-science is people dreaming - it's not, as I've told you before. Results are mathematically derived from postulates that are physically acceptable.

For questions about things that science hasn't gotten to like what happens to cause the big bang, there are plenty of scientific ways to explore that. Both string theory and loop quantum gravity have developed ideas about this, so it's wrong to say we can only speculate.

You can believe it or not, but scientists generally believe in the scientific method so you saying that peer pressure keeps us from accepting new ideas is totally wrong as well. The thing that prevents your ideas being accepted is because they are not based on anything other than your own personal view, which you yourself acknowledge. Science doesn't rely on people to tell it what the facts are, it's up to people to work that stuff out in a way that can be tested.

For you to call your ideas pre science or protoscience does two things - it makes it clear that you don't have any idea about how science really works, and furthermore it makes it very obvious that you have nothing but contempt for real science and the practitioners thereof because you feel you can walk into the area and revolutionise it without putting the work in.

[quantum_wave]

It doesn't work like that. You make an observation and then take that to it's logical conclusion to make a prediction (or many predictions). You seem to think that science and pre-science is people dreaming - it's not, as I've told you before. Results are mathematically derived from postulates that are physically acceptable.

For questions about things that science hasn't gotten to like what happens to cause the big bang, there are plenty of scientific ways to explore that. Both string theory and loop quantum gravity have developed ideas about this, so it's wrong to say we can only speculate.

You can believe it or not, but scientists generally believe in the scientific method so you saying that peer pressure keeps us from accepting new ideas is totally wrong as well. The thing that prevents your ideas being accepted is because they are not based on anything other than your own personal view, which you yourself acknowledge. Science doesn't rely on people to tell it what the facts are, it's up to people to work that stuff out in a way that can be tested.

For you to call your ideas pre science or protoscience does two things - it makes it clear that you don't have any idea about how science really works, and furthermore it makes it very obvious that you have nothing but contempt for real science and the practitioners thereof because you feel you can walk into the area and revolutionise it without putting the work in.Get over yourself. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308707&postcount=28

And re-read this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309248&postcount=38

And read the OP. Here is the Googl.doc that this thread is about. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

[prometheus]

Oh dear, poor little darling can't keep up with the conversation?

[Oli]

Yes, protoscience is a good description.
No it's not.

Prometheus does not recognize the existence of any speculation that doesn't invoke fantasy but there are real scientists doing speculation every second of every day. They are hesitant to talk about their personal speculations because they know that speculation is not science but they do it because it is pre-science, often referred to as emerging science or protoscience. I simply have no fear of a peer reprisal and so I talk about my speculation freely and ask others to do the same. Some do.

Do you deny this and call all speculation fairy dust like Prometheus does, or do you agree that before the scientific method can be applied, there has to be pre-science in the form of ideas?
You missed the point:
Prometheus essentially quoted QWC back to with a change of names only.
(Which was justified since your use of the scientific terms was hideously twisted).
In other words QWC is the fantasy and all that you have done is substitute "quantum" for "fairy dust" etc.

Where do you stand. That is a rhetorical question for everyone. Where do you stand on what you are willing to talk about because it is a certainty that you think about these things.
The ONLY time I think about QWC is when I see a new post and I start to panic in case someone hoping to learn science reads it and thinks that QWC has any validity whatsoever.

I'll tell you frankly: were it not for the fact that there is no way at all to determine who would believe you and who wouldn't then you'd be posting to yourself the vast majority of the time.
It has become evident that there's no deflecting you (re: "You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option)").
So the sole reason any of us have (apart from the vain hope that you might realise what's wrong) is "protecting the innocent" as it were.
I.e. the person with little to no knowledge of science needs to notified that what you're writing is NOT SCIENCE. NOR PROTO-SCIENCE. IT'S NONSCIENCE.

[quantum_wave]

No it's not.


You missed the point:
Prometheus essentially quoted QWC back to with a change of names only.
(Which was justified since your use of the scientific terms was hideously twisted).
In other words QWC is the fantasy and all that you have done is substitute "quantum" for "fairy dust" etc.


The ONLY time I think about QWC is when I see a new post and I start to panic in case someone hoping to learn science reads it and thinks that QWC has any validity whatsoever.

I'll tell you frankly: were it not for the fact that there is no way at all to determine who would believe you and who wouldn't then you'd be posting to yourself the vast majority of the time.
It has become evident that there's no deflecting you (re: "You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option)").
So the sole reason any of us have (apart from the vain hope that you might realise what's wrong) is "protecting the innocent" as it were.
I.e. the person with little to no knowledge of science needs to notified that what you're writing is NOT SCIENCE. NOR PROTO-SCIENCE. IT'S NONSCIENCE.I’m sure that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric (and untold others) will appreciate you sharing the work load of saving the world from the ideas that something preceded the Big Bang and what it could have been. I’m sure too that until I brought up the idea, no one ever thought about it on their own :rolleyes:.

But it is nice to have readers.

Let me save you the agony of linking you to the OP which sets the ground rules for the thread and discusses the penalty for not following my rule. Here is what I am referring to:

“My rule is that any comments that don’t reference statements by me in the Google doc will be considered off topic and at my discretion will either be ignored or responded to with a comment and a reminder of my rule and a link to the Google doc so you can go to it easily.

The meaning of this rule will become clear as the thread progresses (if it progresses at all) because the Google doc is constructed to cover many eventualities.

I don’t expect very many people to participate, maybe no one will, but to comply with my rule you have to actually quote the Google doc.”

I mean you should quote what I said that is a danger to our youth. You haven’t, Prometheus hasn’t, AlphaNumeric hasn’t and you won’t either because there is nothing in what I say that is a danger to our youth.

Check it out yourself: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

Maybe it is just me but the complete lack of any specific quote from my Google doc showing me invoking fantasy makes your claim and the claims of Prometheus about fanatsy seem like they are fully empty. And BYW where did the anti-matter go?

[Oli]

I’m sure that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric (and untold others) will appreciate you sharing the work load of saving the world from the ideas that something preceded the Big Bang and what it could have been.
To be honest I'd agree with you.
I'm nowhere near as qualified as those guys and their time would be better served getting on with the real stuff.
Maybe they should leave me to it and just be on call as it were, should I run into something particularly abstruse to me.

I’m sure too that until I brought up the idea, no one ever thought about it on their own :rolleyes:.
The difference being that until now there wasn't an internet to disseminate tomfoolery.

Let me save you the agony of linking you to the OP which sets the ground rules for the thread and discusses the penalty for not following my rule. Here is what I am referring to:
Unfortunately those rules are not enforceable.
What you SHOULD have done is put the word APLHA in the thread title, which would at least delineate some rules.

“My rule is that any comments that don’t reference statements by me in the Google doc will be considered off topic and at my discretion will either be ignored or responded to with a comment and a reminder of my rule and a link to the Google doc so you can go to it easily.
It's a nice idea, but why should we follow your rules when you don't actually reply to questions even when it's done?

I mean you should quote what I said that is a danger to our youth. You haven’t, Prometheus hasn’t, AlphaNumeric hasn’t and you won’t either because there is nothing in what I say that is a danger to our youth.
The reason we don't quote the "danger to our youth" is mainly because there are site rules against huge sections of cut and paste. And the fact is that your ENTIRE DOCUMENT is what would be quoted.

As for specific quotes - you have still failed to overcome my first quote and contention: that your number one axiom is NOT an axiom.
The entire premise is flawed from the start.
If we can't get past that then there's no point continuing.

[quantum_wave]

To be honest I'd agree with you.
I'm nowhere near as qualified as those guys and their time would be better served getting on with the real stuff.
Maybe they should leave me to it and just be on call as it were, should I run into something particularly abstruse to me.


The difference being that until now there wasn't an internet to disseminate tomfoolery.


Unfortunately those rules are not enforceable.
What you SHOULD have done is put the word APLHA in the thread title, which would at least delineate some rules.


It's a nice idea, but why should we follow your rules when you don't actually reply to questions even when it's done?


The reason we don't quote the "danger to our youth" is mainly because there are site rules against huge sections of cut and paste. And the fact is that your ENTIRE DOCUMENT is what would be quoted.

As for specific quotes - you have still failed to overcome my first quote and contention: that your number one axiom is NOT an axiom.
The entire premise is flawed from the start.
If we can't get past that then there's no point continuing.I think we can trust that you will continue. I'll change the termonology in the Google doc to get ride of the word axiom. Check out the new wording: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

[Oli]

Okay.
(For reference 4.1 still has the word axiom in it: CTRL-H will let you do a find and replace on the entire document if you're using Word).

[quantum_wave]

OK, I'm caving in to Oli, Prometheus, AlphaNumeric, and countless others I'm sure. I'm making a new rule which will mitigate all of your concerns. See the new first line of the Google.doc here and only here (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9).

Problem resolved!

Also, I'm tip toeing into step three of the step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible, collaborative speculations at the very bottom of the doc. Just a beginning to get my feet wet because we have to start with step one and work our way up to step three anyway in order to discuss the whole document.

[prometheus]

I have two comments (and one protocomment. snigger.)

I’m sure that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric (and untold others) will appreciate you sharing the work load of saving the world from the ideas that something preceded the Big Bang and what it could have been. I’m sure too that until I brought up the idea, no one ever thought about it on their own :rolleyes:.

As I've said at least twice, science is exploring these questions in a properly scientific manner.


I mean you should quote what I said that is a danger to our youth. You haven’t, Prometheus hasn’t, AlphaNumeric hasn’t and you won’t either because there is nothing in what I say that is a danger to our youth.

This is a lie. I've quoted from your document right here. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2308138#post2308138)


And BYW where did the anti-matter go?

It annihilated with the matter and some matter was left over. I also think you mean BTW

[quantum_wave]

I have two comments (and one protocomment. snigger.)

As I've said at least twice, science is exploring these questions in a properly scientific manner.

This is a lie. I've quoted from your document right here. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2308138#post2308138)

It annihilated with the matter and some matter was left over. I also think you mean BTWDo you mean this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308138&postcount=2)?

I don’t think that part registered because of the fairy dust thing. So I replied here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308223&postcount=4).

Read the OP again, and the Google.doc all the way through here (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 ).

[prometheus]

Do you mean this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308138&postcount=2)?

I don’t think that part registered because of the fairy dust thing. So I replied here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308223&postcount=4).

Read the OP again, and the Google.doc all the way through here (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 ).

This is the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nah nah nah I'm not listening." When are you going to apologise for telling lies?

[Oli]

OK, I'm caving in to Oli, Prometheus, AlphaNumeric, and countless others I'm sure. I'm making a new rule which will mitigate all of your concerns. See the new first line of the Google.doc here and only here[/url].

Problem resolved!

Nope, you've merely tried to sidestep the real issue.
It's not a question of age, it's a question of prior knowledge of physics.
All of my previously stated objections still apply if the reader is 50 and unversed in real physics.
But if the reader is 17 and an advanced student...

[quantum_wave]

Nope, you've merely tried to sidestep the real issue.
It's not a question of age, it's a question of prior knowledge of physics.
All of my previously stated objections still apply if the reader is 50 and unversed in real physics.
But if the reader is 17 and an advanced student...Well then from your perspective my goose is cooked, but from my perspective the prime objective is to have a physical picture (personal visualization) of cosmology where everything works, is connected, is internally consistent, and that is not demonstrably inconsistent with known physical observations.

For this paragraph only you personify the current state of standard theory and on a grand scale all you offer is inconsistency, uncertainty, and incompatibility. You don’t offer me an answer to my prime question. Everything that you do offer is filled with jargon that uses English words, but when used outside of their particular first usage (as a specific term in physics) you become haughty and don’t like to let me use the English word in a different context. You have pages of equations, mathematical support for thousands of theories that don’t work together and that no one fully understands. The math and energy of GR and the math and energy of particle physics don’t come close to each other. You admit that you don’t know what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, you think that you might know the cause of mass but have to wait for years worth of data from the LHC, and your cause of gravity requires the coupling of space and time that is supposed to precisely define the correspondence between physical objects and the fabric of spacetime and it doesn't for me. And GR fails unless there was a beginning or at least some event that effectively represents the beginning of the spacetime of our expanding observable universe. For there to be a beginning you have to have some idea of what caused the initial expansion and you said you don’t know. Again, using “you” to personify the current stated of standard theory. You as personification of the scientific community have pointed out what you must think are insurmountable obstacles in my Google.doc. Well duh … I have pointed out what have so far proved to be insurmountable obstacles to you being able to give me a better answer in the form of a complete cosmology where all the math works together, where the forces that caused the expansion, mass, and gravity are known and united. You live in a glass house too.

The prime objective is what you don’t condone. I want an opinion about answers that just aren’t available from the professionals. As some posters insist, the professionals are working on it. :smirk:. Read my document (meaning read my lips). QWC is the best set of step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculations that I am aware of that represent a set of ideas about a cosmology that is visualized to be internally consistent, answers the questions about the cause of expansion, the cause of mass and the cause of gravity in a way that they all work together. And furthermore, the only opinion of what constitutes a satisfactory personal view of cosmology is the opinion of the moderator of the particular cosmology and in the case of QWC, you are talking to him.

My document says all of this and more. This thread will allow input into the step by step documentation of QWC from anyone who wants to help shape it.

So if my goose is cooked even before we get to step one of QWC, your usefulness in the process of discussing step one is in doubt. But don’t think you are excused. I am going to finish discussing (on my own if necessary) the rest of the methodology and then I am going to discuss the steps, starting with step one, what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.

You might decide to go and stay away, and since you are practically my only audience, I will be talking to myself. That is permitted. Usually new people find the thread and comment from time to time. Most of the professionals don’t want anything to do with my prime objective and I put you in that group. I don’t like doing this on my own but I will if I have to. I’ll be dead and you will too before there is a consensus on a complete cosmology but until then I will have my QWC. And what I end up with will have survived all of the remarks from the professionals and the end result will be that my prime objective will have been fulfilled while you will still be way behind at the forefront of science as it unfolds.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that we will both be where we want to be in regards to our Cosmology. Peace.

[Oli]

Well then from your perspective my goose is cooked
Nearly correct: what you should have written is "From the perspective of science as science my goose is cooked".

but from my perspective the prime objective is to have a physical picture (personal visualization) of cosmology where everything works, is connected, is internally consistent, and that is not demonstrably inconsistent with known physical observations.
And fairy stories also fit that description.
Truly.

For this paragraph only you personify the current state of standard theory and on a grand scale all you offer is inconsistency, uncertainty, and incompatibility.
Actually I don't offer anything: I merely point out how your perspective is incorrect.

You don’t offer me an answer to my prime question. Everything that you do offer is filled with jargon that uses English words, but when used outside of their particular first usage (as a specific term in physics) you become haughty and don’t like to let me use the English word in a different context; pound sand.
Also incorrect: I use the words I use because that's what they mean, if you use them to mean something then you're going against usage and introducing spurious factors.
What if someone told you not go for a walk in the woods because a rabbit lived there?
And an hour or to later, when you crawl out of the woods bleeding and dying you complain that no one mentioned the bear.
"Oh, is that what YOU call them? I call them "rabbits", thought everyone knew that..."

You have pages of equations, mathematical support for thousands of theories that don’t work together and that no one fully understands.
No one?
No one at all?

The math and energy of GR and the math and energy of particle physics don’t come close to each other. You admit that you don’t know what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe
I also freely admit that it's entirely possible that it may never be knowable what happened to cause the Big bang.

For there to be a beginning you have to have some idea of what caused the initial expansion and you said you don’t know.
The fact there was a beginning is not relevant to knowing WHY there was a beginning.
Admittedly it would be helpful, but physics works with what it's got.

I have pointed out what have so far proved to be insurmountable obstacles to you being able to give me a better answer in the form of a complete cosmology where all the math works together, where the forces that caused the expansion, mass, and gravity are known and united. You live in a glass house too.
Glass house?
Simply because we don't know everything?
We know we haven't got all the answers: that's what science is about - getting the right answers, however slowly they come.

The prime objective is what you don’t condone. I want an opinion about answers that just aren’t available from the professionals.
Fair enough.
Who would you go to for an opinion how to build a skyscraper?
Do you ask a veterinary surgeon to fix your car?

Read my document (meaning read my lips). QWC is the best set of step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculations that I am aware of that represent a set of ideas about a cosmology that is visualized to be internally consistent, answers the questions about the cause of expansion, the cause of mass and the cause of gravity in a way that they all work together.
No, QWC is a comforting fairy story. Nothing more.

And furthermore, the only opinion of what constitutes a satisfactory personal view of cosmology is the opinion of the moderator of the particular cosmology and in the case of QWC, you are talking to him.
Untrue: that holds only if your personal view is required to remain a personal view of cosmology with no relevance or pertinence to reality. If it is designed to be cosmology then it can, in fact NEEDS, to be judged by people who know something about the subject.
Otherwise it remains a personal, unverifiable, fairy story.

My document says all of this and more. This thread will allow input into the step by step documentation of QWC from anyone who wants to help shape it.
So you require help to shape your personal view?

So if my goose is cooked even before we get to step one of QWC, your usefulness in the process of discussing step one is in doubt.
I see, MY usefulness is in doubt because I can see the errors...

You might decide to go and stay away, and since you are practically my only audience, I will be talking to myself. That is permitted.
This site isn't your personal blog.

while you will still be way behind at the forefront of science as it unfolds.
I'm already not at the forefront of science - it's been a long time since I had any involvement whatsoever, I merely have an ongoing interest in science.
But QWC is not science and shows little sign of becoming so.

[quantum_wave]

Nearly correct: what you should have written is "From the perspective of science as science my goose is cooked".


And fairy stories also fit that description.
Truly.


Actually I don't offer anything: I merely point out how your perspective is incorrect.


Also incorrect: I use the words I use because that's what they mean, if you use them to mean something then you're going against usage and introducing spurious factors.
What if someone told you not go for a walk in the woods because a rabbit lived there?
And an hour or to later, when you crawl out of the woods bleeding and dying you complain that no one mentioned the bear.
"Oh, is that what YOU call them? I call them "rabbits", thought everyone knew that..."


No one?
No one at all?


I also freely admit that it's entirely possible that it may never be knowable what happened to cause the Big bang.


The fact there was a beginning is not relevant to knowing WHY there was a beginning.
Admittedly it would be helpful, but physics works with what it's got.


Glass house?
Simply because we don't know everything?
We know we haven't got all the answers: that's what science is about - getting the right answers, however slowly they come.


Fair enough.
Who would you go to for an opinion how to build a skyscraper?
Do you ask a veterinary surgeon to fix your car?


No, QWC is a comforting fairy story. Nothing more.


Untrue: that holds only if your personal view is required to remain a personal view of cosmology with no relevance or pertinence to reality. If it is designed to be cosmology then it can, in fact NEEDS, to be judged by people who know something about the subject.
Otherwise it remains a personal, unverifiable, fairy story.


So you require help to shape your personal view?


I see, MY usefulness is in doubt because I can see the errors...


This site isn't your personal blog.


I'm already not at the forefront of science - it's been a long time since I had any involvement whatsoever, I merely have an ongoing interest in science.
But QWC is not science and shows little sign of becoming so.Everything you say is true. You didn't acknowledge that you understood the meaning of a prime objective and your comment about it doesn't seem to help. That makes everything you said true and irrelevant.

[quantum_wave]

...

No one?
No one at all?

My position on that is in the document at 4.6. "For those reasons no one knows or even needs to know the math of every theory until the math all works together to describe one reality."

And 4.7. "My view is that the universe works as it is. Everything is connected and consistent. If everything works and is connected then someone who knows the right physical picture and likes doing math will be able to describe it mathematically with math that all works together, has no inconsistencies, and that all the great math brains can accept and agree to. Short of that the math is wrong in total and I have no way of determining what is right and what is not, and if any of the math does not work with all of the other math then I consider it the responsibility of the physics and math professionals to sort it out. I bet when they get it done there will be an understandable physical picture behind what they have explained mathematically."

[Oli]

Everything you say is true. You didn't acknowledge that you understood the meaning of a prime objective and your comment about it doesn't seem to help. That makes everything you said true and irrelevant.
Ah, so you missed the point I made. Okay I'll rephrase it.
the prime objective is to have a physical picture (personal visualization) of cosmology where everything works, is connected, is internally consistent, and that is not demonstrably inconsistent with known physical observations.
How is, say, the fairy story of Thor being the god of thunder as an explanation for storms any different from QWC as a "cosmology"?
It has a physical picture (personal visualisation), it works, it's connected (full family tree and history in fact), and is not demonstrably inconsistent with the known facts (at the time it was posited)?
Or do think that mythology is a valid proto-science?

My position on that is in the document at 4.6. "For those reasons no one knows or even needs to know the math of every theory until the math all works together to describe one reality."
Untrue: if the maths isn't understood at each and every step of the way how do you know whether or not you're spending years working down the incorrect path?
If the maths isn't understood there's EVERY chance that the end result of it working as a coherent whole will never happen.

[quantum_wave]

Nearly correct: what you should have written is "From the perspective of science as science my goose is cooked".True.


And fairy stories also fit that description.
Truly.You do realize that fairy stories invoke fantasy. You didn't link to the step where I first invoke fantasy. Maybe by doing so you will be helping you friends.


Also incorrect: I use the words I use because that's what they mean, if you use them to mean something then you're going against usage and introducing spurious factors.
What if someone told you not go for a walk in the woods because a rabbit lived there?
And an hour or to later, when you crawl out of the woods bleeding and dying you complain that no one mentioned the bear.
"Oh, is that what YOU call them? I call them "rabbits", thought everyone knew that..."Fine, but my position on the lexicon is in the document at 4.4. "All of the words I use are part of the lexicon of QWC. They mean what I say they mean and not what any other usage of them says they mean. If there are any questions about the usage of words in QWC those questions should be brought to my attention and my decision as to the meaning of words is final as far as their usage goes in QWC. The fact that the same words are used to explain existing theory is not intended to imply that all of the science associated with those words in existing theory applies to QWC. It is your responsibility to understand my usage of those terms if you are going to understand QWC, and it is not my intention to understand the theories where terms that I use appear."




I also freely admit that it's entirely possible that it may never be knowable what happened to cause the Big bang.


The fact there was a beginning is not relevant to knowing WHY there was a beginning.
Admittedly it would be helpful, but physics works with what it's got.


Glass house?
Simply because we don't know everything?Glass house in the same respect that QWC has flaw from you perspective, the current consensus on the standard cosmology has flaws too.
We know we haven't got all the answers: that's what science is about - getting the right answers, however slowly they come.And I know that.

In addition to appreciating where science stands, I have a prime objective. You don't have to like it.


No, QWC is a comforting fairy story. Nothing more.QWC accepts science as far as it goes. QWC is the effort to fulfill a prime objects that science has not been able to answer to date.


Untrue: that holds only if your personal view is required to remain a personal view of cosmology with no relevance or pertinence to reality. If it is designed to be cosmology then it can, in fact NEEDS, to be judged by people who know something about the subject.
Otherwise it remains a personal, unverifiable, fairy story.True from your perspective but you are saying that anything that goes beyond and before the initial expansion of our observable universe is a fairy tail.

So you require help to shape your personal view?I solicit it as I work on documenting my view in line with my prime objective.
I see, MY usefulness is in doubt because I can see the errors...You can see the errors as can every right thinking human but you don't have to contend with my prime objective and I intent to contend with it.


This site isn't your personal blog.

True
I'm already not at the forefront of science - it's been a long time since I had any involvement whatsoever, I merely have an ongoing interest in science.
But QWC is not science and shows little sign of becoming so.I would agree with that as long as you keep the phrase, "shows little sign of becoming so.

[quantum_wave]

Ah, so you missed the point I made. Okay I'll rephrase it.

How is, say, the fairy story of Thor being the god of thunder as an explanation for storms any different from QWC as a "cosmology"?
It has a physical picture (personal visualisation), it works, it's connected (full family tree and history in fact), and is not demonstrably inconsistent with the known facts (at the time it was posited)?
Or do think that mythology is a valid proto-science?My cosmology starts from defined departure point of scientific consensus and goes step by step with reasonable and responsible speculation. You have no departure point.


Untrue: if the maths isn't understood at each and every step of the way how do you know whether or not you're spending years working down the incorrect path?
If the maths isn't understood there's EVERY chance that the end result of it working as a coherent whole will never happen.Maybe not but the existing math doesn't work together, there is no physical picture at all that is considered consistent, and so you or the professionals are no better off than I'm. The glass house.

[Oli]

My cosmology starts from defined departure point of scientific consensus and goes step by step with reasonable and responsible speculation. You have no departure point.
Departure point for what?
Answer the question: is Norse mythology valid or not?
How does QWC differ from it (apart terminology and form)?
And the speculation (as has been shown) is only "reasonable and responsible" to you...

Maybe not but the existing math doesn't work together, there is no physical picture at all that is considered consistent, and so you or the professionals are no better off than I'm. The glass house.
Glass house?
So you're another one who wants everything NOW?
Science is an ongoing process.
Why should we have ALL of the answers in your lifetime?

[quantum_wave]

Departure point for what?
Answer the question: is Norse mythology valid or not?
How does QWC differ from it (apart terminology and form)?No need to answer if it is valid or not, it has mythology in its name, duh.

And the speculation (as has been shown) is only "reasonable and responsible" to you...
That is true, but I have a prime objective and what I consider reasonable and responsible is only intended to get me to the prime objective with out being inconsistent with physical observations. Show where my steps are inconsistent and we will be getting some place. Until then we are wasting each other time that could be spent discussing the steps.

Glass house?
So you're another one who wants everything NOW?
Science is an ongoing process.
Why should we have ALL of the answers in your lifetime?I said it realize that. I agree with that. It will go on forever I bet. But it hasn't yet provided me with the fulfillment of my prime objective so science is science and QWC is not. I'm OK as long as I am satisfied with the methodology giving me the best answers available to the question, "what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe". Answer that question and if you can't let's talk about the steps.

[Oli]

No need to answer if it is valid or not, it has mythology in its name, duh.
It has mythology as its description NOW.
It didn't when it was formulated.
Duh.

That is true, but I have a prime objective and what I consider reasonable and responsible is only intended to get me to the prime objective with out being inconsistent with physical observations. Show where my steps are inconsistent and we will be getting some place.
How many more times - your VERY FIRST comment (what was Axiom 1) is not consistent with what is known.

I said it realize that. I agree with that. It will go on forever I bet. But it hasn't yet provided me with the fulfillment of my prime objective so science is science and QWC is not. I'm OK as long as I am satisfied with the methodology giving me the best answers available to the question, "what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe". Answer that question and if you can't let's talk about the steps.
So you're constructing a personal mythology?
Okay.

[quantum_wave]

It has mythology as its description NOW.
It didn't when it was formulated.
Duh.


How many more times - your VERY FIRST comment (what was Axiom 1) is not consistent with what is known.If you say so, but you have not got the same objective as I have and so a little thing like that is un-daunting to me. QWC includes the basic idea that the universe has always existed and I don't care if you say that is not self-evident. QWC is completely wrong if the universe has not always existed. But if it has, then you objecting to is just as useful as me saying it, if it hasn't. Moot as far as I am concerned.
So you're constructing a personal mythology?
Okay.OK, we can't get past the fairy dust just like with Prometheus. Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked. If all you can say is fairies are invoked because QWC starts with the idea that the universe has always existed then I reject it. Taking the stance that the universe has always existed simply sets the stage for a departure point that can explain the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. If there was a beginning you have your own fairy dust problem as to how the beginning came about don't you? You would have to come up with symmetry breaking. You did. I don't start with any theory. I look at what is observed and try to build a step by step set of speculations that account for what we observe. I didn't come up with symmetry breaking because it seem too much like getting something from nothing.

Step one is the discussion of what caused the expansion that we observe. There are many candidates as Prom has pointed out. I selected the one I like best. I am going to discuss it and why. If anyone can convince me that they have a better cause for expansion I am open to it.

Enough said?

[quantum_wave]

Call it a game if you want. The game in this thread is to fulfill my prime objective. The prime objective is to have a personal cosmology that to my satisfaction answers the question, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe”. You start from the departure point, i.e. you let science take you as far as it can provide answers that are considered a consensus. From the departure point you have to speculate.

You can’t really add much to the body of objections that have been offered to this game because I have heard nearly all of them. If you don’t want to play the game, you are free to rant and if come up with a useful rant I will let you know by amending the Google.doc. Otherwise, rants away, just keep trying to follow along. If you play the game I expect you to be able to say the QWC is better than fairy dust :).

Step one addresses the position that there was a cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe beyond the standard cosmology which starts 10^-43 seconds after some event.

People have suggested what are called alternative cosmologies and so let’s do a Google search on “alternative” cosmologies: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alternative+cosmologies&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Good, at the time of this search there we only 929,000 links. Let’s begin with the first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

A non-standard cosmology is any physical cosmological model of the universe that has been, or still is, proposed as an alternative to the big bang model of (standard) physical cosmology. In the history of cosmology, various scientists and researchers have disputed parts or all of the big bang due to a rejection or addition of fundamental assumptions needed to develop a theoretical model of the universe. From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was equally divided between supporters of the big bang theory and supporters of a rival steady state universe. It was not until advances in observational cosmology that the big bang would eventually become the dominant theory, and today there are few active researchers who dispute it. The term "non-standard" is applied to any cosmological theory that does not conform to the scientific consensus. Today it is also used to describe theories that accept a "big bang" occurred but differ as to the detailed physics of the origin and evolution of the universe.

Interesting right?

One thing I get from this is that if I want my own personal cosmology then I have to be prepared to come up with a theory of gravity. I fall in the group that accepts that a big bang type of event occurred. The question is, “Exactly what occurred”. So that leads us to the question of the physics of the origin of the universe. Agreed?

[quantum_wave]

So since QWC only applies to a universe that has always existed let me Google that. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=universe+that+has+always+existed+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Well, over 2 million links so let’s pick the first one for now: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

Low and behold we have an excellent link to discuss. If you want to read it and comment about it, fine. If not, I'll read it through again and make some notes for discussion.

[prometheus]

OK, we can't get past the fairy dust just like with Prometheus. Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked.

I'm sure this has been said before, but here it is:


Question:

What was the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe? I like the idea that (step 1) the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.

...

Step 2 moves forward from the selection of the big crunch idea in step 1. There are 36 reasonable and responsible step by step bottom up speculations in step two of Quantum Wave Cosmology:

2.1 Arenas begin with the overlap of two expanding arenas that have been expanding in space. A new arena then forms in the space where the overlap occurs and includes the galactic material and energy that occupies that space containing that overlap.

2.2 The “greater universe” is composed of a potentially infinite number of arenas similar to our own that expand and overlap.

2.3 The expansion momentum is interrupted in the overlap space. Gravity takes over and causes the galactic material to collapse around a center of gravity.

Arena action begins with the overlap of two arenas and is about what happens to the matter and energy in the overlap space as gravity takes over from expansion. Steps 2.1 – 2.3 represent the first phase of arena action leading to the formation of a big crunch.

If I may paraphrase, "arena action causes the big crunch." Now, I have no idea what arena action means in this context. If I was to guess I would get the answer wrong because an action in physics is something else entirely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)).

In your doc, arena action does not have an explanation that I can understand in physical terms, and remember, I am a physicist. Sure, there are some words about arena action with reference to some other things I don't understand but nothing that I can nail down.

So the arena action is the fairy that causes the big crunch. I anticipate that you're going to rebuke my ignorance of your terminology and that you do explain what arena action is, but what you're essentially doing is saying "fairies are created by unicorns." It doesn't help much because, not only do I not know what a fairy is or how it works, I don't know what a unicorn is or how it works.

[quantum_wave]

QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.

Well, over 2 million links so let’s pick the first one for now: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

Low and behold we have an excellent link to discuss. If you want to read it and comment about it, fine. If not, I'll read it through again and make some notes for discussion.

From the link: “Where did the universe come from?"

“The Big Bang theory is an attempt to describe the creation and evolution of the universe. The theory appears to match observations, and the theoretical physics appear to hold back through time to within a tiny fraction of a second after the creation of the Big Bang. Beyond that the theory cannot explain how the Big Bang singularity came into existence. See The Big Bang Theory Indeed, it is really pointless to attempt to go back beyond the Big Bang, it is meaningless to ask what came 'before' because there is no 'before'. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang.”

QW’s notes: It is interesting that this description of BBT points out that if you accept it, it is meaningless to discuss “before or beyond” because according to the theory space and time began with the Big Bang. Quite a bit like in QWC in the respect that if you insist it is like fairy dust you can’t play the game because the prime objective requires liberties be taken. The end result is assured but the details that describe QWC are continually changing as it evolves. The Google.doc is changed when necessary to reflect the evolution. What will the end result be? My personal cosmology that contains the best I can do using the methodology that I have explained.

My comment is that I still want to talk about “before and beyond” the Big Bang even though BBT says I can't. I just don’t see where BBT explains how something can come from nothing.

The link goes on to that very question and points out that there are theories of how something can come from nothing and the author set out to describe a theory of nothing that could contain the universe.

He then defines Nothing

Definition of nothing.

"The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere."

That sounds good to me. Are you OK with it?

His conclusion is: “I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do.”

He then adds to his definition of nothing that it contains our universe and address the impact of that change. From his point of view:

“What does it mean to say the universe was always there? We believe it started with the Big Bang, but can we say the Big Bang was always there? This doesn't seem logical to me, it needed to have actually come into existence at some point, even the very term 'big bang', suggests a beginning.”

He as arrived at the concept of a beginning but he defers that discussion for a minute saying: “Let's now look at the implications of an infinite nothing containing an expanding universe, ignoring for now the actual creation. We will consider two possible problems, expansion and infinity.”

“1) Expansion. Can the universe be described as expanding? From our viewpoint within the universe, yes. From our 'perfect observer's' viewpoint in nothing, no. Why not? because a) as stated above our observer can have no knowledge of the universe, and b) what is it expanding in relation to? Nothing does not contain anything, other than the universe, so there is no possible way to determine either the size, or the expansion of the universe, as both can only be measured in relation to something else. Size or expansion are meaningless terms here. This would appear to suggest that from within the universe things are as they appear to be, but from the point of view of our perfect observer in nothing, the universe does not exist! Furthermore with the absence of time in nothing the fact that it contains an aging expanding universe is meaningless from the perspective of nothing. So far so good, our nothing is still intact, from the point of view of our infinite nothing- it still contains nothing! (The creation event, if it actually happened, still needs explaining however).”

“2) Infinity. We now have a picture of nothing as being an infinite void, containing an expanding universe that it has no knowledge of, but is it still infinite? We have not put any restrictions on nothing's 'size' it is still infinite, but it contains a universe so surely that puts restrictions on its 'completeness', nothing is 'barred' from the area containing the universe! I think we are still okay here, to contain the universe is within our definition, but as to whether or not we have somehow a little less infinity is open to question, but it does not contradict our definition. I can see no reason why an infinite nothing can not contain a finite universe. For a fuller argument on Infinity. See Can anything 'real' be infinite?”

“How is our new definition of nothing holding up? An infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is contained within it. I would suggest that so far its holding up pretty well. I have not been able to overturn it on the grounds of logical argument. It could exist providing that the Big Bang took place within it. However, there is still a major hurdle to overcome, what caused the Big Bang and how could it form out of nothing? Without introducing a mysterious source of energy into the equation, as a magician might pull a rabbit out of a hat, it simply can't be done, it's as simple as that. It's logically and scientifically impossible to produce something from nothing. I realise that in Quantum Mechanics? it is (arguably) possible but that is in an already existing universe, not in nothing. Having said it's impossible we are left with a paradox, it has happened, we ARE here. There are only three logical conclusion to be drawn from this, assuming of course that our definition of nothing is valid.”

Summarizing, 1) The universe did not come from nothing, it came from something.

2) We have to introduce a mysterious source of energy. I am forced to employ this highly undesirable tactic to make the creation of the universe possible. No matter how much I dislike the idea of using it I MUST, the unalterable truth is that we do exist, so the universe needed to be created out of nothing!

3) The universe did NOT have a creation event, it always existed.

In QWC I do not invoke the supernatural so I agree with #1, the universe did not come from nothing, it came from something. I reject #2, the creation of the universe from nothing on the basis that it implies a supernatural event. And I accept #3, “The universe did not have a creation event, it has always existed.

He offers this: “According to our definition of nothing as being timeless, then in order to contain the universe, the universe MUST have always existed within it. It is not possible for it to have been CREATED within it for that would require a moment in time. It is not a matter of convenience to suggest this idea, it is the way it simply has to be.”

He goes on: “If however you are uncomfortable with the concept of anything having always existed then I see no solution at all, because you will simply have to accept that at some point something came from nothing, and personally I find that prospect totally unacceptable. Either that or you have to conclude that the universe does not exist! …”

He does wrap up the model discussion with the three options of the shape of the universe and that if he were to stay within BBT what he would conclude. “Within the description of the Big Bang there are three main cosmological models. The open universe that will expand forever, the flat model that will come to a halt, or the closed model that will recollapse, possibly 'bouncing' back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is closed it is possible that it will 'bounce' back cycle after cycle, forever. This idea of an eternal universe expanding and collapsing and re-expanding for ever is my preferred choice, but purely on aesthetic grounds. I realize of course that the arguments are still swinging back and forth as to which cosmological model is correct.”

But then he goes on to say what he really thinks: “ … to answer the original question 'Where did the universe come from?' I believe that it didn't come from anything, it always existed. To say that I am unhappy with this concept is an understatement, but I am stuck with it because at this time I am unable to think of a viable alternative.”

“Of course my suggestion is just a model, created for the purpose of argument and discussion only and I do not pretend for one minute that it is anything like the real thing, that, I am sure, will be much more surprising. It may be that it all exists just in our minds!”

QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.

[prometheus]

Are you ignoring me again?

[quantum_wave]

Are you ignoring me again?No Prometheus, why would I ignore you … oh wait. Aren’t you still teasing me about QWC being nothing but made up fantasy pulled out of my ass? Oli put it clearly; he, you, and AN claim to have a cause. Put succinctly, you pretend you are saving our children from QW’s dangerous ideas.

I see you from a different perspective. I interpret your motivation as being a bit more self centered than the altruistic cause of burying crank ideas behind a barrage of bullshit posts to belittle and discredit people who you in your great wisdom have labeled cranks. I see it more of a striking out at ideas that differ from the patch of science that you have staked out as worthy of your rigor. I see it as some veiled threat that you perceive coming from simple talk about a universe that might be something more, something greater than your narrow view. I see it as egoism so great that when someone shows some little bit of intelligence about speculative views you freak. I see it as divisive attacks against anyone willing to collaborate with his peers, the normal average people in forums who together think deeply and come up with a view that the universe was not created from nothing, that the universe has always existed, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, doing so without invoking the supernatural or fantasy, and doing so with a methodology that makes going beyond the standard consensus possible in an orderly way.

I see you, AN and Oli as willing to say anything with no consideration for what I say or present, but with your various weird egotistic lashing out to protect some incomplete and unworkable theories that you aren’t even man or woman enough to speak out in favor of. You pick at the usage of words, you demand axioms, you insist on mathematics about things that can’t be observed, you talk about the audacity of anyone doing what I do without the credentials you demand. You insist on being egotistic elitist gurus who proclaim themselves professionals who have the authority to say what is and what is not science, who can and can’t talk about “before or beyond” standard theory, and what is and what isn’t a proper methodology to address questions that you as flawed representatives of the scientific community don’t approve. I see you as a small activist group from within a greater scientific community. Your segment are the tiny minority of scientists who can’t even discuss a physical picture of the precious math that you develop. Math can be made to represent anything, even fantasy and maybe you realize that the work you do is really the fantasy after all. The rest of the scientific community, those who understand their work and where it fits in the overall perspective of things are some of the greatest people in the world with the most altruistic motives; you just don’t qualify in that part of the scientific community as you are continually proving by the way you present your small dissenting group here.

But I don’t want you to be offended anymore than you want to offend me. I simply will not engage anyone who insists QWC is fairy dust instead going through the step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculation about possibilities that start with the point where science consensus leaves off and that offers possibilities that address “what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe?”. To engage you in a collaborative role when you think as you do would not be fair to all of the people in all of the threads and forums that I count as collaborators in the evolution of QWC. QWC will evolve as long as I live or until I am sufficiently satisfied with it enough to move on.

And further, you have shown your ass so consistently with regard to me that it wouldn’t be likely for me to ever consider you as a collaborator in the QWC evolution unless you specifically addressed my concerns about your participation in depth to my satisfaction. And why would you, how could you do that when everyone on the forum knows what you think of me and QWC? You can just keep pretending that there is some altruistic motive to you casting shit on my threads and keep showing the character that you seem to think gives you the self image that you like living with.

So no, I’m not ignoring you. Now you and your “protectors” of our youth can snap off some stinging rebuttals while I move along to discuss some alternative views about the origin of our expanding universe. We will all be having fun now won’t we.

[prometheus]

No Prometheus, why would I ignore you … oh wait. Aren’t you still teasing me about QWC being nothing but made up fantasy pulled out of my ass? Oli put it clearly; he, you, and AN claim to have a cause. Put succinctly, you pretend you are saving our children from QW’s dangerous ideas.

You consistently fail to read what other people write. Is that the root cause of your scientific ineptitude? Who knows. Here you insist on claiming that the people arguing with you are trying to protect children when you have been clearly told that people of any age could have little knowledge of real cosmology and be sucked in by what you claim is cosmology.

I don't see why you're suddenly upset about QWC being characterised as made up when that's exactly what you say about it yourself -
this is a bottom up approach that starts with speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

...my personal individual research arrives at speculations that are consistent with those bodies of scientific knowledge.

etc.

How do you expect to form a consistent anything when you can't maintain any consistency yourself?


I see you from a different perspective. I interpret your motivation as being a bit more self centered than the altruistic cause of burying crank ideas behind a barrage of bullshit posts to belittle and discredit people who you in your great wisdom have labeled cranks. I see it more of a striking out at ideas that differ from the patch of science that you have staked out as worthy of your rigor. I see it as some veiled threat that you perceive coming from simple talk about a universe that might be something more, something greater than your narrow view. I see it as egoism so great that when someone shows some little bit of intelligence about speculative views you freak. I see it as divisive attacks against anyone willing to collaborate with his peers, the normal average people in forums who together think deeply and come up with a view that the universe was not created from nothing, that the universe has always existed, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, doing so without invoking the supernatural or fantasy, and doing so with a methodology that makes going beyond the standard consensus possible in an orderly way.

You can see it how you like, but I honestly see no value in what you are proposing. I don't really care if you believe me or not. If you look back through our exchanges you'll see that I very rarely call someone a crackpot outright. I prefer to leave people to express themselves in a way that will make it obvious to anyone reading exactly how cranky they are, and you have just put a big black tick in the right box. The old chestnut "mainstream science is scared of my ideas," is a classic crackpot battle cry, and it's also crap. People in science have new ideas that they publish by the proper channels all the time. Some are accepted and used to advance knowledge and some are not for whatever reason.


I see you, AN and Oli as willing to say anything with no consideration for what I say or present, but with your various weird egotistic lashing out to protect some incomplete and unworkable theories that you aren’t even man or woman enough to speak out in favor of. You pick at the usage of words, you demand axioms, you insist on mathematics about things that can’t be observed, you talk about the audacity of anyone doing what I do without the credentials you demand. You insist on being egotistic elitist gurus who proclaim themselves professionals who have the authority to say what is and what is not science, who can and can’t talk about “before or beyond” standard theory, and what is and what isn’t a proper methodology to address questions that you as flawed representatives of the scientific community don’t approve. I see you as a small activist group from within a greater scientific community. Your segment are the tiny minority of scientists who can’t even discuss a physical picture of the precious math that you develop. Math can be made to represent anything, even fantasy and maybe you realize that the work you do is really the fantasy after all. The rest of the scientific community, those who understand their work and where it fits in the overall perspective of things are some of the greatest people in the world with the most altruistic motives; you just don’t qualify in that part of the scientific community as you are continually proving by the way you present your small dissenting group here.

We demand mathematics and axioms because a) that's how theoretical physics works and b) axioms are what you claimed you had. If we are a small group of dissenters in the scientific community then why are there no scientists rushing to your defence? In reality, you chose to disregard the views of the genuine scientists here in whatever way you can simply because we are telling you what you're doing is not even wrong - it's utterly pointless. Don't think I didn't see that little jibe about my being a self proclaimed scientist either. I've produced work that has been evaluated by my peers and found to have enough value to be published in one of the more prestigious particle physics journals. Proof. (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2009/04/063/)


But I don’t want you to be offended anymore than you want to offend me. I simply will not engage anyone who insists QWC is fairy dust instead going through the step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculation about possibilities that start with the point where science consensus leaves off and that offers possibilities that address “what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe?”. To engage you in a collaborative role when you think as you do would not be fair to all of the people in all of the threads and forums that I count as collaborators in the evolution of QWC. QWC will evolve as long as I live or until I am sufficiently satisfied with it enough to move on.

You wanted me to point out where the fairies enter QWC and that's exactly what I did and now you wont engage in discussion? Wow, you're really on the run now aren't you? Let me be frank, at first I thought you were just someone who was uneducated, ie, you hadn't had the time to learn about cosmology and decided you wanted to mouth off about it. That's pretty arrogant, but it seems now that you know QWC is nothing but a fantasy but you cling on to it like a dogma. That makes you stupid and arrogant in my book. No offence. ;)


And further, you have shown your ass so consistently with regard to me that it wouldn’t be likely for me to ever consider you as a collaborator in the QWC evolution unless you specifically addressed my concerns about your participation in depth to my satisfaction.

I don't get this. What does my ass have to do with anything?

And why would you, how could you do that when everyone on the forum knows what you think of me and QWC? You can just keep pretending that there is some altruistic motive to you casting shit on my threads and keep showing the character that you seem to think gives you the self image that you like living with.

I ask myself why I bother with these types of discussion because it's obvious that you wont be persuaded in the light of the above. I genuinely do feel that if someone wanted to understand cosmology and happened upon your words they should have a warning that it isn't cosmology at all. Also, I like these sorts of threads because they provide a diversion when I want a break from real work and I've already had enough coffee.


So no, I’m not ignoring you. Now you and your “protectors” of our youth can snap off some stinging rebuttals while I move along to discuss some alternative views about the origin of our expanding universe. We will all be having fun now won’t we.

Yep. Perhaps you'd like to stop ignoring this post about fairies (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928) and we'll see if we can make some real progress.

[quantum_wave]

You consistently fail to read what other people write. Is that the root cause of your scientific ineptitude? Who knows. Here you insist on claiming that the people arguing with you are trying to protect children when you have been clearly told that people of any age could have little knowledge of real cosmology and be sucked in by what you claim is cosmology.

I don't see why you're suddenly upset about QWC being characterised as made up when that's exactly what you say about it yourself -
this is a bottom up approach that starts with speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

...my personal individual research arrives at speculations that are consistent with those bodies of scientific knowledge.

etc.

How do you expect to form a consistent anything when you can't maintain any consistency yourself?



You can see it how you like, but I honestly see no value in what you are proposing. I don't really care if you believe me or not. If you look back through our exchanges you'll see that I very rarely call someone a crackpot outright. I prefer to leave people to express themselves in a way that will make it obvious to anyone reading exactly how cranky they are, and you have just put a big black tick in the right box. The old chestnut "mainstream science is scared of my ideas," is a classic crackpot battle cry, and it's also crap. People in science have new ideas that they publish by the proper channels all the time. Some are accepted and used to advance knowledge and some are not for whatever reason.



We demand mathematics and axioms because a) that's how theoretical physics works and b) axioms are what you claimed you had. If we are a small group of dissenters in the scientific community then why are there no scientists rushing to your defence? In reality, you chose to disregard the views of the genuine scientists here in whatever way you can simply because we are telling you what you're doing is not even wrong - it's utterly pointless. Don't think I didn't see that little jibe about my being a self proclaimed scientist either. I've produced work that has been evaluated by my peers and found to have enough value to be published in one of the more prestigious particle physics journals. Proof. (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2009/04/063/)



You wanted me to point out where the fairies enter QWC and that's exactly what I did and now you wont engage in discussion? Wow, you're really on the run now aren't you? Let me be frank, at first I thought you were just someone who was uneducated, ie, you hadn't had the time to learn about cosmology and decided you wanted to mouth off about it. That's pretty arrogant, but it seems now that you know QWC is nothing but a fantasy but you cling on to it like a dogma. That makes you stupid and arrogant in my book. No offence. ;)



I don't get this. What does my ass have to do with anything?



I ask myself why I bother with these types of discussion because it's obvious that you wont be persuaded in the light of the above. I genuinely do feel that if someone wanted to understand cosmology and happened upon your words they should have a warning that it isn't cosmology at all. Also, I like these sorts of threads because they provide a diversion when I want a break from real work and I've already had enough coffee.



Yep. Perhaps you'd like to stop ignoring this post about fairies (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928) and we'll see if we can make some real progress.You are wasting you time pretending that I care to enter the scientific community with some status derived from QWC.

Then you respond to me as if I have some status and you are the one who can see through me and alert the community about my snake oil.

Read the OP, read the Google.doc, get over yourself and pretend you have make some important point.

[prometheus]

Read the OP, read the Google.doc, get over yourself and pretend you have make some important point.

Done and done. It must be terribly upsetting for you to have your ideas shown to be fantasy. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928) You have my sympathy.

[quantum_wave]

I’m sure that the only people reading this thread are Prom, Oli, maybe D H and AN. But on the off chance that there are others who aren’t involved with the train wreck, let me point to the last post that was meaningful:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66

The conclusion that is offered in the link I was discussing is that in spite of the fact that Big Bang Theory says it is pointless to discuss “before or beyond” the Big Bang, BBT does not address what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe or how space and time can be coupled mathematically in a way that perfectly corresponds to the physical universe, and where each point in the fabric of spacetime represents an event where space, time and energy can be represented as they all emerge from … well, nothing. From surfing science forums for years I see that the thinking on the subject is divided. It is clear where the professionals whose livelihoods and funding depend to the a flow of money might be committed to support their work as beyond the understanding of me, and you if you are a normal non-professional just interested in making sense out the what we observe.

How much sense is there in saying it is nonsense to talk about “before and beyond”? How much sense is there in saying that the universe came from nothing, no space, no time, no energy, i.e. out of nothing to be what we observe it to be? No sense at all to me. Let Prometheus use all of his verbal skills to say otherwise, he can’t make sense of nonsense.

On the other hand, I see it as self-evident that something cannot come from nothing. I see it as self-evident that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I see it as self-evident that space is potentially infinite, space and time have always existed, and all of the energy that exists today has always existed. Hence that is what QWC is based on.

Review the post that I link to above and then consider what other alternatives there are to explain what we observe in the expanding universe.

And next let’s look at the Google search, “multiverse”, to see what we get:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=multiverse&aq=0&oq=multivers&aqi=g10

We get 1.5 million links and one that I have discussed before on another thread is a good one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[Ophiolite]

Many words form both sides of the argument.

I teach technical writing from time to time. I demand executive summaries and I encourage executive summaries of the excutive summaries.

Here is the E.S. of the E.S for my evaluation of your work.

"You are waffling big time."

[quantum_wave]

..."You are waffling big time."Ok, OK, waffling is what I seem to be doing. But I don't buy the standard cosmology because I don't buy something coming from nothing. That seems to be my biggest motivation to come up with something that I think paints a more complete physical picture of the universe.

I very much like the logic of a universe that has always existed. It doesn't require something coming from nothing, it is the epitome of the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and it doesn't leave one wondering about the cause of a beginning, i.e. the supernatural cause.

Then there is Big Bang Theory that is very good doing what it does but it doesn't say anything about a beginning. It implies that space and time started simultaneously and are therefore coupled in a way that can be translated into a mathematical 3+1 D spacetime continuum. But what about the beginning? What was the cause? No answer. In fact the theory all but says it is nonsense to talk about "before or beyond" the Big Bang because the Big Bang created space and time. There was no "before" to talk about. Advocates actually get crankier than me when you challenge them with the question, "what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?"

So I ask that question often as I discuss alternative ideas. Sorry I don't do a better job.

[Ophiolite]

That seems to be my biggest motivation to come up with something that I think paints a more complete physical picture of the universe..Honourable objective.

But I don't buy the standard cosmology because I don't buy something coming from nothing. Personal incredulity is no basis for any kind of cosmology, even a personal one.

Sorry I don't do a better job.So don't get upset when people point out that you are presenting ideas using ill defined words, concatenated into meaningless phrases that are assembled into semantically barren sentences and nonsensical paragraphs in a milieu that lacks any discernible structure.

Here, off the top of my head, is what your writing reads like. (This is not a paraphrase of your writing, it is a stylistic copy.)

Event led developments seem to be central in all universal aspects from the sub-atomic to the intergalactic. In short we can demarcate scenarios, both in time and space and scale by distinct events that separate the before from the after. Without events there is no clear distinction between points; the events give meaning and clarity to the developments.
(When I say development I don't have to mean that these are progressive things, I just mean that they are changes of some kind. Clearly there is a heirarchy of such things.)
The fact that these events are found throughout all scales and times is highly suggestive. Why would this be so? It strongly suggests that there is no difference between the different scales. Is this not why we even use the word universal?


If you recognise you should be writing more clearly (doing a better job) then please get started.

[quantum_wave]

...

Personal incredulity is no basis for any kind of cosmology, even a personal one.
We disagree. For example, the earlier comments about matter and anti-matter. A mathematician can make numbers show that something came from nothing but something coming from nothing is not observed. Is the math credible, yes. Is the concept credible? Not to me.

Note: Some may say something from nothing is observed but they are observing from within an already existing universe. There is a slight difference.

You might not see my point given my writing skills, but what is credible? What can incite incredulity?


So don't get upset when people point out that you are presenting ideas using ill defined words, concatenated into meaningless phrases that are assembled into semantically barren sentences and nonsensical paragraphs in a milieu that lacks any discernible structure.No, and you wouldn't either I suppose :rolleyes:. Actually, I don't get upset as long as what you say is true.

Here, off the top of my head, is what your writing reads like. (This is not a paraphrase of your writing, it is a stylistic copy.)

Event led developments seem to be central in all universal aspects from the sub-atomic to the intergalactic. In short we can demarcate scenarios, both in time and space and scale by distinct events that separate the before from the after. Without events there is no clear distinction between points; the events give meaning and clarity to the developments.
(When I say development I don't have to mean that these are progressive things, I just mean that they are changes of some kind. Clearly there is a heirarchy of such things.)
The fact that these events are found throughout all scales and times is highly suggestive. Why would this be so? It strongly suggests that there is no difference between the different scales. Is this not why we even use the word universal?


If you recognise you should be writing more clearly (doing a better job) then please get started.I see. Not clear at all.

Let me give an example of a case in math of something coming from nothing to make a point about credulity:

So someone says that before the universe became, there was nothing and then we had symmetry breaking and there is somehow matter left over.

So we start with nothing = 0.

Then nothing separated into two somethings, one positive something and one negative something else, -1 +1 =0.

The two somethings with opposite charges didn’t immediately realize that opposites attract and so they went off on their separate ways.

One of the somethings was weak and fragile and as time passed it began to disappear into nothing and went from +1, down to +.9, then to +.8 and +.7 and then +.6. Poor plus something is disappearing into nothing, presumable in the same way that it appeared out of nothing. As it disappeared into nothing, nothing became +.4.

In the mean time the -1 something else is strong and wanders around and stays -1.

So now we have something at +.6, something else at -1.0, and nothing at +.4, that’s +.6 -1.0 +.4 = 0.

Then somehow they realize that opposites attract and they come together and there is some event where they cancel each other out.

And when they finally attract each other the +.6 cancels part of the -1.0 and leaves -.4. So there is -.4 something else left of the original -1.0 something else (our universe) that will just exist forever within a +.4 nothing. +.4-.4=0. Of course you could change the sign and have +.4 left over in a -.4 nothing if you prefer leaving our universe -.4.

Either way, the math works. Start with 0. Split 0 into +1 and -1, let some of the +1 fade back into nothing making nothing =+.4, and then let the -.6 of the -1.0 something else wipe out the +.6 something, leaving -.4 something and +.4 nothing.

Credible or incredible?

[cosmictraveler]

A real quantum wave.......

:wave:

:D

[quantum_wave]

A real quantum wave.......

:wave:

Hi CT. A real cosmic traveler? Or this kind of cosmic travel :m:?

QW waves back at ya :wave:

[prometheus]

So we start with nothing = 0.

Then nothing separated into two somethings, one positive something and one negative something else, -1 +1 =0.

The two somethings with opposite charges didn’t immediately realize that opposites attract and so they went off on their separate ways.

One of the somethings was weak and fragile and as time passed it began to disappear into nothing and went from +1, down to +.9, then to +.8 and +.7 and then +.6. Poor plus something is disappearing into nothing, presumable in the same way that it appeared out of nothing. As it disappeared into nothing, nothing became +.4.

In the mean time the -1 something else is strong and wanders around and stays -1.

So now we have something at +.6, something else at -1.0, and nothing at +.4, that’s +.6 -1.0 +.4 = 0.

Then somehow they realize that opposites attract and they come together and there is some event where they cancel each other out.

And when they finally attract each other the +.6 cancels part of the -1.0 and leaves -.4. So there is -.4 something else left of the original -1.0 something else (our universe) that will just exist forever within a +.4 nothing. +.4-.4=0. Of course you could change the sign and have +.4 left over in a -.4 nothing if you prefer leaving our universe -.4.

Either way, the math works. Start with 0. Split 0 into +1 and -1, let some of the +1 fade back into nothing making nothing =+.4, and then let the -.6 of the -1.0 something else wipe out the +.6 something, leaving -.4 something and +.4 nothing.

Credible or incredible?

You are grossly oversimplifying this, and getting it outright wrong to boot. The big bang theory states that the early universe was very hot and there was a lot of energy, and a lot of particles were created, both matter and antimatter. If that was the end of the story you'd expect matter and antimatter to be produced in about equal amounts which would then annihilate and we'd be left with a universe full of radiation and not a lot else.

The current best accepted mechanism for the creation of the excess matter we see lies with CP violation - that means that a particular set of particle interactions produces matter more than antimatter. It's not a huge amount more but there is a small excess of matter in the early universe so when we have expansion and cooling and the matter and antimatter annihilate we are left with a lot of radiation and a bit of matter left over. This is the matter that goes to make up things that we can see.

Of course, this is a wordy explanation and you'll have to take my word for it that the mathematical models have produced quantitative predictions that have been experimentally tested and are in agreement.

Also, why are you avoiding this post? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928)

[quantum_wave]

Now Prometheus, what possible reason could there be for me to ever engage in discussion with you or even acknowledge you?

And why do I even have to pay attention to you since I know you will stay around and comment about QWC as we get into the step-by-step speculations. I’ll know what you have to say all the way through and you won't get the time of day from me while we are on opposite ends of the ladder.

But I won’t engage you about your content. The topic is the Google.doc. I have referred you to the part that you have refused to comply with. I don’t engage with you if you wave QWC off as fairy dust.

And even beyond that I won't engage you unless you can state the prime objective and acknowledge that what you say must be able to be reconciled with that objective.

You ignore the part that says I don't start with any theory and that I only include theory that fits with the internal consistency of QWC. QWC will always have internal consistency to my satisfaction, not yours. So tell me all about the theory you accept but don't expect me to accept it if it isn't consistent with QWC. QWC is not inconsistent with observations and never will be because I change QWC to maintain that rule.

But it is not consistent with current theories that address "before and beyond" the Big Bang and which are not the current consensus. When one of them becomes the new standard theory, QWC will start from a new departure point, but you wouldn't have a clue about what that means. You can't possibly intentionally contribute without knowing what that means and so anything that I take away from your posts that gets included in QWC will be purely accidental on your part. But thanks for what ever it turns out to be. Read the Google doc from time to time and see if anything new might have come from your carping.

You can make math say anything. But if it isn't reality it cannot predict anything. Keep posting about the theories you treat as fact and I will keep waving them off until they become consensus.

Stick around though so you can learn how to achieve an objective. You will see that here and you will learn how to improve the content that represents the body of QWC continually using my methodology. How many like you do you think I have encountered in the past six years? What do they have to show for their efforts. I'm still going, QWC is still evolving, and I am perfectly happy with how it is going.

[quantum_wave]

This post, http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66, is incorporated in the Google.doc by reference to support one of the main features of QWC:

QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.

That post discusses the presented link that supported my thinking that the universe has always existed. You might remember that link was one a many different opinions about the origin of the universe, but it is in line with my primary objective of having an internally consistent set of speculations that go beyond where the consensus of science has taken us so far.

The next step and actually the first step in the speculations of Quantum Wave Cosmology is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

Expansion is observable. The nature of our arena in space which is referred to by the standard cosmology as our “universe” is demoted to an arena that exists within a greater universe. That is a conclusion in QWC based on the idea that if the universe has always existed then space, time and energy too have always existed. Those are characteristics of the greater universe within which our arena exists and within which our observable universe got its initial expansion momentum. In QWC the greater universe is potentially infinite spatially and so our tiny arena consisting of a finite amount of energy is considered infinitesimal relative to that spatial infinity. That brings up the concept of the multiverse which simply means that in QWC there are considered to be a potentially infinite number of arenas similar to our own.

Step one of QWC is to select from the various multiverses that have been theorized and contemplated. That is why I give you the “multiverse” link in a recent post.

And next let’s look at the Google search, “multiverse”, to see what we get: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=multiverse&aq=0&oq=multivers&aqi=g10
We get 1.5 million links and one that I have discussed before on another thread is a good one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

If you read that link you see that there are many choices that fit the multiverse concept but when you add the requirement that the arenas exist within the same greater universe that contains all space, then there only needs to be three dimensions of space to host the entire universe and all of its arenas. That eliminates the multi-dimensional cosmologies.

Out of all of the possibilities, we can also eliminate those that require a beginning of time since QWC includes the idea that the universe has always existed. The inflationary scenarios are fine as far as they go but if they don't say what caused the initial expansion they too are eliminated from consideration in QWC. So from my view, if a cosmology doesn't address the issue of its beginning it is not complete. As mentioned throughout the thread, that is the motivation for QWC, i.e. to have a physical picture of a complete and internally consistent cosmology.

Several models refer to ways that our arena might have come into existence and how expansion might have been initiated though none of the models in the link actually say that they are based on a universe that has always existed and that includes infinite space, time and energy.

Do you agree that there are no alternative cosmologies that come right out and say that? That is what QWC comes right out and says. So step one is to define the circumstances within such a universe that could give rise to our arena. That is what I have done. I refer to it as step one which appears in the Google.doc after the introductory section on “What is Quantum Wave Cosmology”.

You can view the updated Google.doc: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

[AlphaNumeric]

QWC is not inconsistent with observations and never will be because I change QWC to maintain that rule.Then it has no predictive power. If it's something deep and fundamental, enough to reach beyond what current science can do, then it must have basic postulates from which you derive your implications, your predictions. Now if all you do is look at experimental results and twist a wordy explaination to fit the results, what predictive power have QWC got?

An experiment says "X = 4" and you say "QWC says X=4". Then the next day another experiment says "X=5", do you change and say "QWC says X=5, QWC explains X" ? Because if you do then you're basically saying QWC is useless, without predictive power, without coherent structure, without any explanatory power at all.

QWC, so you say, is all about talking about the areas where current science doesn't tread much, such as pre-BB. Now if the results of QWC are so fluid and mailable then how can we take any result you claim seriously, when you could just change it to be something else?

Give me a single precise prediction of QWC and explain why it's that and not something else which I could suggest.

[quantum_wave]

Then it has no predictive power. If it's something deep and fundamental, enough to reach beyond what current science can do, then it must have basic postulates from which you derive your implications, your predictions. Now if all you do is look at experimental results and twist a wordy explanation to fit the results, what predictive power have QWC got?

An experiment says "X = 4" and you say "QWC says X=4". Then the next day another experiment says "X=5", do you change and say "QWC says X=5, QWC explains X" ? Because if you do then you're basically saying QWC is useless, without predictive power, without coherent structure, without any explanatory power at all.

QWC, so you say, is all about talking about the areas where current science doesn't tread much, such as pre-BB. Now if the results of QWC are so fluid and mailable then how can we take any result you claim seriously, when you could just change it to be something else?

I understand exactly what you are saying. And yes, if the standard cosmology, BBT ever is replaced by a new consensus then I will modify QWC. The modification will center around just how much the new standard cosmology does to address the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe, the cause of mass, and the cause of gravity.

As for your question about how QWC can be taken seriously by professionals like yourself in the light of the fact that I can change it on my whim, think about what you just asked. There aren't any professionals that are interested in QWC except you, Prometheus and Oli whose role it is to discredit it so that our youth are not mislead by the treacherous QW, right.

As for the predictive power of QWC, it is all prediction of the unknown. When science stops short of forming a consensus then I call that the unknown from my non-professional view point. A professional has a different methodology to claim predictive power. My methodology, when applied faithfully yields a cosmology that is satisfactory to me and that fulfills the prime objective.

Part of the methodology is to envision a physical picture of how the universe works that satisfies me at the moment and that can continually be improved by continuing to apply the methodology. If you or anyone contributes something I can use I appreciate it. But it is unlikely that professionals would bother. In addition QWC uses no ones theory and professionals are seeped in their theories.

Math can be made to say up is down or sideways, but unless the math has a perfect correspondence to reality, it cannot accurately predict reality. That is why QWC is a bottom up, step-by-step collaborative process of reasonable and responsible speculation. Accidentally maybe, I address things that there are already theories for beyond the consensus but that is only because observations lead to ideas and neither science nor I claim to have a corner on the idea market.

It is entirely possible that I will talk about existing theories in my physical picture without acknowledging who's theory it is or what has been said by it or what the math might be. But I tie in my ideas (new or not) with the entire body of QWC so I can envision it having internal consistency where if the math were put to it, the math would all work together.
Give me a single precise prediction of QWC and explain why it's that and not something else which I could suggest.This is so boring. Your ego needed a little boost didn't it. Just saying that made you get a tingly feeling I bet. Give me one reason I should engage with anyone with a record of just waiting to strike (rhetorical).

[Ophiolite]

I'm still going, QWC is still evolving, and I am perfectly happy with how it is going.Mental institutions used to be full of people who thought they were Napoleon. They were perfectly happy, but they weren't Napoleon.

[quantum_wave]

Mental institutions used to be full of people who thought they were Napoleon. They were perfectly happy, but they weren't Napoleon.Come on Ophiolite, Napoleon? I'm trying to write into this that this is my own view of cosmology and that I am trying to make it a physical picture that I can visualize where a possible cause of expansion is the starting point. Then going from there step by step using a stated methodology of speculation and not using existing theory except what fits together to maintain internal consistency.

I gave you links to support the view that nothing can come from nothing, I did some math to show that math can be made to say anything, I gave you links to alternative cosmologies that are already well known, and gave you my Google.doc which is open for you to help shape.

Now I am about to actually get into the steps and I want views from the community about each step.

But maybe you are saying that the Napoleon part is that I have a prime objective, or the fact that only I can maintain the document, or maybe the outward view that I won't engage with Prom/AN though I actually am when it is necessary to keep them around.

Or is it still that my writing is crap and you haven't been able to discern anything from it because it causes you nausea? I did start applying your advice and set up an introduction, I incorporated your improved text in the first paragraph, I added a caution to parents and youth which should be sufficient to tell people this is dangerous stuff.

I have fulfilled my prime objective and I plan to maintain my satisfaction as I just keep improving the document by continuing to apply the methodology and to fill out the as yet unpresented ideas. It is just a game now. You don't have to play and I don't have to engage anyone who doesn't want to play by my rules. Didn't Napoleon venture out and try to concur the world? I'm happy just staying in my threads, occasionally adding my two cents on other threads as long as I don't violate forum rules, etc.

:humor: But if keeping you around means taking your hurtful jabs and having to feel remorse about how bad a job I do on my threads, feeling the dejection from people like you and never getting any attaboys like the self proclaimed forum experts get when they dis me, then so be it :bawl:.

[prometheus]

I did some math to show that math can be made to say anything

Apologies for the rudeness, but this is bollocks.

[quantum_wave]

Apologies for the rudeness, but this is bollocks.Is not.

[AlphaNumeric]

As for the predictive power of QWC, it is all prediction of the unknown. When science stops short of forming a consensus then I call that the unknown from my non-professional view point. A professional has a different methodology to claim predictive power. My methodology, when applied faithfully yields a cosmology that is satisfactory to me and that fulfills the prime objective. So it's the physics version of 'God of the Gaps'. It explains things we don't understand and when we expand our understanding, it's pushed into being applied to smaller and smaller regions of applicability, each time providing nothing other than a buzzword laddened version of "God did it", which is an 'explanation' which explains nothing.

Math can be made to say up is down or sideways, but unless the math has a perfect correspondence to reality, it cannot accurately predict reality. You have no grasp of how maths and physics intertwine or how you use maths as a language to describe physics, due to your unwillingness or inability to see how physics has been done by professionals.

This is so boring. Your ego needed a little boost didn't it. Just saying that made you get a tingly feeling I bet. Give me one reason I should engage with anyone with a record of just waiting to strike (rhetorical). It's 'boring' and inappropriate of me to ask you to provide one result from your work for which you couldn't just as easily have provided to exact opposite/negation of instead? I'm asking you to show your work is more than just your guess work about things which you don't understand but I guess something you said sums it up :

My methodology, when applied faithfully yields a cosmology that is satisfactory to me and that fulfills the prime objective. In other words you dislike mainstream physics (for reasons I'd imagine are close to the fact that you can't understand it) so you're going to provide explainations for things which you find palettable. And what if the universe isn't to your liking? You're basically saying "I'm going to ignore reality and just come up with stuff I like", irrespective of the truth.

[quantum_wave]

So it's the physics version of 'God of the Gaps'. It explains things we don't understand and when we expand our understanding, it's pushed into being applied to smaller and smaller regions of applicability, each time providing nothing other than a buzzword laddened version of "God did it", which is an 'explanation' which explains nothing.

You have no grasp of how maths and physics intertwine or how you use maths as a language to describe physics, due to your unwillingness or inability to see how physics has been done by professionals.

It's 'boring' and inappropriate of me to ask you to provide one result from your work for which you couldn't just as easily have provided to exact opposite/negation of instead? I'm asking you to show your work is more than just your guess work about things which you don't understand but I guess something you said sums it up :

In other words you dislike mainstream physics (for reasons I'd imagine are close to the fact that you can't understand it) so you're going to provide explainations for things which you find palettable. And what if the universe isn't to your liking? You're basically saying "I'm going to ignore reality and just come up with stuff I like", irrespective of the truth.Let me refer you to the OP and the Google.doc.

[AlphaNumeric]

Let me refer you to the OP and the Google.doc.That does nothing to negate or address what I've said. If all you're doing is writing stories which you find more acceptable than what nature is perhaps actually like then why should anyone read the Google document? Why should anyone want to listen to your fiction writing skills if they are interested in science?

[quantum_wave]

That does nothing to negate or address what I've said. If all you're doing is writing stories which you find more acceptable than what nature is perhaps actually like then why should anyone read the Google document? Why should anyone want to listen to your fiction writing skills if they are interested in science?Because they wonder what on Earth could be so treacherous that you would try to keep them from reading it? http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

[quantum_wave]

The last meaningful post was:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2313378&postcount=81

To summarize, QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed. This link presents support for that idea:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm

I discussed that link here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66

The next step and actually the first step in the speculations of Quantum Wave Cosmology is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

As described earlier, QWC demotes our expanding observable universe to an unremarkable arena within the greater universe and brings us to the discussion of multiverses:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tivers&aqi=g10

1.5 million Links discuss multiverses but this one covers the topic nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse and is discussed in post 81 linked above.

QWC comes right out and describes the ideas about the circumstances that preceded the Big Bang event. Please notice that is something that Big Bang Theory, which is touted by most professional scientists, will not do. It is clear that the reason they don’t discuss “before” the Big Bang or what caused the Big Bang is that the theory they tout says there was no “before” and that it is nonsense to even talk about it. If they tout the theory they have to agree that there was a beginning (something from nothing?), and that space and time are coupled into a continuum that is warped by the presence of mass.

I personally conclude that it is not just that BBT is the best we can do so far, I also conclude that it is peer pressure and that working science professionals cannot speculate about “before” the Big Bang because if they do they are ridiculed. To a professional, that kind of ridicule can effectively end their career. At least it could block their advancement unless their focus is in areas that attempt to reconcile that thinking with other theories that are mathematically incompatible with BBT but that are also considered mainstream.

Being a non-professional I can rely on what people say “off the record” and there is a large “off the record” body of speculation out there.

What this post is getting around to saying is that from all of the alternative cosmologies and multiverse ideas, QWC finds the best logic in the idea that the expansion of our observable universe was preceded by a big crunch.

Comment now if you disagree with the idea of a big crunch preceding the Big Bang and state why you disagree.

In the Google.doc I begin the discussion of the big crunch in I. "Step One of QWC": http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 .

Read I. "Step One of QWC" now and remember, you must be 18 years of age or be accompanied by an adult to read this document according to Prometheus, AlphaNumeric, Oli and a host of others who say it is nonsense to talk about “before” the Big Bang.

[AlphaNumeric]

Because they wonder what on Earth could be so treacherous that you would try to keep them from reading it? http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9
and remember, you must be 18 years of age or be accompanied by an adult to read this document according to Prometheus, AlphaNumeric, Oli and a host of others who say it is nonsense to talk about “before” the Big Bang.I never said that. I have been trying to make the point that why should anyone believe your 'results' are better and more worthy of their attention than simply making things up?

There's a lot of information in the world of physics, much much more than any one person can get through in their lifetime so people prioritise, looking first at what they view will be the most promising, more useful, more interesting. You have freely admitted that QWC is pure speculation and, despite my repeated requests, you cannot derive a single result in a logical manner from any postulates. If you truely want to be taken seriously you have to convince actual physicists your work is worth looking at, that it's better for them to spend time reading your work than doing their current research. Given you've utterly failed to provide any reason for such action to any of the people here who have research related real lives (ie myself, Prom, Ben, Guest, DH etc) you have failed to reach your goal. Unless your goal is just to make claims you can't back up?

Your work is better than Guest's 'fairy theory' why? Why should I spend time reading your work, instead of talking to Guest about fairies? What makes your work superior to that? Nothing.

[quantum_wave]

I never said that. I have been trying to make the point that why should anyone believe your 'results' are better and more worthy of their attention than simply making things up?

There's a lot of information in the world of physics, much much more than any one person can get through in their lifetime so people prioritise, looking first at what they view will be the most promising, more useful, more interesting. You have freely admitted that QWC is pure speculation and, despite my repeated requests, you cannot derive a single result in a logical manner from any postulates. If you truely want to be taken seriously you have to convince actual physicists your work is worth looking at, that it's better for them to spend time reading your work than doing their current research. Given you've utterly failed to provide any reason for such action to any of the people here who have research related real lives (ie myself, Prom, Ben, Guest, DH etc) you have failed to reach your goal. Unless your goal is just to make claims you can't back up?

Your work is better than Guest's 'fairy theory' why? Why should I spend time reading your work, instead of talking to Guest about fairies? What makes your work superior to that? Nothing.Among the proud claims of Big Bang Theory advocates is that BBT is the best that we can do, the math works at all scales right down to the Planck regime, the theory explains what we observe without needing any new physics, the theory has made many predictions that have proven to be correct, and the theory brands as nonsense any discussion about other origins of the universe besides “it came from nothing” because they don’t know what that “nothing” was.

Buy why are they so proud? Ask what preceded the Big Bang and they confidently say “nothing”. And I don’t mean they stand silent before you, I mean they say that nothing preceded the Big Bang because the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time. They tout their main theory of cosmology by saying that they don’t know what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe but whatever it was it was nothing but the beginning.

That is why I have a personal cosmology called Quantum Wave Cosmology:

In the Google.doc I discuss my motivation and methodology and I begin the discussion the steps of QWC with the big crunch in I., "Step One of QWC": http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9.

According to the methodology that I employ, you are able to shape QWC by commenting and explaining your comments. Changes to the document are made by me based on your comments if I find that you have added something useful.

[quantum_wave]

Several people have read the last meaningful post on this thread. This thread has been viewed only about 20 times by people other than me since that last content post. AlphaNumeric viewed that post and posted to the thread accounting for maybe 4 views, and I saw D H reading it so that accounts for one or two more views. Maybe Prometheus, Ophiolite, and Oli viewed it but I don’t know that for sure. That says that there may be three or four other people who viewed the thread to see what was said, and maybe two or three just clicking on it momentarily but having no interest in it.

Not one member of the community sees anything worth commenting on in Step I. which identifies a big crunch as the circumstances that preceded the Big Bang?

I mentioned and you know that science professionals by and large remain advocates of BBT and the fact is that if they didn’t they would lose stature with their peers. No one denied that when I said it. So we can’t expect any professionals to condone my speculations, and we can expect the self proclaimed experts who say they know what is and is not cosmology to weigh in “against” the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.

We have to imagine that off the record there are conversations and debates among scientists in many quarters that are planning the evolution of BBT to move it forward without abandoning the start of space and time, i.e. a beginning that is required by General Relativity. The equivocation of their stance and the acknowledged need for evolution of BBT must be a fact of life within scientific circles. But it is a sticky matter to bring about that evolution.

Name a professional who wants to be the first to say that maybe something physical preceded the expansion of our observable universe? Who wants to be the first to suggest that space might have pre-existed? Who wants to say that matter cannot come from empty space so if empty space did pre-exist the Big Bang, where did the energy come from? How could matter exist in empty space if they don’t insist that there can be infinite density within empty space that does not itself occupy space? If they were to take those stances they would be limiting their careers in the short term.

That is why change comes slowly to the standard cosmology. Until they evolve BBT they can’t hope to explain the cause of the Big Bang. Can you wait for them to move? You will be dead before the standard cosmology addresses the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

Jump in and say it wasn’t a big crunch because you have a different idea. Or jump in and say it just might have been a big crunch. Or weigh in with the professionals and say that “nothing” preceded the Big Bang. I don’t want you to come back later and say the big crunch idea is crap. Say it is crap now and say why it is crap.

[Ophiolite]

I'm trying to write into this that this is my own view of cosmology and that I am trying to make it a physical picture that I can visualize where a possible cause of expansion is the starting point. All of your writing has the appearance of speculation that is devoid of any consideration of reality. You may be being imaginative, but it is the same imagination that generates fantasy stories. There is nothing wrong with fantasies, until we start thinking they may be real.

I gave you links to support the view that nothing can come from nothing,.They do not prove that nothing can come from nothing, therefore they do not provide a rock solid foundation for your entire thesis. This is akin to what Oli(?) pointed out, that your axioms were not actually axioms.

I did some math to show that math can be made to say anything, :.As prometheus said, bollocks. If you actually believe that you demonstrated that you are even more foolish and uneducated than I gave you credit for.

But maybe you are saying that the Napoleon part is that I have a prime objective, or the fact that only I can maintain the document, or maybe the outward view that I won't engage with Prom/AN though I actually am when it is necessary to keep them around.
.
No, the reference to Napoleon is that you are ****ing delusional.
You said you were perfectly happy with how things were going with QWC.
I pointed out that some people thought they were Napoleon. They were happy, but they weren't Napoleon. i.e. you may be happy with QWC that does not mean that anything about it is correct.

I added a caution to parents and youth which should be sufficient to tell people this is dangerous stuff. .Dangerous?:rolleyes:
You credit yourself and your ideas with way to much importance.
But if keeping you around means taking your hurtful jabs and having to feel remorse about how bad a job I do on my threads, feeling the dejection from people like you and never getting any attaboys like the self proclaimed forum experts get when they dis me, then so be it More self indulgence.

[Ophiolite]

Among the proud claims of Big Bang Theory advocates is that BBT is the best that we can do, the math works at all scales right down to the Planck regime, the theory explains what we observe without needing any new physics, the theory has made many predictions that have proven to be correct, and the theory brands as nonsense any discussion about other origins of the universe besides “it came from nothing” because they don’t know what that “nothing” was.You really have to be called to account for this persistent strawman.

Most Big Bang proponents do not have anything to say about what came before the Big Bang.
This is pretty much the same as evolutionists. They do not have much to say about how life originated. They might be intrigued about how it arose, but it is a subject well outside their speciality. Are you going to continue to be like the religious nutters who conflate abiogenesis and evolution?

Most Big Bang proponents do not claim that Big Bang originated from nothing. Those who express a view are more likely to say that they have no bloody idea.

Some Big Bang proponents are starting to envisage ways in which we might probe the reality 'before' the Big Bang. It is highly speculative, but the speculations are founded on valid observations and the IFs are very well highlighted, not taken as axiomatic.

So please stop putting false words into the mouths of BBT proponents and then attacking those false words. It is a cheap and ignorant trick.

[quantum_wave]

As prometheus said, bollocks. If you actually believe that you demonstrated that you are even more foolish and uneducated than I gave you credit for.Prometheus and now you are denying the obvious. Math can be made to say anything, period. You are delusional if you think otherwise. You are intellectually dishonest if you say that and know otherwise.



Dangerous?:rolleyes:
You credit yourself and your ideas with way to much importance.
More self indulgence.You are not following closely enough. The fear for our children has been voiced by Prometheus, AN, and Oli. Go back and read what you are so anxious to discredit.

You really have to be called to account for this persistent strawman.

Most Big Bang proponents do not have anything to say about what came before the Big Bang.
This is pretty much the same as evolutionists. They do not have much to say about how life originated. They might be intrigued about how it arose, but it is a subject well outside their speciality. Are you going to continue to be like the religious nutters who conflate abiogenesis and evolution?Talk about straw men.


Most Big Bang proponents do not claim that Big Bang originated from nothing. Those who express a view are more likely to say that they have no bloody idea.
You should try to familiarize yourself with BBT. They don't have to say it came from nothing anymore than they say what caused the expansion in the first place. They don't say. But look at the writing about BBT over the years and you will see that they do not deny that it is implied that the entire universe emerged from an infinitely dense zero volume point in space. I call that nothing. What exactly do you call it? Would you answer that for me; of course not.


Some Big Bang proponents are starting to envisage ways in which we might probe the reality 'before' the Big Bang. It is highly speculative, but the speculations are founded on valid observations and the IFs are very well highlighted, not taken as axiomatic.I seem to be more aware than you are of where the professionals are going with this and why. You seem to be talking about my lack of understanding when it is much more likely that you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.


So please stop putting false words into the mouths of BBT proponents and then attacking those false words. It is a cheap and ignorant trick.Most scientific professionals are able to put their science into perspective with the past and the future, realizing that “tentativeness” is a major part of life for scientists. They don’t lash out at anyone who is discussing alternatives with a sound methodology. Speculation requires a methodology just like science theory requires the scientific method. Do you understand that?

You have either decided to ignore what I have been saying or simply jump on the band wagon with the professionals. Professional scientists by a wide margin accept BBT. You seem to agree.

Professionals who step out of the fold and put forth alternative ideas become career disadvantaged and you don't deny that. When a tiny segment of so called professionals lash out at alternative ideas presented for discussion it makes me wonder.

Are you aware that there is a movement that is gaining support within the scientific community to reconcile GR and particle physics and they are saying that particle physics is likely to come out on top? Look at the last paragraph in the link below. Are you familiar with String Theory? Are you familiar with the incompatibility between GR and particle physics?

When you read links like this, http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/08/testing-general-relativity.html, do you still insist that BBT is the "be all and end all" of cosmology? If so, you are the one who is deluded.

This rampage from a self proclaimed communications expert says to me that you have some issues that go beyond communication. Are you also committed to a dying theory and don’t want to let it go for some reason? What possible reason could there be to cling to BBT to the extent that you absolutely can't stand to have someone say it is not the "be all and end all" that you seem to want it to be?

Can I take you poor excuse of a post as an objection to step one in QWC, i.e. that it was a big crunch that preceded the initial expansion of our observable universe?

[AlphaNumeric]

and the theory brands as nonsense any discussion about other origins of the universe besides “it came from nothing” because they don’t know what that “nothing” was.
No, it doesn't. As said, saying "BB proponents must comment on what happened before the BB!" is like telling an evolution proponent "You must explain how life started!". Its not true. The BB theory is about the fact that all the physics we currently know allows us to wind time back and we find it was small and hot about 14 billion years ago. We can find time back such that the universe gets so small and hot it reaches energy scales which are the limits of our understanding. We can also extrapolate, in a vague way, that if you could wind time back further it would seem our theories break down about a billionth of a second away from the universe having zero size.

That's it. No "The BB theory says the universe was a singular point" or "The universe came from nothing". We trust our theories enough to wind back to a particular point in time. Beyond that we have only arm waving and vague guess work. The universe may not have been a singularity but we can't analyse it because our models break down.

Just as evolution says "Life began somehow. What does it do then?" cosmology says "The universe began somehow and became small and hot. What does it do then?".

Before the moment in time where our theories allow us to wind time forwards we can't so much with confidence. If you cling to general relativity still then you end up with a singularity where time and space lose their meaning so it's fruitless to ask "What happened before that" because the context of 'before' is lost. This has arisen because you've trusted a theory in an area where it's no longer trustworthy.

Here's a simpler example, accelerating particles. The Newtonian KE of an object is \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}. Put in v=c and you get \frac{1}{2}mc^{2}. Large but finite. Relativity says v=c gives infinite energy, you can't get to v=c. Now if you trusted Newtonian mechanics too much you'd think you could examine speeds of v=c or v>c, that it's physically meaningful to do so but when you learn of the more powerful theory of relativity you find it's not a wise thing to do. Just as trusting general relativity when quantum mechanics is important is not too wise.

That is why I have a personal cosmology called Quantum Wave Cosmology: So it's a personal story you've invented in order to make you feel that the question has an answer you can grasp. Just like religious people invent supernatural explainations like "God did it" when something they don't grasp occurs.

I mentioned and you know that science professionals by and large remain advocates of BBT and the fact is that if they didn’t they would lose stature with their peers. Yes, it's one giant intimidation supported conspiracy. :rolleyes: It's nothing at all to do with the fact your 'work' doesn't resemble science at all.

Name a professional who wants to be the first to say that maybe something physical preceded the expansion of our observable universe?Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking. Both of them have put forword ideas about how our 4d universe came about. Welcome to last century.

Who wants to say that matter cannot come from empty space so if empty space did pre-exist the Big Bang, where did the energy come from?If gravity or dark energy are negative then they can counterbalance the positive energy of matter. Again, welcome to last century.

If they were to take those stances they would be limiting their careers in the short term. Yeah, Turok and Hawking limited their careers to being professors at Cambridge. I bet they regret that!

Until they evolve BBT they can’t hope to explain the cause of the Big Bang. Can you wait for them to move? You will be dead before the standard cosmology addresses the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.By your logic people studying the evolution of diseases are wasting time because they don't know the origin of the first bacteria.

Jump in and say it wasn’t a big crunch because you have a different idea. Or jump in and say it just might have been a big crunch. Or weigh in with the professionals and say that “nothing” preceded the Big Bang. It is clear that you have spent no time reading up about what other ideas people have given for the origin of our space-time because you seem to be under the impression that if you asked anyone in academia the only proposed thing you'd get was "Nothing, it came from nowhere", which is false. And that's what makes the following all the more hypocritical :

You should try to familiarize yourself with BBT. They don't have to say it came from nothing anymore than they say what caused the expansion in the first place. They don't say. But look at the writing about BBT over the years and you will see that they do not deny that it is implied that the entire universe emerged from an infinitely dense zero volume point in space. I call that nothing. What exactly do you call it? Would you answer that for me; of course not.You should familiarise yourself with cosmology. The BB theory is about the universe once being small and hot. Where that small, hot entity came from is another thing, just as ambiogenesis is different from evolution. And when you say "look at the writing about BBT" you mean "Go read pop science magazines or newspaper interviews or watch a TV documentary where they remove all the quantitative stuff, remove most of the details, twist some of the statements and only talk to a small number of physicists.". The real 'writing on cosmology' are found on ArXiv or in journals.

You're telling people to do something you yourself haven't done.

I seem to be more aware than you are of where the professionals are going with this and why. You seem to be talking about my lack of understanding when it is much more likely that you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.No, you aren't more aware of what the professionals say. What was the last published paper you read on this stuff? Give a citation.

They don’t lash out at anyone who is discussing alternatives with a sound methodology'Sound methodology'? Since when is simply making stuff up and refusing (or being unable) to use precise logic 'sound'?

Are you aware that there is a movement that is gaining support within the scientific community to reconcile GR and particle physics and they are saying that particle physics is likely to come out on top? Look at the last paragraph in the link below. Are you familiar with String Theory? Are you familiar with the incompatibility between GR and particle physics?
Oh and I bet you're a real whiz at string theory and have first hand experience of doing renormalisations (or attempted renormalisations) of gravity theories? Did you intentionally word that so it seems like you're familiar with those areas of physics or was it an unfortunate unintended result and infact you aren't trying to pretend you know much much more than you actually do about mainstream physics? If you knew about string theory in even a vaguely decent qualitative way you'd know it provides at least one possible explaination for the creation of our universe, put forth by the aforementioned Professor Turok of Cambridge University.

[quantum_wave]

One question, can you state my prime objective and the methodology I use to achieve it?

No one objects then to the big crunch preceding the Big Bang so now we move on to step II. of Quantum Wave Cosmology, "The formation and burst of a big crunch into an expanding arena like our own."

Read the entire section in the Google.doc: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

I am going to be covering each of the 36 steps individually and will revise them as I get useful feedback from the community. As we go through them I will also be updating them to better reflect the stages of the arena wave and the arena particle in each step. The arena particle is the core of the big crunch, and the corresponding particle at the quantum level is the high density spot. The wave form at both levels is the same and the physics are strikingly similar with only some limiting factors to avoid the catastrophe of infinite regression.


The arena wave at the arena level is very similar to the quantum wave or gravity wave at the quantum level. I want to make sure that the Step II. detail will correspond to the Step III. detail to make that point obvious when we get into Step III.

Thanks in advance for you constructive comments about Step II. and for staying around to at least give me an audience.

[AlphaNumeric]

One question, can you state my prime objective and the methodology I use to achieve it?You want a cosmology which you find acceptable and simple and your method is to simply look at what other people have done or suggested, take the bits you find you like, put them all under the banner of QWC and then proclaim you've got a model/theory which goes where science doesn't.

This is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. Secondly, just because you like something doesn't make it right. Thirdly, picking bits hap-hazardly from other ideas means all your 'results' as determined as axioms, you derive nothing. Every output is an input. A theory doesn't predict the mass of the electron if you have to go out and measure the electron mass to put into your theory and so you picking and choosing such things as "The universe underwent a big crunch before the BB" doesn't mean you've predicted it from something more basic. Einstein used the Einstein Field Equations to show that the universe cannot be static unless very very precise conditions are met, it'll more likely be getting bigger or smaller. Thus the prediction of a non-static universe is obtained from more fundamental assumptions. And fourthly, even if you have all the right outcomes/predictions if you cannot obtain them all from a shorter list of assumptions then you explain none of them. A theory is useful because you get out more predictions than inputs. If not, you might as well forget having a model and simply tabulate all measurements for phenomena, since it'll be just as good a way of describing nature.

The arena particle is the core of the big crunch, and the corresponding particle at the quantum level is the high density spot. The wave form at both levels is the same and the physics are strikingly similar with only some limiting factors to avoid the catastrophe of infinite regression.Where have you obtained that from? Have you derived it from something or simply made it up?

And I love how you didn't respond to any of my points where I pointed out your claims about the BB or mainstream physicists were total BS. Aren't you man enough to admit when you're wrong and a hypocrite for telling other people to read up on something you haven't read up on?

[quantum_wave]

Good, I'm glad you are beginning to understand what a prime objective is. You aren't quite up to the task of grasping it, but you are trying. Stay with me and perhaps you can get with the program as we go along. Good luck.

Now can you state the methodology? And can you then step back and characterize your comments and how they compare with the prime objective and the methodology. How important are your comments in the light of the prime objective and the methodology? You can answer that but you won't admit to the correct answer.

Just because you read QWC doesn't mean you even come close to grasping it. You have to approach it from the perspective of the prime objective, you have to have a broad understanding of cosmology, and you have to want it to be the best answer for you personally so you use a methodology that leads to continual improvement. I don't care what you think except that having you stay with me encourages me to work on it. Thanks.

[AlphaNumeric]

Good, I'm glad you are beginning to understand what a prime objective is. And I think it's a stupid one. Working by the rule that if you don't like it then it's wrong isn't how you go about science because you're assuming your preferences are the guiding principles of nature.

A famous example of this is Robert Andrews Millikan, who hated the idea of light being packets of energy, as Planck and Einstein had said, so he set out to prove that Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect was nonsense, experimentally refutable. He spent a lot of time doing careful experiments and confirmed Einstein's predictions so well he got a Nobel Prize for it!

You have no education or familiarity with the world of physics and are, compared to actual physicists, innumerate. You are unaware of the vast majority of experiments relating to cosmology and have no knowledge of the plethora of theories put forth over the years to explain various cosmological phenomena. So what makes you think you're in so good a position that you can determine a valid cosmological model purely by what you like or dislike? One of your axioms seems to be "If I like it, it's in QWC, if not then it's not". This is hardly self evident so you need to explain it. Can you?

You aren't quite up to the task of grasping it, but you are trying. Stay with me and perhaps you can get with the program as we go along. Good luck.Yes, clearly your work is so advanced and complicated that I'm failing to grasp it and I need to have my hand held as you walk me through it. :rolleyes:

Now can you state the methodology? You pick and choose what you want in your work and when you find questions which science can't make a reasonable attempt at you simply invent your version of "God did it" and slap it under the title of 'QWC'.

And can you then step back and characterize your comments and how they compare with the prime objective and the methodology. How important are your comments in the light of the prime objective and the methodology? You can answer that but you won't admit to the correct answer.My questions are fundamental to your work. If you can't give a clear reason for why you proclaim QWC explains things or how you arrive as your explainations then there is zero reason to work on it because you could just as easily have proposed a completely different explaination for a phenomenon and called it QWC.

Just because you read QWC doesn't mean you even come close to grasping it.There's nothing to grasp. It's simply your monologue on what you'd propose might be how things work, but you offer no reason or evidence or derivation for why you say those things.

Einstein said that motion gives time dilation because he could algebraically derive how clocks must behave given the two postulates of special relativity. Every single step, every bit of logic, every derivation is done so that the path from postulates to prediction is clear. You offer none of that, you simply pluck explainations out of the air, you make no attempt to derive things consistently from postulates, you make no attempt to justify anything you say.

. You have to approach it from the perspective of the prime objective, you have to have a broad understanding of cosmology, and you have to want it to be the best answer for you personally so you use a methodology that leads to continual improvement.But you don't have a broad understanding of cosmology, that much is clear. And the 'best answer' isn't 'the best answer for you personally', it's the answer which most accurately describes Nature. Newtonian gravity is considerably simpler than general relativity and many people, including NASA, prefer to use it to do their calculations but that doesn't make Newtonian gravity 'the best answer'. Loads of people (almost all laypersons) dislike quantum mechanics, some kind of classical picture would be much nicer from a view of asthetics but nature seems to rule that out.

Being a scientist is about having a personal opinion and being able to ignore it or change it in the light of evidence. Planck disliked his prediction of quantised matter. Einstein disliked the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger disliked the notion of quantum superposition. Yet, none the less, all of them are famous for precisely those things. They put personal preference aside because they realised their assumptions were wrong.

I don't care what you think Translation : "I'm going to ignore peer review* because I seem to think scientific methodology doesn't apply to me."

*I in no way consider you my peer. In a bad way for you.

[quantum_wave]

...

Translation : "I'm going to ignore peer review* because I seem to think scientific methodology doesn't apply to me."No, that is not it.

*I in no way consider you my peer. In a bad way for you.Well, duh :shrug:.

[quantum_wave]

These are closer to axioms and corollaries compared to what I had mentioned earlier. As a non professional, if they aren't axioms and corollaries, I consider the following to be self evident to me personally and so they are the basis of QWC:
Nothing yields nothing
Everything is composed of energy
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
The universe is composed of energy
The universe was not created
There was no beginning
The universe has always existed

Any comments before I incorporate them into the document to open the discussion of the speculations of Step II., "The formation and burst of a big crunch into an expanding arena like our own"?

[prometheus]

Nothing yields nothing

This goes against quantum mechanics, which has been extensively tested by experiment.


Everything is composed of energy
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
The universe is composed of energy

You need a definition of energy here.


The universe was not created
There was no beginning
The universe has always existed

If an infinite amount of time has to pass before we get to this time, it's logically absurd to suppose that we'd ever get there.

I have two questions: Why are you doing this? It's obvious you acknowledge your "work" as pointless. Also, you haven't explained why "arena action" isn't a fairy yet. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928)

[quantum_wave]

...
If an infinite amount of time has to pass before we get to this time, it's logically absurd to suppose that we'd ever get there.Yikes, and you believe this?

I doesn't have to make sense to you, only to me.

Can you state the prime objective of QWC?

Can you describe the methodology?

They are in the Google.doc: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

[AlphaNumeric]

As a non professional, if they aren't axioms and corollaries, I consider the following to be self evident to me personally Immediately a flawed method. Something obvious to you isn't always obvious to other people. And not all obvious things are self evident.

1 Nothing yields nothing
2 Everything is composed of energy
3 Energy cannot be created or destroyed
4 The universe is composed of energy
5 The universe was not created
6 There was no beginning
7 The universe has always existed1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are not self evident. I'd argue if 2 is and if 2 isn't then neither is 4. Further more, they are not all independent. 5, 6 and 7 say the same thing and 2 implies 4.

And I see you completely ignored my repeated pointing out that you were wrong in your claims that saying anything other than "Before the BB was nothing" hinders your career. Aren't you able to say "Yep, turns out I was wrong"? :rolleyes:

[quantum_wave]

Immediately a flawed method. Something obvious to you isn't always obvious to other people. And not all obvious things are self evident.

1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are not self evident. I'd argue if 2 is and if 2 isn't then neither is 4. Further more, they are not all independent. 5, 6 and 7 say the same thing and 2 implies 4.
I like them though. I'm using them in the Google.doc:http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt


And I see you completely ignored my repeated pointing out that you were wrong in your claims that saying anything other than "Before the BB was nothing" hinders your career. Aren't you able to say "Yep, turns out I was wrong"? :rolleyes:Well, if you take it literally, but you get the idea. It applies in the BBT circles. I agree that BBT is not the only game in town careerwise. Look at what you are wasting your time on :D.

[quantum_wave]

... If an infinite amount of time has to pass before we get to this time, it's logically absurd to suppose that we'd ever get there.

I don't want to engage your comments until you give up on the fairy dust but sometimes you say things that just can't ignored; rarely I'll admit.

Time is a measure of the interval between events. Every event that has occurred in the infinite past occurred at a point in time. The interval between any two events is finite. If there was no beginning then the interval between now and the beginning is nonsense because the beginning cannot be marked by a point in time. Your statement is the one that is absurd and I suggest you research the logic.

[quantum_wave]

Nothing yields nothing



This goes against quantum mechanics, which has been extensively tested by experiment.



And hell, while I'm at it, your comment is probably made concerning some experiment that took place within an existing universe. Try to pull it off if there is no universe, i.e. if there is nothing. Get with it, you are the self proclaimed expert on what is and is not science.

[prometheus]

In the quantum world, nothing can quite literally become something via the uncertainty principle.

[quantum_wave]

In the quantum world, nothing can quite literally become something via the uncertainty principle.So you are saying that something could come from nothing, literally? Or are you saying that there is a theory that describes the wave function where if you already have a universe, then if you consider the probability that a particle is located somewhere at all times, we just can't know where it is at all times, you consider that equivalent to something coming from nothing. Please confirm you are saying this or say it in your words if you like.

[prometheus]

I'm saying that if quantum mechanics is correct then something can literally come from nothing.

[quantum_wave]

I'm saying that if quantum mechanics is correct then something can literally come from nothing.You won't take a position on "if it is correct"? Do you understand the difference between something appearing as though it came from nothing even though it is an event within an existing universe (composed of energy), and something coming from nothing if there is no existing universe? I did post a good definition of "nothing" earlier. You are not quite using "nothing" to get something.

And are you still saying that it is absurd to consider the idea that the universe has always existed because you believe that if time was infinite backward we could never get to now? You might want to comment about this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2318502&postcount=110

And one more time, can't you distinguish between my prime objective with its methodology and Guest's fairy dust. Can you see a difference between invoking Guest's fantasy (not science) and discussing ideas about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe? Say yes or no.

[AlphaNumeric]

I like them though. I'm using them in the Google.doc:http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgtAnd there's proof you aren't interested in science, logic, methodology or truth.

Irrespective of how nonsense your 'postulates' are you're not going to change them. Since everything is built from those, there's no reason to look at your work.

Check mate.

Well, if you take it literally, but you get the idea. It applies in the BBT circles. I agree that BBT is not the only game in town careerwise. Look at what you are wasting your time on . My work doesn't have anything to do with the BB. If the BB is true or false my work's validity is independent. Also, string theory provides Neil Turok with a way to have something before the BB which then produced our universe. So your statement " It applies in the BBT circles. " is still wrong. You said the BB people cannot have any other answer but "Nothing was before the BB". Wrong. I can think of at least 3 different things which are more than "There was nothing" put forth by people in the last 20 years, one of which makes use of string theory. Time and again you're wrong. Why don't you save us all the hassle and stop just making things up about mainstream physics because you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out the truth?

[prometheus]

You won't take a position on "if it is correct"?

quantum mechanics is obviously correct - that part of the statement was meant to be rhetorical.


And are you still saying that it is absurd to consider the idea that the universe has always existed because you believe that if time was infinite backward we could never get to now? You might want to comment about this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2318502&postcount=110

You didn't answer the conundrum. If time has always existed there can always be two events that are separated by an infinite amount of time, which seems to be absurd.


And one more time, can't you distinguish between my prime objective with its methodology and Guest's fairy dust. Can you see a difference between invoking Guest's fantasy (not science) and discussing ideas about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe? Say yes or no.

I did exactly what you asked - you asked "Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked." I did exactly that - what you are calling arena action is nothing more than a fairy. You say arena action causes the big bang but you might as well say fairies cause the big bang.

[quantum_wave]

And there's proof you aren't interested in science, logic, methodology or truth.

Irrespective of how nonsense your 'postulates' are you're not going to change them. Since everything is built from those, there's no reason to look at your work.

Check mate.

My work doesn't have anything to do with the BB. If the BB is true or false my work's validity is independent. Also, string theory provides Neil Turok with a way to have something before the BB which then produced our universe. So your statement " It applies in the BBT circles. " is still wrong. You said the BB people cannot have any other answer but "Nothing was before the BB". Wrong. I can think of at least 3 different things which are more than "There was nothing" put forth by people in the last 20 years, one of which makes use of string theory. Time and again you're wrong. Why don't you save us all the hassle and stop just making things up about mainstream physics because you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out the truth?

quantum mechanics is obviously correct - that part of the statement was meant to be rhetorical.



You didn't answer the conundrum. If time has always existed there can always be two events that are separated by an infinite amount of time, which seems to be absurd.



I did exactly what you asked - you asked "Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked." I did exactly that - what you are calling arena action is nothing more than a fairy. You say arena action causes the big bang but you might as well say fairies cause the big bang.:smirk: and :smirk:.

You are both ignorant of basic science, what is and isn't fact and truth, and ignorant of what I am doing.

Why I waste my time with you is clear. You don't see it but maybe it is that you are the peanut gallery?

I'll try to find time to begin getting into step II, The formation and burst of a big crunch into an expanding arena like our own.

Why don't you two go back and read the prime objective and methodology discussed in the Introduction of the Google.doc and try to keep up from now on: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

Prom, you are just being funny about an infinite amount of time between two events, right. Think about what you are saying man.

AN, you think what you do has anything to do with cosmology? Please.

I am picking up where you leave off and can't go. Read the document, get with the program or quit wasting our time.

[prometheus]

Can't explain what arena action is then?

[quantum_wave]

Can't explain what arena action is then?You are going to get a good dose of that explanation so be sure to pay attention.

But you, ... you have demonstrated a serious flaw in your grasp of reality. You still think that if time is infinite backward we could never get to now? You still think that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events? Seriously, you have a flawed sense of logic. It would be interesting to have others who agree with that thinking chime in to give you support there. The fact that you entertain those fallacious thoughts explains why you can't distinguish between QWC's objective and methodology, and invoking fantasy. That says it all right there.

[prometheus]

Still no explanation of why arena action is not a fairy.

[quantum_wave]

Still no explanation of why arena action is not a fairy.You missed where I said, "You are going to get a good dose of that explanation so be sure to pay attention".

But you also must have missed where I said, "... you have demonstrated a serious flaw in your grasp of reality. You still think that if time is infinite backward we could never get to now? You still think that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events? Seriously, you have a flawed sense of logic. It would be interesting to have others who agree with that thinking chime in to give you support there. The fact that you entertain those fallacious thoughts explains why you can't distinguish between QWC's objective and methodology, and invoking fantasy. That says it all right there."

Can you explain?

And to add insult to injury, you still think that an experiment that supposedly shows something coming from nothing can be mentioned without linking to the source? When I say, "Nothing yields nothing", do you think that even if you had provided such a link that it would have been applicable. Did you read the definition of nothing that I posted? It include "no existing universe", duh. You might as will be Quest's sock.

[prometheus]

You missed where I said, "You are going to get a good dose of that explanation so be sure to pay attention".

Where is it then?


But you also must have missed where I said, "... you have demonstrated a serious flaw in your grasp of reality. You still think that if time is infinite backward we could never get to now? You still think that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events? Seriously, you have a flawed sense of logic. It would be interesting to have others who agree with that thinking chime in to give you support there. The fact that you entertain those fallacious thoughts explains why you can't distinguish between QWC's objective and methodology, and invoking fantasy. That says it all right there."

Can you explain?

Your understanding of infinity is lacking, which is not that surprising since the human brain is not wired to understand infinity. It's fairly obvious though, that if you have a dimension that's infinite in extent then it is possible to have two points on that dimension that are separated by an infinite distance. It's like saying that If you have a line that's 1m long you can't have two points separated on that line by 1m.


And to add insult to injury, you still think that an experiment that supposedly shows something coming from nothing can be mentioned without linking to the source? When I say, "Nothing yields nothing", do you think that even if you had provided such a link that it would have been applicable. Did you read the definition of nothing that I posted? It include "no existing universe", duh. You might as will be Quest's sock.

Here you are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadpole_(physics)) You want to apply your own rules - nothing can yield nothing as long there is no universe in which for it to happen. Since you can never do an experiment outside the universe it's unfalsifiable. Nice. Of course, that doesn't appear in your "axiom."

[quantum_wave]

Where is it then?Wait for it.
Your understanding of infinity is lacking, which is not that surprising since the human brain is not wired to understand infinity. It's fairly obvious though, that if you have a dimension that's infinite in extent then it is possible to have two points on that dimension that are separated by an infinite distance. It's like saying that If you have a line that's 1m long you can't have two points separated on that line by 1m.Perhaps you can get someone else to help you understand how what you say is foolish.

Here you are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadpole_(physics)) You want to apply your own rules - nothing can yield nothing as long there is no universe in which for it to happen. Since you can never do an experiment outside the universe it's unfalsifiable. Nice. Of course, that doesn't appear in your "axiom."So your understanding of the concept, "Nothing yields nothing" is from Wiki? OK, you don't like the definition of "nothing" that I posted. Perhaps your fog could be lifted by defining "nothing" for us all.

[quantum_wave]

Moving on to the speculations:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94385


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94385


Those two threads establish a perfect starting point for discussion of ideas about how a big crunch might have caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.

The threads highlight several posts by me that are over speculative. I consider that a perfect recommendation. Posts about the idea that a big crunch preceded the Big Bang are over speculative as far as the mainstream is concerned and so, guess what? We can’t talk about the big crunch preceding the big bang and we can’t discuss ideas about how a big crunch could be the initial cause of the expansion of our observable universe.

While the idea that something can come from nothing is revered? Go figure.

For those who aren’t yet playing the game, here is the link that describes the prime objective of QWC and presents in detail the methodology.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

For those who are ready to move into the actual QWC speculations:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

The speculations of QWC achieve the prime objective. In addition, the methodology, when continuously applied, maintains the fulfillment of the objective by providing a mechanism for updating QWC via the Google.doc.

The speculations: They are step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible, collaborative speculations. If you are unsure what that means you should review I. “Introduction to QWC” and particularly the methodology.

Is there even one person in the community who will say that it is not fantasy to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the expansion? If not, sad but true. No matter

[prometheus]

Is there even one person in the community who will say that it is not fantasy to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the expansion? If not, sad but true. No matter

How stupid you are. It has been said many times that discussing what potentially came before the BB is not fantasy - people have proposed models in string theory and loop quantum gravity and probably others on the subject. However, what you are doing is fantasy, as I have pointed out and am yet to get a reply to. Surprise surprise.

[prometheus]

Perhaps you can get someone else to help you understand how what you say is foolish.

Why don't you have a go? It should be entertaining if nothing else.

So your understanding of the concept, "Nothing yields nothing" is from Wiki? OK, you don't like the definition of "nothing" that I posted. Perhaps your fog could be lifted by defining "nothing" for us all.

I got my understanding of quantum field theory from the books and papers I've read and the lectures I've attended on the subject. Wiki is a convenient link that describes tadpoles well enough to get a flavour. Since it is your "work" that we are discussing I suggest you define nothing for your readers, and cease the misleading statements. You certainly have not defined "nothing" yet.

[quantum_wave]

How stupid you are. It has been said many times that discussing what potentially came before the BB is not fantasy - people have proposed models in string theory and loop quantum gravity and probably others on the subject. However, what you are doing is fantasy, as I have pointed out and am yet to get a reply to. Surprise surprise.

Why don't you have a go? It should be entertaining if nothing else.



I got my understanding of quantum field theory from the books and papers I've read and the lectures I've attended on the subject. Wiki is a convenient link that describes tadpoles well enough to get a flavour. Since it is your "work" that we are discussing I suggest you define nothing for your readers, and cease the misleading statements. You certainly have not defined "nothing" yet.Resorting to ad homs are you. A sure sign of how frustrated you have become trying to prove something that you are not capable of understanding. Your abilities have been shown to exclude common logic and scientific basics.

You are totally discredited. You believe that the universe could not have always existed. You say that is so because if time was infinite backward we could never get to now. You say that the human mind cannot grasp the concept of infinity. But then you say that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events. You say that there can be an infinite distance between two points. You fail to understand the concept of “nothing”. You insist that something can come from nothing. And to top it off, your biggest fantasy is that I am stupid.

But knowing finally how you feel, I won’t be paying any attention to your off topic ranting. Read the OP again.

I will be busy working on the updates to QWC Step II to the Google.doc that I mentioned. You can follow along by viewing it here:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt for the Introduction, prime objective, and methodology, and

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 for the speculations.

[AlphaNumeric]

Is there even one person in the community who will say that it is not fantasy to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the expansion? If not, sad but true. No matterNow you're going from just being a bit clingy to your ideas to being a flat out liar.

I specifically told you, I made a big point of correcting you, that your claim that "If anyone in the academic community answers anything other than "Nothing" to the question of 'What came before the big bang' they hinder their career" was WRONG.

'The big crunch' is an idea people have put forward. The fact you use the term 'the big crunch', as coined by a physicist, shows its an idea which didn't originate with you and yet this fact escapes you. People have considered a big crunch both down into a singularity and a big crunch where things shrink down to a small region, but not a singularity, and then rebound by something like radiation pressure. Other ideas are such things as brane cosmology as put forth by the person I've mentioned multiple times, Neil Turok.

So not only have you done no research before making your claims you actively ignore it when people correct you on facts. Simple facts. We've moved on from the realm of you just being unsure about how scientific methodology actually works to you being a flat out fraud.

So your understanding of the concept, "Nothing yields nothing" is from Wiki? Prom and I actually do research. We can point to published work with our names on it. We get our information from previous people's research, some of which is old and established enough to be in textbooks, some from journals and papers. Unlike your method of "If I like the sound of it, it's in my theory", we have to use clear rigorous methodology, including a great deal of quantitative stuff. If you want the source of my quantum field theory knowledge, get ahold of 'An introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroder. More than 800 pages and at £30 worth every bloody penny.

[prometheus]

You are totally discredited.

You are very funny. As AN has said, both he and I have published work in the area of theoretical physics so for you to say you have discredited me is a work of fiction.

If you want the source of my quantum field theory knowledge, get ahold of 'An introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroder. More than 800 pages and at £30 worth every bloody penny.

Personally I'm rather fond of "Aspects of Symmetry" by Sidney Coleman. It's a bit off the beaten track but very readable. I also quite like "Quantum field theory" by Ryder.

[quantum_wave]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Is there even one person in the community who will say that it is not fantasy to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the expansion? If not, sad but true. No matter. Now you're going from just being a bit clingy to your ideas to being a flat out liar.Let's not quibble over semantics. I said "discuss" the topic, not just consider it possible.

I specifically told you, I made a big point of correcting you, that your claim that "If anyone in the academic community answers anything other than "Nothing" to the question of 'What came before the big bang' they hinder their career" was WRONG.I agreed even though finding myself in agreement with you was distasteful.

The fact you use the term 'the big crunch', as coined by a physicist, shows its an idea which didn't originate with you and yet this fact escapes you. You are just pretending that I am saying I originated the idea but if you won't admit you are wrong, then use the quote feature to show where I claim to have originated the idea of a big crunch.
'The big crunch' is an idea people have put forward.
People have considered a big crunch both down into a singularity and a big crunch where things shrink down to a small region, but not a singularity, and then rebound by something like radiation pressure. Other ideas are such things as brane cosmology as put forth by the person I've mentioned multiple times, Neil Turok.Good enough, because that concept is the initial step in QWC, i.e. a big crunch preceded the initial expansion of our observable universe. But if you had bothered to follow the discussion you would see where there were steps involved with arriving at the big crunch as the starting point of QWC. Did you miss the links and discussion that brought us to that starting point?

So not only have you done no research before making your claims you actively ignore it when people correct you on facts. Simple facts. We've moved on from the realm of you just being unsure about how scientific methodology actually works to you being a flat out fraud.Now that is just not true. I have done a lot of research, I haven't ignored what you, Prom, Oli or anyone has said, but you have failed to grasp what I have said. I understand the scientific method, I know where it starts, and know where speculation begins, and I have presented a well thought out methodology for dealing with speculative approach to what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. You never responded to the "tentativeness" of science and I am not sure you know what that means.

You seem to toss out the liar and fraud ad homs like Prom does the "stupid" ad hom. I notice that you haven't confirmed Proms discredited beliefs, but if they were any where near logical you would find a way to support them wouldn't you? You must be embarrassed for him and frustrated that you can't support him on the point that lead to his being discredited.

What I said to him applies to you.

But knowing finally how you feel, I won’t be paying any attention to your off topic ranting. Read the OP again.

I will be busy working on the updates to QWC Step II to the Google.doc that I mentioned. You can follow along by viewing it here:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt for the Introduction, prime objective, and methodology, and

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 for the speculations.

[AlphaNumeric]

You are just pretending that I am saying I originated the idea but if you won't admit you are wrong, then use the quote feature to show where I claim to have originated the idea of a big crunch.No, my point is that you are using a term which is immediately recognisable to anyone interested in cosmology. Why? Because it's a well known concept. If you were thinking with even the slightest open mind you'd then ask yourself "So where'd the concept come from?". Well if it's so well known and used in TV programs or science magazines then it's extremely likely it's originally due to a physicist (just as 'big bang' is), so physicists have discussed such things. If you were intellectually curious or had any integrity you'd then say to yourself "Maybe I should check up on how seriously this is taken in the physics community".

But you didn't. Instead you proclaimed "Talking about anything before the BB will hinder your academic career in physics", despite using terminology specifically relating to a concept of something before the big bang which you should have realised originated from academia. So my point is you know you didn't come up with the phrase 'big crunch' but it didn't occur to you to ask "So who did?" and then you'd have found out your claim was wrong.

But if you had bothered to follow the discussion you would see where there were steps involved with arriving at the big crunch as the starting point of QWC..I've already explained the invalidity of your 'postulates' so I can only arrive at the conclusion you simply decided the BB was preceded by a big crunch because you find it aesthetically pleasing and not as intellectually daunting as other concepts in cosmology.

I have done a lot of researchAnd yet you made the claim "Talking about anything before the BB will hinder your academic career in physics" when its easy to find out that's not true. And your 'research' can't have involved reading papers as you don't know any mathematics. So what was your 'research'? Typing 'big bang' into Google?

I haven't ignored what you, Prom, Oli or anyone has saidYou've actually put us on ignore before! And this very page of this thread you utterly ignored my comments about how your postulates are neither self evidence nor independent. You also ignore our fundamental point which is that you have utterly ignored scientific methodology.

I have presented a well thought out methodology for dealing with speculative approach to what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.That's not true. You have absolutely not followed a well thought out methodology. That's what we've been trying to get you to grasp. You randomly pick postulates and then you jump to unrelated conclusions. And even if you didn't randomly jump to things, having random axioms gives random predictions. Garbage in, garbage out.

You never responded to the "tentativeness" of science and I am not sure you know what that means.Given my area of research I am all too aware of the tentative nature of some areas of physics. But there's a difference between the tentative nature of string theory and the utterly random ad hoc method you use.

You seem to toss out the liar and fraud ad homs like Prom does the "stupid" ad hom. I notice that you haven't confirmed Proms discredited beliefs, but if they were any where near logical you would find a way to support them wouldn't you? You must be embarrassed for him and frustrated that you can't support him on the point that lead to his being discredited.Might I suggest that before you try to put words in my mouth you try to put decent ones in yours first.

You have lied. You have been dishonest. The way you utterly ignored my very obvious criticism of your postulates demonstrates you're dishonest in your intentions to follow a 'well thought out methodology'.

[quantum_wave]

Originally Posted by QW
But knowing finally how you feel, I won’t be paying any attention to your off topic ranting. Read the OP again.

I will be busy working on the updates to QWC Step II to the Google.doc that I mentioned. You can follow along by viewing it here:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt for the Introduction, prime objective, and methodology, and

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9 for the speculations.

[prometheus]

This thread has descended into QW sticking fingers in his ears and singing "la la la I'm not listening." You're making a quite ridiculous spectacle of yourself, and you still can't answer this post. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2310928#post2310928)

[quantum_wave]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2319860&postcount=128

[AlphaNumeric]

Denouncing what we say as ad homs doesn't alter the fact you can't answer his question, you can't give a single iota of justification for your 'work' over Guest's 'Fairy theory'. Your work is dead in the water.

[quantum_wave]

Denouncing what we say as ad homs doesn't alter the fact you can't answer his question, you can't give a single iota of justification for your 'work' over Guest's 'Fairy theory'. Your work is dead in the water.Fine.

Now, since we have established that it is not fantasy to discuss a big crunch as you have pointed out, let's discuss it.

You say that it has been brought up, considered, and some even accept it as a real possibility. Off the top of my head there are two leading theories about how a big crunch might fit in. GR, as one of the possible out comes of the universe based on the value of the cosmological constant. The other is the cyclical crunch bang model.

Correct so far?

[quantum_wave]

Prom, I have just have been giving you a taste of your own medicine. You missed that nuance?

As question for you. If I start a new thread to discuss the areas where I say you are discredited, will you defend yourself? The topic of infinity and whether the human mind can really grasp it is on the borderline between science and philosophy. How about you starting a thread on the topic in the Philosophy forum or do you want me too?

[prometheus]

Prom, I have just have been giving you a taste of your own medicine. You missed that nuance?

You are really taking the piss. I've done exactly what you've asked - pointed out exactly where the fairies come into QWC and you come out with this BS? Is all this to avoid actually getting to the point and finding that you can't prove that arena action is not a fairy, ie something you made up?


As question for you. If I start a new thread to discuss the areas where I say you are discredited, will you defend yourself? The topic of infinity and whether the human mind can really grasp it is on the borderline between science and philosophy. How about you starting a thread on the topic in the Philosophy forum or do you want me too?

There's no need to start a new thread. If the length of a line is x then the maximum possible separation of two points is x. Do you agree? Now put x = infinity and the maximum possible separation is infinite. It's obvious.

[prometheus]

PS, you clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.

[AlphaNumeric]

Now, since we have established that it is not fantasy to discuss a big crunch as you have pointed out, let's discuss it.I never said it was a fantasy. It's just that to make it justifiable in any way is extremely different.

For instance, someone (possibly Hawking) once considered what the phenomenological implications of a universe collapsing, via a big crunch, to a very small, but non-singular, size was. What effect would this have on our universe? Does it alter the CMB? Or nucleotide ratios? It was a quantitative analysis so you could make somewhat justified statements about what might or might not have happened around the big bang.

You do none of this.

[quantum_wave]

You are really taking the piss. I've done exactly what you've asked - pointed out exactly where the fairies come into QWC and you come out with this BS? Is all this to avoid actually getting to the point and finding that you can't prove that arena action is not a fairy, ie something you made up?



There's no need to start a new thread. If the length of a line is x then the maximum possible separation of two points is x. Do you agree? Now put x = infinity and the maximum possible separation is infinite. It's obvious.
Since you invoked the piss word, this will piss you off. OK, there is fairy dust somewhere but as yet we haven’t gotten to it in this thread.

It is not fairy dust to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the initial expansion of our observable universe. That clears us through step one, i.e. in QWC the big crunch preceded the big bang.

Maybe you refer to the possibility that there are multiple arenas. Again, there are models already so if that is the fairy dust you refer to then it can't be my fair dust since someone beat me to it.

We can move on then to step two about arena action. In QWC it is the process of arena action that takes us from the point of intersection between two arenas to the point of intersection between the arena that occurs as a result of that intersection and any other arena that occurs in the same fashion since all arenas have similar backgrounds. In the middle of the process of arena action there is an arena particle which is the core of a big crunch.

The process of arena action generates two waves, one before the particle forms and one after the particle bursts into expansion. the particle exists in its particle state only during that middle phase. If there is fairy dust in step two it is going to be in that process. Let’s find it and get rid of it.

As we work through the speculations I will be doing a re-write of the steps to properly emphasize the wave and particle status at each step.

PS, you clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.Just keeping you on your toes.

And I do think we need to start a thread to help you with grasping infinity. Watch for it. You did say that if the universe had always existed we could never get to now. That is what made me realize that you either haven't read about it, contemplated it, or grasped it.

[quantum_wave]

I never said it was a fantasy. It's just that to make it justifiable in any way is extremely different.

For instance, someone (possibly Hawking) once considered what the phenomenological implications of a universe collapsing, via a big crunch, to a very small, but non-singular, size was. What effect would this have on our universe? Does it alter the CMB? Or nucleotide ratios? It was a quantitative analysis so you could make somewhat justified statements about what might or might not have happened around the big bang.

You do none of this.Well hell, I'm no Hawking and you are no Einstein.

The point was that discussing a big crunch was not where the fairy dust is in QWC.

I haven't seen other models that propose the same method of big crunch formation as I discuss in QWC but you might know of one or you might want to research that for me. If it turns out that others have discussed it then I came to the same idea independently.

(I can hear you now thinking or saying that you don't have time in your busy life of being a famous scientist to do meanial research for quacks.)

[AlphaNumeric]

(I can hear you now thinking or saying that you don't have time in your busy life of being a famous scientist to do meanial research for quacks.)Oh I've got the time. It's just you're not worth the effort.

[quantum_wave]

Oh I've got the time. It's just you're not worth the effort.I was using child psychology.

So you do not know of any models that use the same method of big crunch formation as I discuss in QWC, fine. I guess if you don't care how they form, one big crunch is a good as the next.

But let it be known that the big crunches in QWC are not the result of some cosmological constant. And they are not cyclical.

I have discussed the cyclical model and I find it to fail. You don't care why I would think that of course and it is not part of QWC because the formation of big crunches in QWC is perpetual throughout the greater universe. It is just that the energy that composes each individual big crunch is never completely the same energy that eventually composes the next crunch. Some of the energy in a new crunch comes from each parent crunch. Each parent arena contributes energy for the new crunch and that energy comes from the overlap space as arenas intersect. Thus the energy in each crunch is a composite of the energy in the parent arenas and the energy from the background within which arena action takes place.

[AlphaNumeric]

You don't care why I would think that of course and it is not part of QWC because the formation of big crunches in QWC is perpetual throughout the greater universe. It is just that the energy that composes each individual big crunch is never completely the same energy that eventually composes the next crunch. Some of the energy in a new crunch comes from each parent crunch. Each parent arena contributes energy for the new crunch and that energy comes from the overlap space as arenas intersect. Thus the energy in each crunch is a composite of the energy in the parent arenas and the energy from the background within which arena action takes place.AKA : If I waffle enough and throw in a few buzzwords then maybe someone will be swindled into believing I'm onto something. And I'll continue ignoring that if all the buzzwords are changed it's 'Fairy theory'.

[quantum_wave]

AKA : If I waffle enough and throw in a few buzzwords then maybe someone will be swindled into believing I'm onto something. And I'll continue ignoring that if all the buzzwords are changed it's 'Fairy theory'.That's the best you can do? Please use the quote function to show where I used buzz words.

You didn't read the OP and the Google.doc. The methodology clearly describes the lexicon and what options you have as a novice in QWC to get clarification if you can't understand the word usage.

By now I would have expected more from you, being a self proclaimed expert on something or other.

[AlphaNumeric]

That's the best you can do? Please use the quote function to show where I used buzz words.You use phrases like 'arena action' which you've already demonstrated in discussion with Prom is purely a vacuous phrase, you could just as easily have said 'quantum flux' or 'fractal gradient' or 'geodesic divergence' or any other utterly undefined (in your work) and without substance term. You talk about 'energies' but if I asked you to quantify what you mean you'd be unable to, so you could just as easily have put in 'flux' or 'aether' or 'vortex' or whatever in that. Then there's 'composite energy of parent arenas', somethign you've simply invented and have no quantitative work for so when you say "more energy" or "less energy" you aremn't saying that because you've shown that's how it's rigorously constructed, you're saying 'more' or 'less' because you've decided it. If I swapped all the 'mores' for 'lesses' in your work and vice versa it'd read exactly the same. Why? Because there's no substance to it.

By now I would have expected more from you, being a self proclaimed expert on something or other.We're in pseudoscience in a lengthy thread on your work. My expertise is not in random nonsense made up without rhyme, reason, methodology, justification, logic or rigour in an attempt to delude the author into believing that they don't have to actually know or learn anything to explain how the universe works. Or more succinctly, BS.

And unlike cranks and nuts, when I say I can do a particular thing in physics or maths I can. Take QuantumQuack for instance. He keeps saying how he's got plenty of knowledge of special relativity, yet can't ever display any or do anything quantitative. I claim I've got working knowledge of special relativity and I can show it. Or Geist, he claims he understands calculus enough to see the 'flaw' in Newton's Shell theorem yet he never actually does any calculus. I have shown working understanding of it. And then the less said about the delusions of grandeur coming from Bishadi the better, he refused a challenge to put up or shut up in his claims he's well ahead of everyone (everyone) in physics.

Cranks are all talk with nothing to say. Funny how they 'publish' their work on forums and then get nowhere, isn't it?

[quantum_wave]

So you have no questions. Go figure.

[AlphaNumeric]

So you have no questions. Go figure.What more needs to be asked? Prom's asked you a question you can't answer which amounts to you being unable to explain why QWC is any different from a made up 'Fairy theory'.

[quantum_wave]

What more needs to be asked? Prom's asked you a question you can't answer which amounts to you being unable to explain why QWC is any different from a made up 'Fairy theory'.Wrong as usual. I asked where his methodology was. The answer was there is no methodology to the fantasy; follow along and learn how speculation done right is done. I fear it is beyond your ability to grasp.

[prometheus]

Wrong as usual. I asked where his methodology was. The answer was there is no methodology to the fantasy; follow along and learn how speculation done right is done. I fear it is beyond your ability to grasp.

As far as I can tell there isn't any methodology to QWC either, except that you are at one end making it up. Speculation done right? What the heck are you on about?

PS, you still haven't said what arena action is.

[Ophiolite]

Amazing! We point out that you are a ****ing idiot and you sail on regardless. Whence comes such powerful delusion? Is it drugs, genetic deficiency, embyrological malfunction, corrupt upbringing, or do you just like pissing people off?

[quantum_wave]

This is to those few who have been vocal antagonists of QWC and of my speculations.

Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?
Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?
Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?
Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?
Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?
Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

I don’t think all of that can be true of you; you cannot possibly be that intellectually dishonest, can you?

I cannot imagine that you are introspective enough to ask yourself these questions.
I can imagine that you are so insincere that you would say I am the devil and you are all angels if it got you an atta-boy from the tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up such a small and unimportant segment of professionals; shame on you if these statements apply to you.

A sure sign of being a crank is to brag about yourself, your education, your job and your accomplishments to make an appeal to your superior ability to think. It doesn't work that way. Thinking is best served by intelligence and bragging is a sure sign of the lack thereof.

Science cannot yet answer the questions, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what causes gravity”.

QWC exists because there is a healthy skepticism in science. Everything should be questioned, tested, and in the light of advances in science, everything should be re-questioned and retested. The standard consensus of science about the cosmology of the universe is incomplete, inconsistent, and internally incompatible because the consensus has reached the point of the limits of our ability to observe. We can't see an end to our expanding universe, we can't detect the internal components of the standard particles, and we cannot explain how mass and gravity might curve spacetime.

For that reason the standard consensus doesn't answer the three basic questions of cosmology; what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what physically causes gravity? QWC is not persuaded that General Relativity presents a perfect mathematical correspondence between physical space, matter/energy, and time. GR is the best consensus but QWC exists out of skepticism about the consensus of inconsistent and incompatible science represented by Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

I’ll be updating QWC and the updated version of the Google.doc will appear as my most recent blog entry for the time being. See you there if you are sincere about discussing ideas and speculating about cosmology.

[prometheus]

This is to those few who have been vocal protagonists of QWC and of my speculations.

You don't mean 'protagonists,' do you? I think you mean 'antagonists.'


Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?

No. We've never suggested science has all the answers.


Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?

No, and generally speaking we know what those limits are.


Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?

Since when? I'd like to see a reference that shows this.


Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?

I think I've already answered this.


Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?

If you mean genuine theoretical speculation like you see on the arxiv and in journals all the time then of course there is a place for it. If you mean your type of 'making stuff up,' speculation then yep, call me foolish if you like.


Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

Of course not, you are discussing it aren't you?


I don’t think all of that can be true of you; you cannot possibly be that intellectually dishonest, can you?

This comes from the person that cannot differentiate between people that know nothing about cosmology and are interested and children.


I cannot imagine that you are introspective enough to ask yourself these questions.
I can imagine that you are so insincere that you would say I am the devil and you are all angels if it got you an atta-boy from the tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up such a small and unimportant segment of professionals; shame on you if these statements apply to you.

Have you had any other reaction from a genuine physicist or cosmologist than "QWC is rubbish?" what is your basis for claiming the people posting on this thread are a "tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up ... a small and unimportant segment of professionals."


A sure sign of being a crank is to brag about yourself, your education, your job and your accomplishments to make an appeal to your superior ability to think. It doesn't work that way. Thinking is best served by intelligence and bragging is a sure sign of the lack thereof.

Not in my book. A crank is someone who is arrogant enough to think they can turn the establishment on it's head without having any experience or education in said area. Genuine statement of fact coming: I've been studying physics for 6 years and I've produced one piece of work of real scientific merit. I suspect you'll find the same from other posters on this thread and forum. Physics is not just something that happens overnight or comes to you in a dream.


Science cannot yet answer the questions, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what causes gravity”.

This is not quite true. If you asked me these questions I'd tell you "string theory, loop quantum gravity, the bubble model of cosmology and others provide a cause of the big bang." "The Higgs causes mass," and "gravity is caused by spacetime curvature," in ascending order of experimental verification.


QWC exists because there is a healthy skepticism in science. Everything should be questioned, tested, and in the light of advances in science, everything should be re-questioned and retested. The standard consensus of science about the cosmology of the universe is incomplete, inconsistent, and internally incompatible because the consensus has reached the point of the limits of our ability to observe.

You can't make statements like this about the "general consensus" without providing a citation. If you don't I strongly suspect you've simply made it up - it seems to work for the rest of QWC.


We can't see an end to our expanding universe, we can't detect the internal components of the standard particles

and there is strong evidence that the standard model particles are, in fact, fundamental.

we cannot explain how mass and gravity might curve spacetime.

This falls out of string theory quite nicely. There is no need to invoke made up speculations.


QWC is not persuaded that General Relativity presents a perfect mathematical correspondence between physical space, matter/energy, and time. GR is the best consensus but QWC exists out of skepticism about the consensus of inconsistent and incompatible science represented by Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

This is like walking into a room and finding a body in a pool of blood with a man standing next to it with a bloody knife. When questioned he says "I'm glad I killed the bastard," and then concluding that there's no explanation for this poor suckers death. In other words, ignoring the evidence doesn't mean the evidence isn't correct and the evidence points to GR and the standard model being very accurate models of the physics the describe.


I’ll be updating QWC and the updated version of the Google.doc will appear as my most recent blog entry for the time being. See you there if you are sincere about discussing ideas and speculating about cosmology.

You want to discuss speculation in cosmology? How about telling us a little bit about the bubble model to get us going - you don't need any string theory or LQG or anything like that for this model. PS - I genuinely don't know too much about it so I wouldn't mind having a discussion about it.

[AlphaNumeric]

1. Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?
2. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?
3. Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?
4. Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?
5. Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?
6. Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

1. Noone has said that. Science is fundamentally about the admission of not having all the answers and the only way to get close to those answers is through careful methodology.

2. This is why physicists don't talk about absolutes, they talk in such terms as '5 sigma confidences' and 'realms of applicability'. Noone tries to use general relativity to model particle collisions at CERN because that's outside GR's realm of applicability. Nor does anyone claim that we've seen all the phenomena the world has to offer.

3. I am 101% certain that Prom and I know much much more about the failings of theoretical physics in regards to various phenomena. And you're being black and white saying they are incompatible. They are naively incompatible but that's not the same. You can't just write down a GR Lagrangian and quantise it to get quantum gravity, you must take a different route. Is it possible to write down a theory which becomes overwhelmingly like GR in one realm of applicability and overwhelmingly like quantum mechanics is another? Yes.

4. This is simply repeating your previous questions in a different way and you're making a strawman. Hundreds of millions of (insert currency here) are spent by physicists today testing their ideas, even on such things as 'established' as special relativity. The person who finds the chink in SR is going to 'live forever' in the physics community. Undoubtedly a Nobel Prize would follow swiftly. Entire physics departments are devoted to the questions "What's the best experiment we could do to test inflation/the Standard Model/relativity with current funding and technology?" and "If we see [X] instead of [Y] in that experiment what might model that new phenomenon?"

5. Speculation tempered by experience, hindsight and enough experimental data to choke a wide necked animal is essential to physics. Wild speculation with zero experience of physics, no knowledge of previous ideas/methods/results and not looking at any experimental data is bloody pointless.

As an example, I claim Mars is hollow. Why? Because the Earth isn't (seismic data) and has a big magnetic field (compared to Mars) which is related to its huge iron core. So if Mars has no magnetic field it must not have an iron core. So I claim it's hollow. Worthy speculation? After all, it gives a simple explaination for the lack of magnetic field, anyone can understand it. Should I now dive into spending years elaborating on that or would it be wiser for me to look at experimental observations such as the gravimetric field around Mars, which allows us to calculate its mass?

If you have zero reason to pick a particular speculation over any other possible explaination then don't bother because you offer no explaination oter than "Because I say so".

6. Look, if you want to get stoned and watch Donnie Darko and then babble to stoned friends about time travel, I don't care. You want to try to swindle people into thinking random unsupported claims piled on top of one another is adhering to the scientific methodology, I'll point out you're talking nonsense.

Let's take an example. Neil Turok constructed the idea of brane cosmology because it allows an explaination for the creation of our 3+1 dimensional space-time via the production of D3-branes formed by the output of energy due to a brane-antibrane collision in a larger universe, which could have been around forever as we've not been able to observe outside our 3+1 dimensions. In doing this you find that it implies such nice things as a mechanism for inflation via scalar fields and also the weakness of gravity (closed strings can leave our 3d space 'into the bulk'). It clearly, rigorously and quantitatively tackles some of the questions in cosmology. The weakness of gravity is a prediction, an outcome, an output you didn't have to put in by hand. All your 'work' is just you put in by hand, you haven't predicted anything, you just explain things 'after the fact'. If you have to put in more information than you get out your theory isn't a very good one.

And you have to put in everything.

[quantum_wave]

Please use the quote feature to link us to where I call QWC a theory. You are a crank to continue to make this mistake after being told repeatedly.

Comparing QWC methodology of speculation to wild speculation without any connection to physics is another of your crank behaviors. Denying that there is any useful methodology for applying speculation is ignorant. Responding to rhetorical questions and building straw men as you do so is crank behavior.

And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory. You don’t acknowledge and maybe you don’t realize that the consensus (standard theory) is not the same thing as the mainstream activities to advance the consensus, i.e. work by professionals does not automatically advance standard theory. References to non-standard theories being worked on by mainstream professionals are not references to standard theory and so when you do so you are agreeing with me and are not smart enough to see that.

Prom says that he is confident that standard particles are fundamental and yet both of you refer to string theory. You are ignorant if you don’t see the conflict. On one hand Prom states that the universe cannot have always existed because if it had we would never get to now (ignorant), and the other hand AlphaNumeric acknowledges that the universe might have always existed. You guys aren’t even in the same book, let along on the same page.

QWC is a set of ideas. Read the OP and the Google.doc before you go off characterizing what it is and what it isn’t and use the quote feature to back up your statements or you are just being cranks. You are spouting off and ranting (more crank behavior).

You are both repeating inaccurate statements about QWC, bragging repeatedly, addressing rhetorical questions, making straw men, arguing about simple obvious statements that most people would readily acknowledge, confirming what I have said as if I hadn't already said it, ignoring that QWC is an evolving set of ideas most of which mainstream professionals themselves have put forth, and referring to it as a made up use of buzz words. You both continue to be cranks for those reasons.

You both agree that one reasonable precedent to the Big Bang is a big crunch and that is what QWC says. QWC explores how a big crunch could produce the expanding observable universe by describing a physical picture. A physical picture is a description of what might cause things that we observe in order to place ideas on the table for discussion. QWC does that.

QWC is upfront about the need for new physics and gives a physical picture of the new physics that might be at work to produce our observable universe from a big crunch. QWC paints a physical picture of how big crunches might form, and it discusses reasonable and responsible ideas about a greater universe where the formation of big crunches would be common place. Those ideas combine to paint a physical picture of arenas, to describe how arenas might form and the process that might represent their progress from an overlap of arenas to big crunches, to expanding arenas like our own, and on from there to intersect and overlap with similar arenas which perpetuates the process. These ideas are not presented as fact and are clearly presented for discussion and your repeated statement about it being theory that I am trying to cram off on unsuspecting children is pure “crank”.

Theory, the scientific method, proposed tests, and experiments necessarily come after the physical picture. You need to be showing how what I say is inconsistent with observations and to do so you need to start at the beginning of the steps, i.e. show why a big crunch is not a valid idea. But wait, you already agree with that idea. Once you agree with validity of the idea of a big crunch you have to show how the QWC methodology used to reach the ideas about how a big crunch could lead to an expanding arena like our own is in error. Just saying there is no valid methodology for developing speculation is the view of a crank. Look at the methodology, use the quote feature and show what you object to, and give me a chance to revise the methodology to reflect any meaningful comments you conceivable (but doubtfully) could have.

QWC is pointless to you, but starting with a consistent and connected set of ideas about the cosmology of the universe is my approach and evolving those ideas is my prime objective. You are cranks if you can’t see that we have a disagreement about what is appropriate for discussion. If that is not the problem then enter into the discussion instead of trying to cram through your crank opinions on a forum. Please limit your responses to a few stupid statements and you don't need to address rhetorical questions.

Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

The updated Google.doc is there.

[AlphaNumeric]

Please use the quote feature to link us to where I call QWC a theory. You are a crank to continue to make this mistake after being told repeatedly.Nice redefinition of 'crank'. You've claimed QWC explains things, that it's using valid methodology. I very much disagree with that.

Comparing QWC methodology of speculation to wild speculation without any connection to physics is another of your crank behaviors.Nice redefinition of 'crank'. Particularly given, despite repeated requests, you've been unable to justify any result you claim or give a single reason why QWC is more valid than random speculation.

And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.I didn't say that. I specifically corrected you on it. The SM is not 'inconsistent'. GR and quantum mechanics can be made compatible, it's only if you go down the usual naive route that you get problems. You utterly ignored that and you have the hypocrisy to call me a crank for ignoring your corrections!?

Prom says that he is confident that standard particles are fundamental and yet both of you refer to string theory. You are ignorant if you don’t see the conflict. On one hand Prom states that the universe cannot have always existed because if it had we would never get to now (ignorant), and the other hand AlphaNumeric acknowledges that the universe might have always existed. You guys aren’t even in the same book, let along on the same page.Where does Prom say he's confident particles are fundamental? You keep complaining we don't use the quote function and then you don't bother yourself.

And so what if Prom and I don't say exactly the same things on a particular area of RANDOM SPECULATION. I doubt either of us devote much thought time to the issues of 'pre-big bang' but I'm sure if we did we'd end up falling into similar viewpoints as one another as we learn more, understand more and work more on it. Unlike yourself who doesn't bother with the 'learn' part.

QWC is a set of ideas. Read the OP and the Google.doc before you go off characterizing what it is and what it isn’t and use the quote feature to back up your statements or you are just being cranks. You are spouting off and ranting (more crank behavior).
Nice hypocrisy. Notice how I post, I quote, respond, quote, respond. You have ignored a great many things I've said, not quoted bits you do respond to and the very post I'm responding to is a bit rant. Excellent hypocrisy. And I bet you're not even aware of it!

ignoring that QWC is an evolving set of ideas most of which mainstream professionals themselves have put forth, and referring to it as a made up use of buzz words
You read other people's ideas and take bits from each of them and then put them under the big heading QWC. There's no methodology to your work so saying "But someone in the mainstream community talks about it" ignores the fact they did it in a much more rigorous fashion, using quantitative models, deriving specific predictions, clearly stating their derivations. You simply pluck ideas out of the internet. If you asked Neil Turok "Why did you use D3 branes, not D5 branes?" he'd have a specific reason for you. With QWC the reason for any particular part of it is because you say so. That's not a valid methodology.

You both agree that one reasonable precedent to the Big Bang is a big crunch and that is what QWC says. QWC explores how a big crunch could produce the expanding observable universe by describing a physical picture. A physical picture is a description of what might cause things that we observe in order to place ideas on the table for discussion. QWC does that.
How can QWC explore anything when it's unable to describe or model anything? The physical picture you speak of is simply you making up some arm waving mechanism you find appealing. You're basically saying "Hey everyone, lets all talk about my view of the universe and my view of things!". You keep saying "QWC does...", "QWC says...." as if it's an independent thing, it's not. QWC says whatever you want it to say. A good theory, a good model doesn't bend to your every whim, it predicts things for itself. For instance, string theory demands 10 dimensions, not 6, not 19, not 2, 10. String theorists therefore must say "We cannot change this 10 to a 4 so we must see how we can make this requirement, this prediction, consistent with data". Special relativity says motion through space affects motion through time. You can't get around time dilation and length contraction, you can't say "Special relativity says time and space are absolute" because the postulates demand the lack of absolute time and space. You, however, can make QWC whatever you like.

A model which can say anything actually says nothing.

Theory, the scientific method, proposed tests, and experiments necessarily come after the physical picture.
So rather than use current knowledge, ideas and data to guide how we tentatively form a model for the universe we should just pick one at random and then see if it fits all the data? Clearly you don't grasp what the scientific method is. But then why would you, you've never done any science.

Look at the methodology, use the quote feature and show what you object to, and give me a chance to revise the methodology to reflect any meaningful comments you conceivable (but doubtfully) could have.
Yes, why should you bother finding things out for yourself when it's easier to just make **** up and laud over it till someone who has put in the effort to learn some physics points out your mistakes. After all, that would require you to open a book or do some work and cranks hate that.

Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena?
You tell us what 'arena action' is in precisely defined terms and we'll consider it.

The updated Google.doc is there.
And there's a wealth of freely available online lecture notes on cosmology and particle physics but I bet you don't read them, do you?

[quantum_wave]

Nice redefinition of 'crank'.
It fits you to a T.
You've claimed QWC explains things what things? Failure to use the quote function repeatedly is crank behavior because you build straw men., You've claimed that it's using valid methodology. I very much disagree with that.You say that over and over and then don’t respond when I ask you to use the quote function, i.e. it is crank behavior used to build straw men. Quote something from the methodology in the Google.doc that you object too, and saying "all of it" confirms you are a crank.
Nice redefinition of 'crank'. Particularly given, despite repeated requests, you've been unable to justify any result you claim or give a single reason why QWC is more valid than random speculation.Please link us to any one of your repeated requests where you use the quote function and that I have not responded too. You are a crank to keep saying things that are not true and insisting that I am the one who is not responsive.
I didn't say that. Did too.I specifically corrected you on it.Did not. The SM is not 'inconsistent'. Didn’t say it was.GR and quantum mechanics can be made compatible, it's only if you go down the usual naive route that you get problems. You utterly ignored that and you have the hypocrisy to call me a crank for ignoring your corrections!?I didn’t ignore that and responded to it. And you are a crank and it is not hypocrisy on my part to say it, it is hypocrisy on your part to deny it.

Where does Prom say he's confident particles are fundamental?Read his last post.


and there is strong evidence that the standard model particles are, in fact, fundamental.
You were a fool to challenge me on that. I say it like it is everyone knows that when I say someone said something, they said it. You could never make such a claim and I have proven that you say people say things that they didn’t say. I asked you on another thread to deny that and gave an example at that time. You didn’t reply. Do you deny that because I could link you to that post.

You keep complaining we don't use the quote function and then you don't bother yourself.I just did to respond to your request. Will you commit to respond to my similar requests which are numerous and all unanswered? That is a rhetorical question which means that you don’t need to respond. We all know you haven’t and won’t. Question answered for you.
And so what if Prom and I don't say exactly the same things on a particular area of *RANDOM SPECULATION*. I doubt either of us devote much thought time to the issues of 'pre-big bang' but I'm sure if we did we'd end up falling into similar viewpoints as one another as we learn more, understand more and work more on it. Unlike yourself who doesn't bother with the 'learn' part.You are insincere to say that and it is untrue, I have explained the thousands of hours I have spent on “learning”, and I don’t need any help from you to understand what I am talking about. You on the other have don’t know what you are talking about when you say I haven’t done the learning part. That is your huge ego resorting to untrue statements that seem to make your position one of authority. Instead, it makes your position one of predictable arrogance.
Nice hypocrisy. Notice how I post, I quote, respond, quote, respond. You have ignored a great many things I've said, not quoted bits you do respond to and the very post I'm responding to is a bit rant. Excellent hypocrisy. And I bet you're not even aware of it!Yes I am. I’m glad you noticed. Too bad you can’t see that we are talking about these things as they apply to you; it is your hypocrisy.

You read other people's ideas and take bits from each of them and then put them under the big heading QWC. Hmm, think about what you are saying.There's no methodology to your work so saying "But someone in the mainstream community talks about it" ignores the fact they did it in a much more rigorous fashion, using quantitative models, deriving specific predictions, clearly stating their derivations. You simply pluck ideas out of the internet. Not true and pure “crankdom” to even resort to saying it. Did I say, “get over yourself”?If you asked Neil Turok "Why did you use D3 branes, not D5 branes?" he'd have a specific reason for you. With QWC the reason for any particular part of it is because you say so. That's not a valid methodology.Neil Turok is clear and up front about what he is doing, he describes the physical picture that his team has been developing into theory, and BTW, he wouldn’t give you time of day if he knew how you conduct yourself on the forums.
How can QWC explore anything when it's unable to describe or model anything?Easy. How can you be so intellectually insincere and dishonest to say that the ideas I have presented don’t describe or model anything when I describe in detail what QWC is about and what the methodology is. I don’t claim it is theory or a model as such but you, crank as you are, insist that I said that. You are a crank not to use the quote feature when you make false statements but we have been over that repeatedly.The physical picture you speak of is simply you making up some arm waving mechanism you find appealing. You're basically saying "Hey everyone, lets all talk about my view of the universe and my view of things!". You keep saying "QWC does...", "QWC says...." as if it's an independent thing, it's not. QWC says whatever you want it to say. A good theory, a good model doesn't bend to your every whim, it predicts things for itself. For instance, string theory demands 10 dimensions, not 6, not 19, not 2, *10*. String theorists therefore must say "We cannot change this 10 to a 4 so we must see how we can make this requirement, this prediction, consistent with data". Special relativity says motion through space affects motion through time. You can't get around time dilation and length contraction, you can't say "Special relativity says time and space are absolute" because the postulates demand the lack of absolute
time and space. You, however, can make QWC whatever you like.Please use the quote function to link to where I call it a theory. Talking about ideas is the purpose of this thread and is not unusual activity to take place on a science forum. I am well aware of sting theory as a layman; I understand special relativity and don’t feel any need to prove it. I agree that I make QWC what I like, but you are invited to use the quote function, point to any of the steps, say why they are wrong or what observations falsify them, and suggest improvements. You would rather be a crank, brag about yourself, obfuscate, set up straw men, refuse to use the quote function, and claim that you are rubber and I am glue. All those things are characteristics of a crank. Thank you for recognizing that I have defined why you are a crank.
A model which can say anything actually says nothing.The statement of a true crank again. Please us the quote function to show where I said QWC was a model. I have said “it says what it says” and offered to have you quote what I have said for purposes of discussion, correction, falsification, improvement, or support. Why don’t you deny that you are a crank and explain all of the behaviors you demonstrate that I characterize as crank behaviors?
So rather than use current knowledge, ideas and data to guide how we tentatively form a model for the universe we should just pick one at random and then see if it fits all the data? Clearly you don't grasp what the scientific method is.Not true and it is crank behavior for you to say that. Please use the quote feature to show where I have misrepresented what the scientific method is.
But then why would you, you've never done any science.This is a crank statement stemming from you huge ego that wants us to believe that you are aware of all science that has been done, or that you are the only one that has done science or some other stupid ego rant.
Yes, why should you bother finding things out for yourself when it's easier to just make **** up and laud over it till someone who has put in the effort to learn some physics points out your mistakes. After all, that would require you to open a book or do some work and cranks hate that.You have completely mischaracterized the situation for you own warped motives. That is crank behavior. Please use the quote function to show where I have “made up or lauded” anything, or to show where you have pointed out my mistakes, or to evidence your claim that I not informed about something that I have said.
You tell us what 'arena action' is in precisely defined terms and we'll consider it.It is in the document and we are inching along to discussing it in this thread as we go step by step. Please acknowledge that QWC starts with the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch. Then point out what you object to in the methodology using the quote feature, and then we can get on with arena action. We can go to the steps about arena action and address them in order and you can comment as we go. If you can't get yourself to do that your entire vacuous litany of requests, claims, rants, and straw men just reconfirm what everyone already knows about you; you are a craaaaank.

And the exact statement I made was: Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1
You certainly wanted to respond to this, “Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?” But you didn’t.

And there's a wealth of freely available online lecture notes on cosmology and particle physics but I bet you don't read them, do you?This is the statement of an egotistical crank who has no idea what I know or what I have been doing for many thousands of hours over more years than you have been out of diapers.

And I said, “QWC is pointless to you, but starting with a consistent and connected set of ideas about the cosmology of the universe is my approach and evolving those ideas is my prime objective. You are cranks if you can’t see that we have a disagreement about what is appropriate for discussion."

You didn’t respond but I know you will this time.

I also said, “If that is not the problem then enter into the discussion instead of trying to cram through your crank opinions on a forum.”

It must have been a problem for you; you made a meaningless challenge out of context and off topic. Try to stay with me here.

And I said, “Please limit your responses to a few stupid statements and you don't need to address rhetorical questions.”

You completely disregarded that statement.

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh Jesus. For someone who says he's a lot older than me you seem to have regressed to child-like behaviour with "Did not!" "Did too!".

what things? Failure to use the quote function repeatedly is crank behavior because you build straw men.You say that over and over and then don’t respond when I ask you to use the quote function, i.e. it is crank behavior used to build straw men. You said
QWC is upfront about the need for new physics and gives a physical picture of the new physics that might be at work to produce our observable universe from a big crunch. QWC paints a physical picture of how big crunches might form, and it discusses reasonable and responsible ideas about a greater universe where the formation of big crunches would be common place. Those ideas combine to paint a physical picture of arenas, to describe how arenas might form and the process that might represent their progress from an overlap of arenas to big crunches, to expanding arenas like our own, and on from there to intersect and overlap with similar arenas which perpetuates the process. These ideas are not presented as fact and are clearly presented for discussion and your repeated statement about it being theory that I am trying to cram off on unsuspecting children is pure “crank”.You clearly view the methodology of random speculation and heaping guess upon speculation upon random idea as 'methodology' worth other people's time. Do you deny this?

Please link us to any one of your repeated requests where you use the quote function and that I have not responded too. Prometheus asked you to define 'arena action', are you denying this? You couldn't.

It would seem your new tactic is to just refuse to address anything anyone says to you unless "You use the quote function!! Crank!", thus allowing you to sidestep the questions and it increases the amount of time and effort it takes to reply to you. You are an adult (so you claim) and we all know the majority of what has or hasn't been said in this thread, so grow up a bit when you know something has been said. So come on, what is 'arena action'?

Did not.I did correct you. You said "And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.". I didn't because I then said "And you're being black and white saying they are incompatible. They are naively incompatible but that's not the same. You can't just write down a GR Lagrangian and quantise it to get quantum gravity, you must take a different route. Is it possible to write down a theory which becomes overwhelmingly like GR in one realm of applicability and overwhelmingly like quantum mechanics is another? Yes.".

So yes, I did correct you and for all your whining about not quoting and crank behaviour you're the one lying.

Didn’t say it was.You said "And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.". Standard theory = The Standard Model and General Relativity. Neither are inconsistent and they are only naively incompatible. As I explained.

You were a fool to challenge me on that. I say it like it is everyone knows that when I say someone said something, they said it. You could never make such a claim and I have proven that you say people say things that they didn’t say. I asked you on another thread to deny that and gave an example at that time. You didn’t reply. Do you deny that because I could link you to that post.I never made the claim he didn't say that, I asked where he said it. In this case your use of the quote function would have been useful because I would have had a point clarified. I wasn't sure if he was saying that he doesn't view the string theory description of particles are true, in which case particles aren't fundamental, even if they aren't bound states of other particles. You seem to be jumping down my throat for 'challenging you on that' when I asked a question, not made a statement. Are you so desperate to whine about us you'll just have a go regardless?

I have explained the thousands of hours I have spent on “learning”I see you put learning in inverted commas. Would you care to explain the particular reason for that? When I say to people "I've spent many hours learning particle physics" I don't feel the need to use inverted commas because I spent those hours learning. I'd hazard a guess that you did it because you're aware that you didn't bother to open a book at all during that time but no doubt if I made that accusation directly you'd call me a crank.

You on the other have don’t know what you are talking about when you say I haven’t done the learning part. Perhaps then you'd like to enlighten us on what material you have "learnt" from? Nothings stopping you saying that to show us we're wrong in our insinuations of your lack of knowledge.

Not true and pure “crankdom” to even resort to saying it. I really think you need to come up with a new buzzword, because you're using 'crank' too much, even if you were using it appropriately. I suspect we've hit a nerve there and you're trying to do the same to us. Shame we're both firmly confident in the fact we aren't cranks. Damn that published work of ours! And it's not 'pure crankdom' to point out that nowhere have you given a rigorous methodology which doesn't just boil down to "Whatever I say goes!". If you could give a justified explaination for QWC's results you'd have done so, you'd have done it when we first started pestering you.

Neil Turok is clear and up front about what he is doing, he describes the physical picture that his team has been developing into theory, and BTW, he wouldn’t give you time of day if he knew how you conduct yourself on the forums.So why can't you be upfront with your work? Why can't you give your precise assumptions and then carefully derive results from them? Why can he do what you can't? And actually, I've spoken to him in the past and he covered a bit of a GR lecture course I was doing when our usual lecturer was away. Very nice guy.

Easy. How can you be so intellectually insincere and dishonest to say that the ideas I have presented don’t describe or model anything when I describe in detail what QWC is about and what the methodology is.How can we trust the implications of QWC when you could just as easily picked anything else as a starting position for QWC and got something utterly different?

and claim that you are rubber and I am glueNow, now. You wouldn't be insinuating I've been using playground rhymes? If I asked you to use the quote function to show where I said that you'd be looking a mite hypocritical again ;)

This is a crank statement stemming from you huge ego that wants us to believe that you are aware of all science that has been done, or that you are the only one that has done science or some other stupid ego rant.The fact I state that based on your posts I would guess you haven't done any science is not the same as me saying that noone else but me has. People like Prom, BenTheMan, Temur, DH, Guest, CptBork, Trippy, Rpenner and a fair few others all show in their posts they've studied some area of science both in terms of their knowledge and in terms of how they view scientific methodology. You display none of that. I don't need to know all of science to see when someone else doesn't grasp the scientific methodology, just like I don't need to know every word in English to see when someone is unable to speak it.

If you can't get yourself to do that your entire vacuous litany of requests, claims, rants, and straw men just reconfirm what everyone already knows about you; you are a craaaaank.I am not peddling my pet theory. I am not ignorant of what I speak. I am not claiming omniscience or a theory of everything. I am simply standing my ground in the face of your wish to continue peddling your pet theory, your pet theory which is devoid of anything worthwhile. You're getting frustrated and if all you can do is throw back "crank!" at me you're running low on creativity. Calling me a girl wouldn't change my gender, calling me a crank doesn't make me magically call into that category. I don't devote much of my time to you and this thread, I've spent maybe 20 minutes, at 8.30am and I might post again later. Otherwise today I'll do 6~8 hours of actual research. If I were a crank I'd devote all my time to this issue, as you've devoted thousands of hours to it, so you claim. Personally I don't care, you're more a source of light entertainment for me ;)

[quantum_wave]

I skipped the useless lying drivel part.I am not peddling my pet theory.You are a crank because you can’t use the quote feature to show where I present QWC as theory. And I’m not sure you have the ability to even do “theory”. I put theory in quotes to show that it is in reference to your use of the word in the sentence to which I am referring.
I am not ignorant of what I speak. On the contrary. Denying ignorance is the first clue to ignorance. You have shown nothing but ignorance in regard to QWC. Why should anyone think you are not ignorant in other respects? (Rhetorical)
I am not claiming omniscience or a theory of everything. By saying that you insinuate that I am; if you call what I am saying a claim of “omniscience” you are a crank. I use the word sparingly but in your case “sparingly” occurs quite often as you pointed out.
You're getting frustrated and if all you can do is throw back "crank!" at me you're running low on creativity. I think you don’t know what creativity is.
Calling me a girl wouldn't change my gender, calling me a crank doesn't make me magically call into that category. No magic necessary in your case. And I didn’t know you were gender confused. There is a thread for that I bet.

[prometheus]

and there is strong evidence that the standard model particles are, in fact, fundamental.

You were a fool to challenge me on that. I say it like it is everyone knows that when I say someone said something, they said it. You could never make such a claim and I have proven that you say people say things that they didn’t say. I asked you on another thread to deny that and gave an example at that time. You didn’t reply. Do you deny that because I could link you to that post.

I've got quite a lot on at the moment, so I'm afraid my participation in this thread will be going down. I would like to comment generally that as soon as the thread poster starts throwing insults around you know the game is up for the "ideas" he is advocating.

To clarify this seeming point of contention, the standard model predicts particular particles like electrons and quarks are fundamental. Other theories like strings then predict that there is an underlying structure - ie the particles are not points, they are something else. Of course, quarks are still quarks and can't be broken down into more fundamental particles, so what I said was reasonable. You seem to think slinging mud and hoping it sticks will improve your cred. You have succeed in neither.

[quantum_wave]

I've got quite a lot on at the moment, so I'm afraid my participation in this thread will be going down. I would like to comment generally that as soon as the thread poster starts throwing insults around you know the game is up for the "ideas" he is advocating.

To clarify this seeming point of contention, the standard model predicts particular particles like electrons and quarks are fundamental. Other theories like strings then predict that there is an underlying structure - ie the particles are not points, they are something else. Of course, quarks are still quarks and can't be broken down into more fundamental particles, so what I said was reasonable. You seem to think slinging mud and hoping it sticks will improve your cred. You have succeed in neither.You can't stay away so don't kid us.

And darn, I thought you just proved my point. But you say it won't improve my cred. And why don't you bother to go back and look at who started throwing insults. It was you and AlphaNumeric. So I will agree with you generally, but in this case if I didn't defend my ideas that is when they wouldn't mean anything.

[prometheus]

You can't stay away so don't kid us.

You'll notice I haven't been replying line by line. I'm still reading this thread. If you go back and re read what I wrote you'll find I didn't say I was "leaving," at all. Doesn't bode well for confidence in your internet brainstorming does it?


And darn, I thought you just proved my point. But you say it won't improve my cred. And why don't you bother to go back and look at who started throwing insults. It was you and AlphaNumeric. So I will agree with you generally, but in this case if I didn't defend my ideas that is when they wouldn't mean anything.

Your ideas don't mean anything whether you defend them or not. It's a hard fact but it's true. Also, I would encourage you to stop being a hypocrite and use the quote function when you make accusations or I'll say things like "you're a filthy liar. QED."

[quantum_wave]

You'll notice I haven't been replying line by line. I'm still reading this thread. If you go back and re read what I wrote you'll find I didn't say I was "leaving," at all. Doesn't bode well for confidence in your internet brainstorming does it?



Your ideas don't mean anything whether you defend them or not. It's a hard fact but it's true. Also, I would encourage you to stop being a hypocrite and use the quote function when you make accusations or I'll say things like "you're a filthy liar. QED."Whew. I thought you might not come back.

Say anything you like; it is like a window into your character and self-image.

[AlphaNumeric]

You are a crank because you can’t use the quote feature to show where I present QWC as theory. No, if that were true I'd be dishonest, not a crank. You have claimed, have you not, that QWC attempts to explain things? You've claimed you've got good, sound methodology, have you not?

The crux of the point Prom and I are making is that your claim that you are proceeding in a viable manner is not true.

And I’m not sure you have the ability to even do “theory”. I put theory in quotes to show that it is in reference to your use of the word in the sentence to which I am referring.Where have I been attempting to 'do theory'? Like I said, I'm not peddling my pet idea here, you are. I'm not claiming to have some insight or model or concept or understanding far and away beyond what I'm capable of. Nowhere in this thread have I claimed anything about my own work, in regards to its validity, applicability or justification, I've done little more than refer in passing to the fact I do physics research.

Of course if you wish to engage me in a discussion of my research then I'm more than willing to discuss such things in another thread. I have nothing to hide, I'm willing to give a quick walk through of what I do, starting with basic assumptions and showing/discussing how to work through to particular predictions or results. I've got nothing to hide here. And the fact I (and Prom) have published work to my name would seem to suggest that, as Prom says, you're slinging mud and hoping some sticks.

On the contrary. Denying ignorance is the first clue to ignorance. You have shown nothing but ignorance in regard to QWC. Why should anyone think you are not ignorant in other respects? (Rhetorical)On the question of scientific methodology, general structure of physics models, ideas and theories, historical derivation of concepts and results by physicists and working, first hand, knowledge of how physics research is done I'm not ignorant of what I speak. The very area I do research in is one where there's almost no experimental reason to believe it, yet due to it's mathematical, quantitative structure it holds the interest of physicists. String theory has no experimental motivation/justification, like QWC, but unlike QWC it has a rich and broadly applicable quantitative structure which has been rigorously developed from a few simple to state postulates. That's an example of how an idea with little experimental justification can still be widely accepted as legitimate work. Given QWC has zero experimental motivation for it's claims, if it's going to be even close to being viable as physics research it needs coherent logical structure, as string theory has, but it does not.

You want QWC to be taken seriously but you refuse to listen to the criticisms of people who know what science and research involves. You want the approval of physicists but don't want to listen when they say things you don't like. Seems a silly way to go about things, in my opinion.

By saying that you insinuate that I am; if you call what I am saying a claim of “omniscience” you are a crank. I use the word sparingly but in your case “sparingly” occurs quite often as you pointed out.Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. I was referring to common behavioural traits in cranks.

You aren't claiming omniscience but you're pulling ideas randomly out of thin air and then heaping assumptions upon them, such as your whole 'interesting arenas' thing. Assumption built on a guess built on a whim. No method or logic, just guesses. Now there must be some reason you're telling yourself why that particular guess/idea is more valid than any other possible one, would you mind sharing it with us? Why do you think you, someone who deliberately avoids learning physics, are the person to guide QWC's development? You must have some reason why you think you're worth listening to and we should be ignored, why our random postulations about fairies are less worthwhile than you random postulations about 'arena action'. The simple fact of the matter is you want your ideas to be discussed by other people, but the problem you're finding if that you can't justify why anyone should hold your ideas in higher regard than any other random suggestion and it definitely seems to be ticking you off.

I think you don’t know what creativity is.Nowhere in this thread have I tried to be creative. I do not need to be creative to point out flaws in your logic or the lack of rigour in your claims or your failure to have anything close to a sound methodology. Can you point me to some posts of mine in this thread where I tried, and clearly failed, to be creative and original in coming up with a viable physics result/concept/topic/prediction? I make no attempt to talk about the specifics of my research here, though I do ask a question now and again related to a particular mathematical problem I might be having. The fact I have published work to my name shows I have creativity in research level physics because you don't get published for copying someone else. I am sufficiently creative to write papers, heck I don't even have any input from my supervisor because she doesn't understand the work I'm doing.

Come on, you must be aware of how weak your attempts at insults are. You can't have a go at Prom or myself for lack of results or lack of understanding or lack of knowledge when it comes to physics, compared to you, we have quantifiable proof that your whining is baseless.

No magic necessary in your case. And I didn’t know you were gender confused. There is a thread for that I bet. Ah, such a poor way to finish your post, calling my sexuality into question. For someone trying to take the high road that's hardly a good thing to do, is it? Rather than insinuating I'm gay to try and annoy or upset me (besides, those kinds of attacks are often Freudian in nature....) why don't you put me in my place by responding clearly and concisely to some of our criticisms? When someone says to me "Oh yeah, how do you justify that then?" when I make a claim about some particle physics theory I show them. I put my maths where my mouth is. And despite having been annoying cranks on internet forums for many years now not one, not one, has ever turned around and done the same to me.

Funny that......

[quantum_wave]

No, if that were true I'd be dishonest, not a crank. You have claimed, have you not, that QWC attempts to explain things? You've claimed you've got good, sound methodology, have you not?

The crux of the point Prom and I are making is that your claim that you are proceeding in a viable manner is not true.

Where have I been attempting to 'do theory'? Like I said, I'm not peddling my pet idea here, you are. I'm not claiming to have some insight or model or concept or understanding far and away beyond what I'm capable of. Nowhere in this thread have I claimed anything about my own work, in regards to its validity, applicability or justification, I've done little more than refer in passing to the fact I do physics research.

Of course if you wish to engage me in a discussion of my research then I'm more than willing to discuss such things in another thread. I have nothing to hide, I'm willing to give a quick walk through of what I do, starting with basic assumptions and showing/discussing how to work through to particular predictions or results. I've got nothing to hide here. And the fact I (and Prom) have published work to my name would seem to suggest that, as Prom says, you're slinging mud and hoping some sticks.

On the question of scientific methodology, general structure of physics models, ideas and theories, historical derivation of concepts and results by physicists and working, first hand, knowledge of how physics research is done I'm not ignorant of what I speak. The very area I do research in is one where there's almost no experimental reason to believe it, yet due to it's mathematical, quantitative structure it holds the interest of physicists. String theory has no experimental motivation/justification, like QWC, but unlike QWC it has a rich and broadly applicable quantitative structure which has been rigorously developed from a few simple to state postulates. That's an example of how an idea with little experimental justification can still be widely accepted as legitimate work. Given QWC has zero experimental motivation for it's claims, if it's going to be even close to being viable as physics research it needs coherent logical structure, as string theory has, but it does not.

You want QWC to be taken seriously but you refuse to listen to the criticisms of people who know what science and research involves. You want the approval of physicists but don't want to listen when they say things you don't like. Seems a silly way to go about things, in my opinion.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. I was referring to common behavioural traits in cranks.

You aren't claiming omniscience but you're pulling ideas randomly out of thin air and then heaping assumptions upon them, such as your whole 'interesting arenas' thing. Assumption built on a guess built on a whim. No method or logic, just guesses. Now there must be some reason you're telling yourself why that particular guess/idea is more valid than any other possible one, would you mind sharing it with us? Why do you think you, someone who deliberately avoids learning physics, are the person to guide QWC's development? You must have some reason why you think you're worth listening to and we should be ignored, why our random postulations about fairies are less worthwhile than you random postulations about 'arena action'. The simple fact of the matter is you want your ideas to be discussed by other people, but the problem you're finding if that you can't justify why anyone should hold your ideas in higher regard than any other random suggestion and it definitely seems to be ticking you off.

Nowhere in this thread have I tried to be creative. I do not need to be creative to point out flaws in your logic or the lack of rigour in your claims or your failure to have anything close to a sound methodology. Can you point me to some posts of mine in this thread where I tried, and clearly failed, to be creative and original in coming up with a viable physics result/concept/topic/prediction? I make no attempt to talk about the specifics of my research here, though I do ask a question now and again related to a particular mathematical problem I might be having. The fact I have published work to my name shows I have creativity in research level physics because you don't get published for copying someone else. I am sufficiently creative to write papers, heck I don't even have any input from my supervisor because she doesn't understand the work I'm doing.

Come on, you must be aware of how weak your attempts at insults are. You can't have a go at Prom or myself for lack of results or lack of understanding or lack of knowledge when it comes to physics, compared to you, we have quantifiable proof that your whining is baseless.

Ah, such a poor way to finish your post, calling my sexuality into question. For someone trying to take the high road that's hardly a good thing to do, is it? Rather than insinuating I'm gay to try and annoy or upset me (besides, those kinds of attacks are often Freudian in nature....) why don't you put me in my place by responding clearly and concisely to some of our criticisms? When someone says to me "Oh yeah, how do you justify that then?" when I make a claim about some particle physics theory I show them. I put my maths where my mouth is. And despite having been annoying cranks on internet forums for many years now not one, not one, has ever turned around and done the same to me.

Funny that......Wow, you really nailed me there big boy.

[quantum_wave]

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

Check often for updates. Read the Introduction carefully now, that is where the changes are taking place at the present time.

[AlphaNumeric]

Wow, you really nailed me there big boy.I must have, given you could only mass quote and then not respond to any single point I made. Clearly I hit pretty close to home and now you're moving onto the "I'll pretend to ignore you" method.

You're another in the long line of cranks who've failed to rise to the challenge. ;)

[quantum_wave]

I must have, given you could only mass quote and then not respond to any single point I made. Clearly I hit pretty close to home and now you're moving onto the "I'll pretend to ignore you" method.

You're another in the long line of cranks who've failed to rise to the challenge. ;)I know how to pull your strings :thankyou:.

I was updating the link with some introductory info. It wouldn't be of any interest to you. Fortunately you keep my thread hot and you are partially to blame for any visits I get there.

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

[quantum_wave]

I must have, given you could only mass quote and then not respond to any single point I made. Clearly I hit pretty close to home and now you're moving onto the "I'll pretend to ignore you" method.

You're another in the long line of cranks who've failed to rise to the challenge. ;)There are cranks of all kinds. You are not the only one of your kind.

[quantum_wave]

The last meaningful post was http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2319567&postcount=125

I spent a few enjoyable hours at USF Riverfront Park this morning updating QWC documents and reposting the latest update to the blog. I have taken into account the meaningful comments from this thread in the updates so it is current and includes all of the appropriate fixes.

Particularly, I have added an updated Preface and done a pretty extensive rewrite of the Introduction to Cosmic Wave Cosmology.

To read the preface and introduction will take about five minutes and will give you a good idea of what QWC is about. Another ten minutes or so to read through the steps of speculation will give you plenty of material to comment about, and it might raise questions which I will be glad to address.

Please spend some time on the following link to get current on the document and if you haven't, read the Opening Post on this thread and review the link to the most recent meaningful post. Thank you for any time you decide to spend on QWC.

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

[quantum_wave]

I noticed that I left the images off on the recent QWC update. Since then I have added a link to begin to support the idea of two levels of order and have added back a couple of images that went along with section on Step I of QWC, the selection of the big crunch as the condition that preceded the Big Bang. I have also improved the document to address all of the meaningful comments made here.

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

[quantum_wave]

QWC is a discussion of cosmology; somethings that the mainstream won't discuss and the activist professionals like AN and Prom might deride because it is speculation. Reminds me of this post, http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2334150&postcount=75.


I am discussing ideas about how a big crunch might have preceded the Big Bang. OK, maybe that is not so outrageous.

But I am discussing ideas of how big crunches could form if there is a greater universe out there. OK, I guess if a big crunch could precede a Big Bang then the big crunch had to have formed somehow so that idea isn’t so outrageous either.

I am discussing the idea of demoting our entire observable universe to a mere arena within that greater universe, a spit in the ocean, a grain of sand on an infinite beach. OK, so if there was a big crunch and it formed like I discuss then there is a greater universe out there so that discussion becomes almost mainstream.

I am discussing ideas about a cosmology that uses good old fashion 3-D space and where time is a continuum. Good God, this is not good, that’s outrageous according to a few. But I just like talking about possibilities that aren’t inconsistent with observations. What will happen to all the geeks if space and time are not coupled and warped by mass?

I am discussing ideas about aether, mass, and gravity in ways that drive the mainstream brains berserk because they can’t show where QWC is inconsistent with real observations and if they were able to do so I would update QWC to accommodate it. My critics assure us their peers are working on solving the great question and will get back with us. Or worse yet they pretend they have falsified QWC by merely saying it is fantasy.

Not to say that I haven’t been corrected, shown to be wrong, or just told I am wrong, but in every instance where they can make a case I readily change QWC to accommodate my learning. QWC thus evolves.

QWC is a cosmology that takes a stand on the important questions about the cause of expansion, the cause of mass, is there a spacetime continuum or not, and how might gravity work if space and time aren’t coupled. I discuss ideas like is there aether and what might it be composed of, what is dark matter, what is dark energy and what is beyond our observable universe. QWC paints a physical picture that is internally consistent and is not inconsistent with facts and observation.

And QWC is based on infinities so if you don’t believe in or grasp infinity you can’t play. The infinities are space, time and energy.

You object? If you don’t like speculation in any respect you are in the wrong forum. If you think that all speculation can be painted by the same brush you haven’t read the methodology that applies to reasonable and responsible speculation vs. idle or wild speculation.

New to the thread or haven’t seen the updates? Go read the QWC link below and you will see why the brainy brains hate it.

In QWC anything is possible because science is tentative and I am willing to discuss your ideas or theories right alongside my ideas.

Read it, feel it, love it. It is what Pseudoscience is about. Have fun while you learn what QWC is about and from that learn a little about what you might call your own personal view of cosmology. And learn that you can point out the arrogance of people who haven’t learned the art of discussion.

Quantum Wave Cosmology (http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1).

[quantum_wave]

In line with the last post there have been some discussions about time on several of my threads, but the art of discussion hasn't really been practiced.

In my view of cosmology, there are three basic infinities, space, time, and energy. Here are some statements that are in line with those infinites:

There cannot be an infinite distance between two physical objects.
There cannot be an infinite amount of time between two physical events.
There cannot be an infinite amount of energy in any finite volume of space.

And yet space, time and energy are potentially infinite.

Does anyone disagree with any or all of those statement enough to discuss their thoughts?

[Pincho Paxton]

In line with the last post there have been some discussions about time on several of my threads, but the art of discussion hasn't really been practiced.

In my view of cosmology, there are three basic infinities, space, time, and energy. Here are some statements that are in line with those infinites:

There cannot be an infinite distance between two physical objects.
There cannot be an infinite amount of time between two physical events.
There cannot be an infinite amount of energy in any finite volume of space.

And yet space, time and energy are potentially infinite.

Does anyone disagree with any or all of those statement enough to discuss their thoughts?

Infinite Distance between objects is a cross reference really to scale factors. you needn't mention the two objects at all. Just state that scale cannot be infinitely divided. The two objects could never exist anyway if they were an infinite distance apart.

Time doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.

Infinite energy in finite space. I believe that energy can be created from less that its result. It has to be like that to have the perpetual motion required for the Universe to begin.

[Dywyddyr]

Infinite Distance between objects is a cross reference really to scale factors. you needn't mention the two objects at all. Just state that scale cannot be infinitely divided.
Meaningless word salad.

The two objects could never exist anyway if they were an infinite distance apart.
Why not?

Time doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.
But you're wrong.

Infinite energy in finite space. I believe that energy can be created from less that its result. It has to be like that to have the perpetual motion required for the Universe to begin.
Assumption.

[Pincho Paxton]

Meaningless word salad.


Why not?


But you're wrong.


Assumption.

Why do you always use the same replies? Like "Meaningless word salad", you make it seem as though you are using ready made replies to things which you don't understand.

[quantum_wave]

Why do you always use the same replies? Like "Meaningless word salad", you make it seem as though you are using ready made replies to things which you don't understand.Hold on Pincho. Those seem like reasonable responses. I trust you to have answers.

[Dywyddyr]

Why do you always use the same replies? Like "Meaningless word salad", you make it seem as though you are using ready made replies to things which you don't understand.
Ready made reply?
Okay try this: what on Earth makes you think that ANY distance (let alone an infinite one) isn't capable of being "infinitely divided"?
What on Earth makes you think that infinite distance is a "cross reference really to scale factors"?

You make statements that barely (if at all) hold up as English, let alone as factual comments.

Likewise what evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

[Pincho Paxton]

Infinite division allows for infinite building cells, and infinite building cells allows for infinitely small acceleration stages. Large acceleration stages using infinitely small cells requires that the cells can hold together as their acceleration steps are updated. Take two cells side by side, they need to maintain a reasonable distance apart to hold their partner in place. So they therefore require speeds, and forces multiple times their own scale. The Aether is the holding force, and the Atom acts as its held partner. The Photon wave could be described as the dividing line between the two. For the wave to hold its shape at high speed, it needs the dividing line to have substance, or forces apart from the Aether. I call that the Aether membrane, or bubble membrane. We would now have...

Aether
Aether Membrane
Atom
Photon
Electron

These things all working as a unit. If we accept such a situation, and realise that C is therefore a limit of the Aether Membrane size. We now have C not as a constant speed, but rather as a minimum size limit. A membrane is a skin around a substance, and a skin around a substance has to have a thickness, and the substance has to have a radius. When a membrane touches its own radius it becomes the substance. Further reduction is impossible.

Time requires infinite energy to store each event. It requires parallel Universe. Basically it is a sci-fi concept. It has been egged on by some faulty experiments where Aether was not accepted as substance, and therefore time had to exist. Two planes flying in opposite directions do not travel through exactly the same amount of Aether, and Aether is the update interval for electrons, and a force wall for atoms. two planes flying in opposite directions find an Aether effect, not time.

Infinite Energy.. We live in substance, and substance shares substance. If we could go somewhere where nothing has to be shared with anything else energy would be more positive than shared.

[Pincho Paxton]

Ready made reply?
Okay try this: what on Earth makes you think that ANY distance (let alone an infinite one) isn't capable of being "infinitely divided"?
What on Earth makes you think that infinite distance is a "cross reference really to scale factors"?

You make statements that barely (if at all) hold up as English, let alone as factual comments.

Likewise what evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

1/ Infinite division is a manufactured power of mathematics not nature.
2/ perpetual motion is the definition of the Universe beginning from nothing. if you state that the Universe began as the Universe is now then you state that the Universe is a Pot Noodle, which is nice and simple for you to understand, but that is just a convenient way not to have to think about it.

[Dywyddyr]

1/ Infinite division is a manufactured power of mathematics not nature.
In which case nothing is divisible and you're being specious on the subject of infinite distance.

2/ perpetual motion is the definition of the Universe beginning from nothing.
No it isn't.
"Perpetual motion" by definition means "moving forever". The very slight clue to that is in the words "perpetual" and "motion". If at any point there was nothing then couldn't have been any motion.

if you state that the Universe began as the Universe is now then you state that the Universe is a Pot Noodle, which is nice and simple for you to understand, but that is just a convenient way not to have to think about it.
And so you revert to meaningless drivel once more.

[Pincho Paxton]

In which case nothing is divisible and you're being specious on the subject of infinite distance.


No it isn't.
"Perpetual motion" by definition means "moving forever". The very slight clue to that is in the words "perpetual" and "motion". If at any point there was nothing then couldn't have been any motion.


And so you revert to meaningless drivel once more.

Division in cells is the none mathematical version. How many cells is an entity built from.

Perpetual motion has an alternate meaning....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[quantum_wave]

Infinite division allows for infinite building cells, and infinite building cells allows for infinitely small acceleration stages. Large acceleration stages using infinitely small cells requires that the cells can hold together as their acceleration steps are updated. Take two cells side by side, they need to maintain a reasonable distance apart to hold their partner in place. So they therefore require speeds, and forces multiple times their own scale. The Aether is the holding force, and the Atom acts as its held partner. The Photon wave could be described as the dividing line between the two. For the wave to hold its shape at high speed, it needs the dividing line to have substance, or forces apart from the Aether. I call that the Aether membrane, or bubble membrane. We would now have...

Aether
Aether Membrane
Atom
Photon
Electron

These things all working as a unit. If we accept such a situation, and realise that C is therefore a limit of the Aether Membrane size. We now have C not as a constant speed, but rather as a minimum size limit. A membrane is a skin around a substance, and a skin around a substance has to have a thickness, and the substance has to have a radius. When a membrane touches its own radius it becomes the substance. Further reduction is impossible.

Time requires infinite energy to store each event. It requires parallel Universe. Basically it is a sci-fi concept. It has been egged on by some faulty experiments where Aether was not accepted as substance, and therefore time had to exist. Two planes flying in opposite directions do not travel through exactly the same amount of Aether, and Aether is the update interval for electrons, and a force wall for atoms. two planes flying in opposite directions find an Aether effect, not time.

Infinite Energy.. We live in substance, and substance shares substance. If we could go somewhere where nothing has to be shared with anything else energy would be more positive than shared.Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.

[Pincho Paxton]

Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.

It's bubble Universe theory really, but taken from the smallest bubbles upwards. Say for example we have the 2D version simplified..

360 locked bubbles (size 2) create a ring, around a bunch of smaller bubbles (size 1). 360 larger bubbles (size 3) surround the size 2 bubbles, but this compresses the size 2 bubbles, giving them more of a single membrane rather than a 360 separate bubble membrane. This keeps happening upwards, and the stresses of the membrane upscale with the size.

[quantum_wave]

It's bubble Universe theory really, but taken from the smallest bubbles upwards. Say for example we have the 2D version simplified..

360 locked bubbles (size 2) create a ring, around a bunch of smaller bubbles (size 1). 360 larger bubbles (size 3) surround the size 2 bubbles, but this compresses the size 2 bubbles, giving them more of a single membrane rather than a 360 separate bubble membrane. This keeps happening upwards, and the stresses of the membrane upscale with the size.First, about the departure point. You are using bubble Universe theory as your departure point? Won't work to give us a clue about what you are talking about because it is not an accepted consensus. You have to start with something both you and I understand and then tell me how your idea goes further, step by step. There has to be a methodology in speculation that can always lead back to accepted science. That way someone can point out exactly where they first disagree with your ideas.

[Pincho Paxton]

First, about the departure point. You are using bubble Universe theory as your departure point? Won't work to give us a clue about what you are talking about because it is not an accepted consensus. You have to start with something both you and I understand and then tell me how your idea goes further, step by step. There has to be a methodology in speculation that can always lead back to accepted science. That way someone can point out exactly where they first disagree with your ideas.

Lol.. I don't think that any of my theory uses any accepted scientific consensus, it is a theory that tries to append Quantum Physics to Physics without disagreeing with all of the knows like G, C etc. So it is more like a working model of everything made from as few entities as possible. Mostly bubbles. Not quite the same as fairies as it is the minimal requirement, and minimises science removing time, Dark Matter, wave particle theory, and lots of other things. Just to show that bubbles can remove the need for nearly everything.

[quantum_wave]

Lol.. I don't think that any of my theory uses any accepted scientific consensus, it is a theory that tries to append Quantum Physics to Physics without disagreeing with all of the knows like G, C etc. So it is more like a working model of everything made from as few entities as possible. Mostly bubbles. Not quite the same as fairies as it is the minimal requirement, and minimises science removing time, Dark Matter, wave particle theory, and lots of other things. Just to show that bubbles can remove the need for nearly everything.Well that is a starting point. Just like QWC except that I start out with speculation about what caused the Big Bang. And instead of little bubbles I use energy quantization. The quantum particles occur during a process of quantization that I call quantum action but the process only produces a phase during which the presence of mass is established. It is a passing phase but the process repeats itself as the waves that emerge form the high density spot (particle) phase expand and overlap to initiate subsequent action. Each quantum of energy goes through the phases and so matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. Like your many little bubbles, a fundamental particle with mass might be composed of a huge number of energy quanta.

The Big Bang part comes into play after a big crunch forms and it is the energy density achieved by the crunch that halts quantum action. Quantum action is necessary for gravity waves to be emitted from mass and so when the energy density reaches the maximum threshold within a big crunch, gravity ceases and is converted to potential expansion energy. The dense state energy of that phase of a big crunch builds up until it exceeds the compression of the crunch. The dense state energy with its expansion potential becomes dark energy as it emerges from the big bang. Simple huh?

[Pincho Paxton]

Well that is a starting point. Just like QWC except that I start out with speculation about what caused the Big Bang. And instead of little bubbles I use energy quantization. The quantum particles occur during a process of quantization that I call quantum action but the process only produces a phase during which the presence of mass is established. It is a passing phase but the process repeats itself as the waves that emerge form the high density spot (particle) phase expand and overlap to initiate subsequent action. Each quantum of energy goes through the phases and so matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. Like your many little bubbles, a fundamental particle with mass might be composed of a huge number of energy quanta.

The Big Bang part comes into play after a big crunch forms and it is the energy density achieved by the crunch that halts quantum action. Quantum action is necessary for gravity waves to be emitted from mass and so when the energy density reaches the maximum threshold within a big crunch, gravity ceases and is converted to potential expansion energy. The dense state energy of that phase of a big crunch builds up until it exceeds the compression of the crunch. The dense state energy with its expansion potential becomes dark energy as it emerges from the big bang. Simple huh?

To minimise the physics however I also had to minimise the Big Bang to basically the creation of the Universe from perpetual motion (energy from zero). I removed the zero from the maths completely, and replaced it with what happens if a state is both -1 and +1 at the same time. Which would be left / right spins, or two opposing forces. By removing zero you get a Universe from what is left. This helped me to solve many problems with quantum physics. By just saying that zero cannot exist to create a Universe you also get many none zero states in quantum physics. I also then removed infinity from scale, and depth because of the amount of energy that this would require, and by removing infinity I had to also remove time, because time is infinite in many ways, and parallel universe are also infinite. What I was left with was tension breaks. Tension breaks occur when something cannot hold together any longer due to normal physical tension v's force, and holding. It's very simple in physics to test for tension break occurrence, but mathematics has hidden this tension force for many years. It is time to accept tension breaks in things like Black Holes. I can guarantee that wherever there is a nonsensical zero, or infinity in maths that there will be a unforeseen result. I like to find these zeros, and infinities to unlock their hidden results. They produce some amazing things. Like Black Holes bursting into Galaxies, and pressures crushing materials into vague materials that have ghost like properties. But because I change so much of science, and because science is so slow to accept a single change let alone the entire structure of itself to change, my science of nature will not be known until I am a hidden speck in the internet history. But I do believe that Einstein himself knew a lot of this, but was old, and silenced by majority vote. The theory of relativity used to be called 'The Aether and the theory of relativity' but majority vote ruled out the Aether. Einstein himself couldn't explain his meaning to scientists, so the Aether is the missing link to what could be, but what might not be in our lifetimes.

[quantum_wave]

Let me ask you this Pincho. Why don't you just go with standard cosmology, BBT, Inflation, the Cosmological Principle, all that? What is there about your ideas that seems to work better for you?

[Dywyddyr]

Division in cells is the none mathematical version. How many cells is an entity built from.
And you somehow think that one is simply a sort of mathematical trick and the other is "more real"?

Perpetual motion has an alternate meaning....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Er, quite:
The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever.
If, however, you're referring to the incorrect interpretation:
commonly refers to any device or system that perpetually (indefinitely) produces more energy than it consumes,
I ask again:
What evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

[Pincho Paxton]

Let me ask you this Pincho. Why don't you just go with standard cosmology, BBT, Inflation, the Cosmological Principle, all that? What is there about your ideas that seems to work better for you?

The original scientific theory fell apart a long time ago, but bodges have been introduced to keep it going for many years. Also the Big Bang is a paradox like God is a paradox. Who created God? What created the singularity? And time is also a Paradox, and Particle wave is another Paradox.

Too many Paradox spoil the theory. I stripped it apart, and started from scratch.

[Pincho Paxton]

And you somehow think that one is simply a sort of mathematical trick and the other is "more real"?


Er, quite:

If, however, you're referring to the incorrect interpretation:

I ask again:
What evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

Yes, cell divisions are not infinite. Maths misses out the physics. The infinite Black Hole for example has no physics. You can keep cramming more, and, more material in there forever. The whole Universe can fit in a Black Hole. It works with maths because you don't know the tension breakage. You need a tension estimation based on some sort of logic. The logic can possibly come from the smallest possible particle. When the crushing weight creates almost zero particle scale something will break.

The Universe needs to start from perpetual motion to remove the Paradox. What happened before the Big Bang, and what is the singularity? If you start with perpetual motion you step back in scale, rather than time. Now you have to go back to maybe a single electron. What happened before the single electron? is the same as asking "What happened before 1?" That is not such a paradox as we have maths that can cope with what happens before 1. It is a sensible solution to the Paradox.

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, cell divisions are not infinite.
And so...?

Maths misses out the physics.
:confused:

The infinite Black Hole for example has no physics.
Er, wrong.

It works with maths because you don't know the tension breakage. You need a tension estimation based on some sort of logic.
WTF is a "tension breakage" and why do you need one?

The logic can possibly come from the smallest possible particle. When the crushing weight creates almost zero particle scale something will break.
Er... quite. Are you still taking the tablets?

The Universe needs to start from perpetual motion to remove the Paradox.
No it doesn't. What "paradox"?

What happened before the Big Bang, and what is the singularity? If you start with perpetual motion you step back in scale, rather than time. Now you have to go back to maybe a single electron. What happened before the single electron? is the same as asking "What happened before 1?" That is not such a paradox as we have maths that can cope with what happens before 1. It is a sensible solution to the Paradox.
And now you're simply talking out of your arse.

[quantum_wave]

The original scientific theory fell apart a long time ago, but bodges have been introduced to keep it going for many years. Also the Big Bang is a paradox like God is a paradox. Who created God? What created the singularity? And time is also a Paradox, and Particle wave is another Paradox.

Too many Paradox spoil the theory. I stripped it apart, and started from scratch.Yikes, we sort of agree except that I'm not sure we use the word "paradox" in the same way. And what are bodges? Give me an example. But what we agree on is that science does not yet have all the answers.

I basically ask people three questions in QWC:

What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What causes gravity?

Then in QWC I proceed to speculate about the answers. The questions each represent a departure point from where we have been able to go scientifically and the speculative answers are an attempt to get people who are interested in cosmology to discuss the possibilities.

[AlphaNumeric]

Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.

[quantum_wave]

Unfortunately I have an idea of what Pincho's statement about the universe having to start with perpetual motion might mean. But my excuse is that in my view of cosmology the universe demonstrates perpetual motion in a way that defeats entropy, i.e. QWC.

Pincho, would your perpetual motion concept of the universe be satisfied if the universe had always existed with big bangs and expanding arenas like our observable universe occurring here and there across the landscape of a greater potentially infinite universe?

[quantum_wave]

PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.link ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97978) and document ( http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1).

[Pincho Paxton]

PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.

I said that my example was the simplified version, and it used 360 to make the explanation easy to visualise. The real value is the smallest value of Aether, which can probably be calculated, but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.

[Dywyddyr]

The real value is the smallest value of Aether, which can probably be calculated, but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.
Go ahead.
That should be an "interesting" thread.
Bet you can't...

[Pincho Paxton]

Unfortunately I have an idea of what Pincho's statement about the universe having to start with perpetual motion might mean. But my excuse is that in my view of cosmology the universe demonstrates perpetual motion in a way that defeats entropy, i.e. QWC.

Pincho, would your perpetual motion concept of the universe be satisfied if the universe had always existed with big bangs and expanding arenas like our observable universe occurring here and there across the landscape of a greater potentially infinite universe?

Galaxies satisfy my concept, I don't really need more than Galaxies, apart from G. Gravity should be a ripple through all of your arenas to remove the current version of G (an infinite pull). Because the infinite pull theory contains yet another unlimited power variable. A push that ripples from the back to the front of all arenas however is not unlimited, it is not infinite, and is therefore a satisfactory mathematical condition. So maybe I should ask you if Galaxies satisfy your multi-verse idea?

[Pincho Paxton]

Go ahead.
That should be an "interesting" thread.
Bet you can't...

It's easy, it's just the distance between two none bonded atom nucleus, with half push, half pull electrons that equal 0 force. But I couldn't find that distance out. But it must have been posted somewhere.

[Dywyddyr]

It's easy, it's just the distance between two none bonded atom nucleus, with half push, half pull electrons that equal 0 force. But I couldn't find that distance out. But it must have been posted somewhere.
Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?

I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously. :rolleyes:

[Pincho Paxton]

Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?

I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously. :rolleyes:

It can be guaranteed by C, and all of your physics. Anything smaller than that and your wave becomes a straight line that cannot maintain its shape, or direction.

[Dywyddyr]

It can be guaranteed by C
According to you.
And your mathematical prowess has so far been shown to be roughly zero.
As per
but I'm an artist, and not a scientist, or mathematician.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2403141&postcount=1

So a self-admitted non-scientist, non-mathematician is now guaranteeing calculated* results. :rolleyes:

Well claimed to be calculated, since we've seen nothing yet of those calculations.
Not doing terribly well, are you?

[Pincho Paxton]

According to you.
And your mathematical prowess has so far been shown to be roughly zero.
As per

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2403141&postcount=1

So a self-admitted non-scientist, non-mathematician is now guaranteeing calculated* results. :rolleyes:

Well claimed to be calculated, since we've seen nothing yet of those calculations.
Not doing terribly well, are you?

Calculated by logic.

[quantum_wave]

Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?

I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously. :rolleyes:Don't take any of this seriously if you expect quantification of things that science can not yet quantify. Even better advice which you don't need anyway since you clearly understand it, is not to be deluded by ourselves or by the deluded ideas of others. A discussion of QWC is about the questions that science cannot yet answer. When I discuss ideas from Pincho or ideas of my own I am practicing the art of discussion and sharing ideas that science cannot investigate. The ideas should have some connection to what science has arrived at, i.e. to a consensus and that is where QWC differs from Pincho Paxton.

Pincho, give me some bio info on yourself; age, background, so I can put your ideas into that perspective.

[Dywyddyr]

Don't take any of this seriously if you expect quantification of things that science can not yet quantify.
It's not a question of what science can quantify.
PP clearly statedOriginally Posted by Pincho Paxton
The real value is the smallest value of Aether, which can probably be calculated, but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.
Post #200.
In other words he's claimed HE has that value.

[AlphaNumeric]

It can be guaranteed by C, and all of your physics.Which you know nothing about and simply make up delusions to try to convince yourself you're not a hack. If it can be done by 'all my physics' then lets see you do it.

link and document. Do you think that simply linking to your same tired prattle will magically negate the issues I raise about how PP is a hack and you're ignorant for not seeing it?

Even better advice which you don't need anyway since you clearly understand it, is not to be deluded by ourselves or by the deluded ideas of others.Perhaps you should take your own advice about not being deluded by oneself?

Calculated by logic. So the fact is that you can't show your calculations. And many times you've had your 'logic' disproven so why should anyone believe what you claim if you can't back it up?

[quantum_wave]

Which you know nothing about and simply make up delusions to try to convince yourself you're not a hack. If it can be done by 'all my physics' then lets see you do it.

Do you think that simply linking to your same tired prattle will magically negate the issues I raise about how PP is a hack and you're ignorant for not seeing it?

Perhaps you should take your own advice about not being deluded by oneself?

So the fact is that you can't show your calculations. And many times you've had your 'logic' disproven so why should anyone believe what you claim if you can't back it up?link ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97978) and document ( http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1).

[quantum_wave]

It's not a question of what science can quantify.
PP clearly stated
Post #200.
In other words he's claimed HE has that value.Point made and taken.

[Pincho Paxton]

Don't take any of this seriously if you expect quantification of things that science can not yet quantify. Even better advice which you don't need anyway since you clearly understand it, is not to be deluded by ourselves or by the deluded ideas of others. A discussion of QWC is about the questions that science cannot yet answer. When I discuss ideas from Pincho or ideas of my own I am practicing the art of discussion and sharing ideas that science cannot investigate. The ideas should have some connection to what science has arrived at, i.e. to a consensus and that is where QWC differs from Pincho Paxton.

Pincho, give me some bio info on yourself; age, background, so I can put your ideas into that perspective.

I'm 46, I'm an artist who studies nature, and biology. I'm a computer programmer too. I satisfy Genius level tests, but my genius level is mostly visual which actually lowers my test results where maths are concerned. However, I used to be a maths genius too at school, but got so far ahead that I was allowed to read comics during maths class. Somehow, reading comics during maths lessons gave me the ability to see maths as images instead of numbers, and that's how my visual interpretation of nature grew. I can visualise the Aether, and how it propagates materials by taking a pattern like a wave, and understanding what it would require to create that wave as physics. So the photon becomes a vibration through a wave of bubbles, and bubbles have a wavelike membrane. My descriptions of events however require an understanding of visual imagery, and require translation back to mathematics. I should really learn how to translate my images into mathematics myself, but I am not in a situation that allows me back into college. The easiest way for me to describe myself is as a Da Vinci character, who can create results without using formulas, but I use predefined data that is available to me through other sources. C,G and tests made by scientists.

I believe that I am the imagination that is needed to form the first steps in a theory.

[Pincho Paxton]

It's not a question of what science can quantify.
PP clearly stated
Post #200.
In other words he's claimed HE has that value.

That value has been calculated, I just couldn't find it. I read on how it was calculated, but the result wasn't posted.

[Dywyddyr]

That value has been calculated, I just couldn't find it. I read on how it was calculated, but the result wasn't posted.
You said you could guarantee it.
Who calculated it and why? (Since you claim it as support for your nonsense).
Sigh, one more back-pedal...

[quantum_wave]

I'm 46, I'm an artist who studies nature, and biology. I'm a computer programmer too. I satisfy Genius level tests, but my genius level is mostly visual which actually lowers my test results where maths are concerned. However, I used to be a maths genius too at school, but got so far ahead that I was allowed to read comics during maths class. Somehow, reading comics during maths lessons gave me the ability to see maths as images instead of numbers, and that's how my visual interpretation of nature grew. I can visualise the Aether, and how it propagates materials by taking a pattern like a wave, and understanding what it would require to create that wave as physics. So the photon becomes a vibration through a wave of bubbles, and bubbles have a wavelike membrane. My descriptions of events however require an understanding of visual imagery, and require translation back to mathematics. I should really learn how to translate my images into mathematics myself, but I am not in a situation that allows me back into college. The easiest way for me to describe myself is as a Da Vinci character, who can create results without using formulas, but I use predefined data that is available to me through other sources. C,G and tests made by scientists.

I believe that I am the imagination that is needed to form the first steps in a theory.Thank you for that bio. It gives me a better perspective.

No, galaxies do not play the role that you describe in my QWC view. I'll respond to the post where you bring that concept up when I get my energy level up enough to engage my thinking cap :).

[AlphaNumeric]

I satisfy Genius level tests, but my genius level is mostly visual ..... However, I used to be a maths genius too at school.....The easiest way for me to describe myself is as a Da Vinci character, who can create results without using formulas.....I believe that I am the imagination that is needed to form the first steps in a theory.So you're a genius but you can't actually do any physics or maths and you don't actually know anything or answer direct questions or back up your claims or show any capacity to learn or understand.

I think you need a dictionary.

link ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97978) and document ( http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1).Clearly you are that stupid then. I comment that simply mindlessly linking to the same nonsense I'm criticising doesn't magically make the criticisms invalid and what do you do? Post links again. It's a possum defence, you get caught in headlights and so you lock up, mindlessly posting the same two links.

[Dywyddyr]

I'm 46, I'm an artist who studies nature, and biology. I'm a computer programmer too. I satisfy Genius level tests, but my genius level is mostly visual which actually lowers my test results where maths are concerned.
In other words you know next to nothing about science but assume that your genius makes you correct.

However, I used to be a maths genius too at school, but got so far ahead that I was allowed to read comics during maths class.
Used to be? And you're not now because...?

Somehow, reading comics during maths lessons gave me the ability to see maths as images instead of numbers
How do you know you're visualising maths as images since you've claimed that you're not a mathematician? For all you know it's just pretty pictures.

I can visualise the Aether, and how it propagates materials by taking a pattern like a wave, and understanding what it would require to create that wave as physics.
Except that you have nothing at all to indicate that there's any validity to your imagery.

My descriptions of events however require an understanding of visual imagery, and require translation back to mathematics.
Uh, wrong. Translate "back" to mathematics? You're assuming that the images are mathematically valid - on absolutely zero evidence.

The easiest way for me to describe myself is as a Da Vinci character, who can create results without using formulas
But a more accurate, less-biased, description would be "deluded crackpot".

I believe that I am the imagination that is needed to form the first steps in a theory.
Belief is one thing: evidence is another.

[Pincho Paxton]

You said you could guarantee it.
Who calculated it and why? (Since you claim it as support for your nonsense).
Sigh, one more back-pedal...

I think you read my posts in an unusual way. I often don't understand how your reply has anything to do with my comment. I said that I could guarantee that the smallest Aether membrane was the distance between two none bonded atoms. That distance has been calculated along with the distances between bonded atoms. I told you why this membrane size is the smallest, because the wave of C collapses at around this point, Atoms appear at this point, G forces affect this point, Atoms are spaced around this point, Bose-Einstein collapses at this point, electrons spin inside this point, diamonds are created near to this point, water is part of this transitional point, magnetism uses this scale, the two slit experiment is effected at this scale, mass is the locking of this scale.

If there is a smaller scale membrane, it is locked inside the atom, and is pretty useless to the physics of our universe. We could simple disregard it anyway.

[quantum_wave]

So you're a genius but you can't actually do any physics or maths and you don't actually know anything or answer direct questions or back up your claims or show any capacity to learn or understand.

I think you need a dictionary.

Clearly you are that stupid then. I comment that simply mindlessly linking to the same nonsense I'm criticising doesn't magically make the criticisms invalid and what do you do? Post links again. It's a possum defence, you get caught in headlights and so you lock up, mindlessly posting the same two links.link ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97978) and document ( http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1).

[Dywyddyr]

I think you read my posts in an unusual way.
Really?
but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.
The only calculation YOU can fully guarantee... Right there, post #200.
Maybe you have problems with English, as well as science, mathematics and reality.

I often don't understand how your reply has anything to do with my comment. I said that I could guarantee that the smallest Aether membrane was the distance between two none bonded atoms.
Nope, you clearly stated you could guarantee the calculation.

I told you why this membrane size is the smallest, because the wave of C collapses at around this point, Atoms appear at this point, G forces affect this point, Atoms are spaced around this point, Bose-Einstein collapses at this point, electrons spin inside this point, diamonds are created near to this point, water is part of this transitional point, magnetism uses this scale, the two slit experiment is effected at this scale, mass is the locking of this scale.
And that was yet another example of totally meaningless bullshit.

If there is a smaller scale membrane, it is locked inside the atom, and is pretty useless to the physics of our universe. We could simple disregard it anyway.
The way you disregard all of science?

[Pincho Paxton]

Really?

The only calculation YOU can fully guarantee... Right there, post #200.
Maybe you have problems with English, as well as science, mathematics and reality.


Nope, you clearly stated you could guarantee the calculation.


And that was yet another example of totally meaningless bullshit.


The way you disregard all of science?

No I said that I could guarantee that the calculation is the smallest membrane size, not that I had calculated it myself. Like I can guarantee that 1+1 = 2 but I didn't invent maths.

[Dywyddyr]

No I said that I could guarantee that the calculation is the smallest membrane size, not that I had calculated it myself.
I quoted your post directly.
You claimed you could guarantee the calculation. Where have I said that you made the calculation?
How can you guarantee a calculation if you're as mathematically inept as you appear to be?
And (given your ineptitude) how do know that it has anything at all to do "membrane size"?
Especially as you're now claiming that you've lost the reference.

Like I can guarantee that 1+1 = 2 but I didn't invent maths.
But you can't guarantee that 1+1=2. You take it on faith.

[Pincho Paxton]

I quoted your post directly.
You claimed you could guarantee the calculation. Where have I said that you made the calculation?
How can you guarantee a calculation if you're as mathematically inept as you appear to be?
And (given your ineptitude) how do know that it has anything at all to do "membrane size"?
Especially as you're now claiming that you've lost the reference.

But I never quoted the calculation, I quoted the distance between two none bonded atoms. I gave the none mathematical version of events which is just the same as saying the value, especially accurate being as mathematical distances are always approximates. The same as C went through a lot of approximated stages at one time.

[Dywyddyr]

But I never quoted the calculation, I quoted the distance between two none bonded atoms.
:confused:

I gave the none mathematical version of events which is just the same as saying the value.
Wrong again.
You're claiming to be able guarantee something (which you can't show us) to support something else (which makes no sense).

[quantum_wave]

Pincho, you have to learn how important even the simplest quantification of a theory is. You are implying that there is some minimimal size or distance in your theory and yet you can't quantify it and you have lost the link?

I'm with Dy on this point and your best outcome is to acknowledge Dy's comments are appropriate. You can use my thread to withdraw the suggestion that you have any quantification at all, or produce it.

[Pincho Paxton]

:confused:


Wrong again.
You're claiming to be able guarantee something (which you can't show us) to support something else (which makes no sense).

Well then you are not able to understand it. I need not have to explain each part as an individual interpretation to each different mind set. I might have to come up with 6 billion different explanations of the same thing.

[Dywyddyr]

Well then you are not able to understand it.
Quite true. I always have problems understanding nonsense.

I need not have to explain each part as an individual interpretation to each different mind set.
Not "each different mindset" no, but explaining yourself clearly to others is a sine qua non for the advancement of science (or any discipline).
If only you think your explanations make sense then they aren't explanations at all, are they?

I might have to come up with 6 billion different explanations of the same thing.
And none of them would make sense. Quite a talent you have.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, you have to learn how important even the simplest quantification of a theory is. You are implying that there is some minimimal size or distance in your theory and yet you can't quantify it and you have lost the link?

I'm with Dy on this point and your best outcome is to acknowledge Dy's comments are appropriate. You can use my thread to withdraw the suggestion that you have any quantification at all, or produce it.

It's important to measure the size of none bonded atoms, as the C wave, and relativity are part of this distance per metre. When I have this distance, I will have the wave formula. Atoms need to sit in the centre of Aether because the forces around them are similar to gravity, or if you wish to use your bended space analogy, it is the atoms bending space between each other. In actual fact it is a membrane, but bent space, and membranes have similar calculations. They both have a concave aspect with a peak in the middle between the two atoms. My peak is a membrane, and it propagates the photon wave. What link is it that I am supposed to have lost?

[Dywyddyr]

In actual fact it is a membrane, but bent space, and membranes have similar calculations.
Don't tell me: this another statement you can't back up.

[Pincho Paxton]

Don't tell me: this another statement you can't back up.

I don't need to it is the same 3D model.

[Dywyddyr]

I don't need to
Of course you do. You've claimed the calculations are similar: prove it.

it is the same 3D model.
That's a supposition.
And a 3D model isn't a calculation.

[Pincho Paxton]

Of course you do. You've claimed the calculations are similar: prove it.


That's a supposition.
And a 3D model isn't a calculation.

A 3D model is made from vectors, and vectors are curve calculations, and a curve between atoms as a membrane, is the same as a curve between atoms of space bent between the atoms. There is no difference. In a sphere made from a substance there is more substance in the middle of the sphere because that is the largest radius to contain the substance. Larger substance has more mass, and mass holds the atom in the centre. the edges of a sphere reduce in mass due to distance from surface containing less substance. That is a curve value, and that is the same curve value as a bend in space containing an atom at its centre. That is why the none bonded atoms sit at the centre of an Aether bubble, and that is why the distance between none bonded atoms is the scale of the membrane.

[Dywyddyr]

A 3D model is made from vectors, and vectors are curve calculations
BUT a 3D model can be made without doing the calculations. Just slap clay together until it looks like what you want. Ever seen a vase? It's a 3D object with lots of curves. Was it calculated?

and a curve between atoms as a membrane, is the same as a curve between atoms of space bent between the atoms. There is no difference.
But you can't prove it. No calculations, not even a 3D model. Just your word for it.

In a sphere made from a substance there is more substance in the middle of the sphere because that is the largest radius to contain the substance.
What?
Go on, admit it. English isn't your native language is it?

Larger substance has more mass, and mass holds the atom in the centre. the edges of a sphere reduce in mass due to distance from surface containing less substance. That is a curve value, and that is the same curve value as a bend in space containing an atom at its centre. That is why the none bonded atoms sit at the centre of an Aether bubble, and that is why the distance between none bonded atoms is the scale of the membrane.
And every single sentence of that was specious nonsensical bullshit.

[Pincho Paxton]

BUT a 3D model can be made without doing the calculations. Just slap clay together until it looks like what you want. Ever seen a vase? It's a 3D object with lots of curves. Was it calculated?


But you can't prove it. No calculations, not even a 3D model. Just your word for it.


What?
Go on, admit it. English isn't your native language is it?


And every single sentence of that was specious nonsensical bullshit.

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.

[Dywyddyr]

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.
Which shows, once more, your complete failure to connect with the real world.
You make claims that you can't support.
Then you back-track and claim that's not exactly what you meant, and then when the sheer nonsense of your position strikes you, you decide it's a failure on the part of others.
Typical crank.
You have displayed NO logic and NO understanding, yet you have the sheer idiocy to claim it's my failure? :rolleyes:

Effectively you're saying "I'm right, I've got sod all to support my view except for nonsensical technobabble, and if you don't agree it's your own fault".
Clever.


Not.
You're just one in a long line of deluded half-wits. When you've gone there'll be others. Just as deluded, just as adamant in their sustained ignorance. If we're really lucky they'll come up with something that's actually new to be deluded about.

[quantum_wave]

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.Pincho, stick to the topic. The topic of my thread is QWC. Comparing QWC to someone else's ideas can help describe what QWC is about, hence our discussions here. Thanks.

Please take the discussion of your ideas to your own threads when they don't relate to a comparison with the thread topic. I still owe you a couple of responses here which I will get to.

[Pincho Paxton]

Which shows, once more, your complete failure to connect with the real world.
You make claims that you can't support.
Then you back-track and claim that's not exactly what you meant, and then when the sheer nonsense of your position strikes you, you decide it's a failure on the part of others.
Typical crank.
You have displayed NO logic and NO understanding, yet you have the sheer idiocy to claim it's my failure? :rolleyes:

Effectively you're saying "I'm right, I've got sod all to support my view except for nonsensical technobabble, and if you don't agree it's your own fault".
Clever.


Not.
You're just one in a long line of deluded half-wits. When you've gone there'll be others. Just as deluded, just as adamant in their sustained ignorance. If we're really lucky they'll come up with something that's actually new to be deluded about.

I never backtracked, I tried to explain things to you in a different way. I have always stuck with the same principal. You just keep changing what I am saying, your English is terrible.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, stick to the topic. The topic of my thread is QWC. Comparing QWC to someone else's ideas can help describe what QWC is about, hence our discussions here. Thanks.

Please take the discussion of your ideas to your own threads when they don't relate to a comparison with the thread topic. I still owe you a couple of responses here which I will get to.

My initial reposes were to you own questions, which I didn't really think were relevant, like more about myself. Anyway, I am sorry for going off topic based on being directed to do so.

[quantum_wave]

My initial reposes were to you own questions, which I didn't really think were relevant, like more about myself. Anyway, I am sorry for going off topic based on being directed to do so.Let's look closely at that statement:

"My initial responses were to your own questions". Is that what you meant?

"Which I didn't rreally think were relevant, ...". Are you saying that you don't think your responses were relavent to the questions I posed?

And when you say, "like more about myself", do you mean that your answers were about your theory instead of about the connection that my questions might have had to QWC?

Anyway, picking peoples minds is part of the art of discussion. Repond if you like. But please keep discussion of your theory in context with QWC. If you don't know what QWC is then find out.

[Dywyddyr]

I never backtracked
Let's see: you claim that you can guarantee a calculation.
But can't even produce said calculation. Then you claim that you meant the result, not the calculation. And then you fail to show even that.
You claim that "bent space and membranes have similar calculations" and then, after failing to show that they do have, you waffle meaninglessly about 3D models, which you ALSO can't produce.
In an effort to deflect from your consistent failure to actually show anything at all you then fall back on it somehow being a failure of my understanding.

You just keep changing what I am saying, your English is terrible.
On the contrary: I merely quote your own words back at you and ask for some sort of support for them.
Which still hasn't been forthcoming.

[Pincho Paxton]

Let's see: you claim that you can guarantee a calculation.
But can't even produce said calculation. Then you claim that you meant the result, not the calculation. And then you fail to show even that.
You claim that "bent space and membranes have similar calculations" and then, after failing to show that they do have, you waffle meaninglessly about 3D models, which you ALSO can't produce.
In an effort to deflect from your consistent failure to actually show anything at all you then fall back on it somehow being a failure of my understanding.


On the contrary: I merely quote your own words back at you and ask for some sort of support for them.
Which still hasn't been forthcoming.

No, you are shortening my sentences to make them work backwards. I can't go off topic with you any more.

[Dywyddyr]

No, you are shortening my sentences to make them work backwards.
Ah I see.
You do fail to understand English, along with science.

[Pincho Paxton]

Ah I see.
You do fail to understand English, along with science.

Let's see: you claim that you can guarantee a calculation.
But can't even produce said calculation.

The real value is the smallest value of Aether, which can probably be calculated, but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.

the smallest membrane size

I quoted the distance between two none bonded atoms

I can fully guarantee is the distance between two none bonded atoms

Which I have posted about 5 times now. So do you understand that the distance between two none bonded atoms is the size that I guarantee is the smallest membrane size?

It's the same as me saying. I can guarantee that the eggs in an eggbox are the same distance apart from their nucleus as the centre of the dips that they sit in, and that the two peaks in the middle of the eggbox also equal this distance.

[Dywyddyr]

Which I have posted about 5 times now. So do you understand that the distance between two none bonded atoms is the size that I guarantee is the smallest membrane size?
You keep claiming that: however what you posted was "but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size" i.e. the calculation (for the smallest membrane size) is the only one you can guarantee.
See how English works?
The claim refers refers to the calculation ( the subject of that calculation being an incidental clause).
Maybe you should have phrased it: All I can guarantee is the smallest membrane size (which has a calculation somewhere [that I can't produce]).

And you can't even produce it, let alone guarantee it.

In fact you can guarantee exactly nothing, since you've produced no mathematics (and no support whatsoever, in fact).
Pretentious badly-worded technobabble is no guarantee of anything, save, possibly, as confirmation of your delusion.

[Pincho Paxton]

You keep claiming that: however what you posted was "but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size" i.e. the calculation (for the smallest membrane size) is the only one you can guarantee.
See how English works?
The claim refers refers to the calculation ( the subject of that calculation being an incidental clause).
Maybe you should have phrased it: All I can guarantee is the smallest membrane size (which has a calculation somewhere [that I can't produce]).

And you can't even produce it, let alone guarantee it.

In fact you can guarantee exactly nothing, since you've produced no mathematics (and no support whatsoever, in fact).
Pretentious badly-worded technobabble is no guarantee of anything, save, possibly, as confirmation of your delusion.

I didn't say that I would produce that calculation. It doesn't even matter what that calculation is. If it is 1 mile then the smallest Aether membrane is 1 mile across, and I can guarantee it, because that is the separation between atoms created by the membrane. Atoms however would be 1 mile apart in this case, and C would be a very huge number.

[Dywyddyr]

I didn't say that I would produce that calculation.
Agreed.
But NOT being able to produce just means that you're claiming stuff you can't prove: in other words bullshitting.

It doesn't even matter what that calculation is.
Of course it does.
If you showed the calculation and it turned out be nothing at all to do with what you claim it does then you're bullshitting.

If it is 1 mile then the smallest Aether membrane is 1 mile across, and I can guarantee it, because that is the separation between atoms created by the membrane.
You mean that you think some (unspecified) calculation on a particular (unspecified) subject that accidentally happens to agree with your (nonsensical) ravings is a guarantee?
So this fictional calculation backs up your fictional membrane?
Suggest to the doctor that he increase your dosage. Soon.

[AlphaNumeric]

If atoms define the smallest distances in aether, why are there substructure in atoms like nuclei, nucleons and quarks?

[Pincho Paxton]

Look at this image. I can guarantee that the membrane calculation for this image is the same distance as the centre of each none bonded nucleus...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Frogspawn_closeup.jpg

[Dywyddyr]

No you can't because you can't produce the calculation for anyone to check.
In other words you're bullshitting.