Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213
Results 241 to 246 of 246

Thread: Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

  1. #241
    Contemplating the unanswered quantum_wave's Avatar
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Tnerb View Post
    Thread failure.
    Not really.

  2. #242
    Contemplating the unanswered quantum_wave's Avatar
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Guest254 View Post
    You people never learn, do you? Have you managed to come up with a reason why your attempt at science is better than a theory formulated in terms of elves and pixies?

    Or is that still proving rather difficult...
    A funny note.

    Not that I have or ever will have the slightest care about what Guest254 thinks about the origin of QWC, buy I thought I would recap a little history going back five or six years as I have developed the speculations in probably over a hundred threads in six or eight forums under IDs of Bogie, BogieBlogger, Quantum_Wave, and Brain-in-a-vat. Not a very impressive history but it has kept me off the streets in retirement. I never really meant it to be anything more than I have always said it is, speculative ideas about the cosmology of the universe for discussion. All of these threads from those forums convey that plan.

    I guess this was my earliest thread at SciForums. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....64#post1880464

    This post refers to my bottom up approach step by step approach at other forums which include BAUT and Physforum.com back in 2006 where I was Bogie, and as bogieblogger at IIBD in 2004 or 2005. Anyway, post #3 in the linked thread is the one I am talking about:

    My personal approach is to try to determine what might be the simplest explanations for what we now observe and I have been speculating using what I think is reasonable and responsible steps, one step at a time.

    Using that approach I have been able to present my speculations (mostly at BAUT), get some feedback, revise and post, etc. until I have gotten into such speculative fervor that no one is able to say that they understand my current personal cosmology ; and yet to me it is all laid out one little step at a time but over a period of years posting and many threads.

    My purpose for posting my steps and revising them based on input was to use a bottom up approach to understanding cosmology instead of trying to decipher all the alternative cosmologies, not being able to grasp them completely, and then never having a cosmology I could support.

    Being new here, not knowing who anyone is or what they support of don't support, I guess I am just trying to get me feet wet. I see that I need 20 posts in order to use some forum features.

    Is this the right forum for me to speculate about my alternative cosmology?


    Here is an older thread from 2006. Even by then I have a personal cosmology but it was called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU). That is where I mentioned the axioms for the first time I think. AN helped me with them and btw I made it clear to him back then that my project was not valid science, but ideas. I mentioned that ideas lead to science IMHO. I mentioned that my ideas were speculative and since then I have been aware of the distinction between pseudoscience and emerging protoscience.


    Here were the ISU Axioms: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=11494&hl=

    These are the first three axioms of QWC:

    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.


    A funny note; see where AlphaNumeric was helping me distinguish between the axioms and the corollaries of these axioms in 2006.

    Here is a thread I did back in 2004. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=106798
    I was already talking about the ISU back them. The Infinite Spongy Universe became Quantum Wave Cosmology at BAUT when I dropped the Elemental energy particle in favor of the quantum wave/high density spot.

    My process has been going on for five or six years and this very thread and the Google documents that I am and will put up for discussion here are evolved over those years and in those and other forums. This shouldn’t scare of threaten anyone and anyone who makes an arse out of themselves over it is just that.

  3. #243
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,054
    So, no reasons then? Ouch...

  4. #244
    Contemplating the unanswered quantum_wave's Avatar
    Posts
    5,434
    “ Originally Posted by Tnerb
    Thread failure. ”

    Not really, like I said. I am evolving my personal cosmology of the universe and even though you can look at it from Guests perspective, I can look at it from my perspective and new content is being added from these kind of trolls.

    For example, the nature of expansion where galaxies are all moving away from each other. In my speculations I see it is like a co-moving coordinate system within an expanding arena. Expansion continues until interrupted. Do you notice what causes the interruption? That couldn't happen in the standard cosmology of BBT, Inflation, etc. because to them there was no space before the big bang or none to speak of anyway, lol.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum_wave View Post
    I was looking for you to link me to the statement you attribute to me in this post.

    You didn't.
    I did, you said you weren't wanting people to believe it and I then give my interpretation of this and what it implies for your motives. I'm explaining how your statements come across.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum_wave View Post
    You referenced my post and attributed statements to me that you imply are in that post. Please use the forum "quote" feature to show what I said in the post you linked us to.
    Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse or do you fail to follow what I've said in relation to the post I linked to?

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum_wave View Post
    Using the “quote” function can be difficult for some disadvantaged people. I would think that self proclaimed scientists with published work, and who know what is and is not science could struggle over that hurdle but there are indications that I shouldn’t make such assumptions.
    Given the post I linked to was only a few lines and I said which bit I was referring to you're simply using a very transparent excuse to avoid discussing the point I'm making.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum_wave View Post
    I have restated each of the steps of reasonable and responsible bottom up step by step speculation from the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang through the formation of a big crunch that could result in a big bang type of event. These are steps through 2.6 on the above referenced Google document. No pixies dust has been pointed out by the self proclaimed best minds on the forum.
    You provided no justification for each step implying the other or why we should think they can put combined into a single coherent quantitative and logical framework, aka making stuff up because you know what things should or could be in cosmology.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantum_wave View Post
    These are the first three axioms of QWC:

    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. .
    And can you demonstrate how these lead through, logically and rigorously, to the implications you've claimed?

  6. #246
    Contemplating the unanswered quantum_wave's Avatar
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    I did, you said you weren't wanting people to believe it and I then give my interpretation of this and what it implies for your motives. I'm explaining how your statements come across.

    Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse or do you fail to follow what I've said in relation to the post I linked to?

    Given the post I linked to was only a few lines and I said which bit I was referring to you're simply using a very transparent excuse to avoid discussing the point I'm making.

    You provided no justification for each step implying the other or why we should think they can put combined into a single coherent quantitative and logical framework, aka making stuff up because you know what things should or could be in cosmology.

    And can you demonstrate how these lead through, logically and rigorously, to the implications you've claimed?
    You have a long history of saying that people have said something that they haven’t said, and then attacking them for it. I can show you clear examples of that behavior by linking to what you say people have said, and then linking to what they actually said. Please deny this.

    As far as I’m concerned you are being intellectually insincere and mentally immature, and you have no intention of taking anything I say from the perspective of discussion.

    You say that you really have a self appointed mission to save the community from my ideas. That is what you said you were doing. You also said you just like to make fun of people "like me". And yet I’m the one applying logic, reason, thought, and ideas in what I say, and you are the one attacking logic, reason, thought and ideas. Go figure.

    That is why I ask you to use the forum quote function. Everyone who knows you knows that I am right to ask that. And BTW, if you take something out of context I will ask you to give us the context. I am expected to try to keep this thread on topic, my topic not yours.

    Am I wrong about any of this? You should change your entire tone to one of discussion instead of one geared toward discord and disruption. You have a proven performance across the board and across the forum of low road attacks.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=219

    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
    q_w, are you able to show there's a comoving coordinate system in QWC? If not, can you explain why we should believe there is?
    Quote Originally Posted by QW
    Who said you should believe it? I said I am interested in discussing the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

    I said I had some ideas based on several years of brainstorming, input, discussions, web browsing, etc. and had decided on the big crunch as my opinion of the best alternative.

    I said that I was presenting the ideas by starting from the bottom up. That means that I am not using existing theory accept as it falls in place in the bottom up process. We observe expansion to be the motion of galaxies all moving away from each other. I accept that motion as being physical separation of galaxies as if in a co-moving coordinate system.

    I didn't say you had to believe it.

    My steps are reasonable and responsible step by step speculation. I have asked the community to look at them and discuss them and any alternatives they may have to them.
    I toned this down for Stryder's benefit and I expect you to get nice or go away.
    Last edited by quantum_wave; 06-14-09 at 08:00 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By Mr.Spock in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 11-13-11, 11:07 PM
    Replies: 6
  2. By Reiku in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 09-26-11, 10:27 AM
    Replies: 13
  3. By jerrygg38 in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 11-29-08, 07:18 AM
    Replies: 0
  4. By quantum_wave in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 11-24-08, 08:55 PM
    Replies: 54
  5. By CptBork in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 06-13-08, 11:31 AM
    Replies: 21

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •