Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

From the Quantum Wave Cosmology perspective our known universe is an “arena” and contains an “arena quantum” of matter and energy in various forms, i.e. galaxies, dark matter, cosmic dust, background radiation, dark energy, etc. Arenas in QWC are defined as the volume of space that contains an arena quantum of energy which is being orchestrated by the quantization process called “arena action”.

The volume of space that hosts the quantum of energy changes as the compression or expansion of the quantum of matter and energy changes. So the size of an arena varies throughout the process of arena action. The size of the arena is a reference to the volume of space occupied by the arena quantum of matter and energy and changes as the energy density changes within the arena. Space gets added to or removed from the arena as the arena expands or contracts. The space that is added or removed has always existed and is becoming occupied or vacated by the arena as the matter and energy of the arena spread out into surrounding space or compress into less space.

In QWC, arena action is controlled by energy density limits within which mass functions properly and above which mass is negated into dense state energy. Gravity is a function of mass and when mass ceases to function gravity ceases to be emitted. Dense state energy is the form of energy that exists when matter is compressed beyond the matter functioning range of energy density. This is the point where the space occupied by the arena quantum approaches its minimal volume and energy density approaches it maximum density.

The arena action process starts when two expanding arenas, each similar in energy content to our own known universe intersect with each other and overlap. As the overlap proceeds and as the energy content of the overlap approaches an arena quantum, gravity takes over from the expansion momentum of the galaxies in that volume of space. The result is that the galactic material and other constituents of matter and energy in that space collapse around its center of gravity to form a big crunch.

From this point QWC branches into how arena action works to describe the perpetual landscape of the greater universe at the macro level, and how a similar action at the micro level works to describe how matter forms and how gravity emanates from mass. Both levels are controlled by the same limits of energy density and mass functioning range of energy density.

My last three threads were about energy density limits that control the mass functioning range, the shape of the universe, and the inertial connection of all mass. By following those three threads you are offered a physical picture of QWC and how it differs from the cosmological consensus of BBT.

In summary, the “shape” thread and the “energy density limits” thread say, “In the infinite universe, filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy, where energy cannot be created or destroyed and where entropy is defeated by a landscape of arenas that expand, intersect, overlap, collapse into big crunches, and where big crunches burst when a limit to energy density is reached, then the result is a shapeless boundless perpetual universe.” The “soup” thread says that there is both an inertial and a thermal connection between an arena and the greater universe which is characterized by an ongoing equalization of energy density and background temperature between the expanding arena and the greater universe.

Those threads compare QWC to the BBT standard cosmology and QWC is characterized as being a bigger picture. BBT has gravity orchestrated by the presence of mass in the fabric of spacetime where mass is also inertially connected. The question has to be asked, “Can the inertial connection be the same between QWC and spacetime meaning can gravity in QWC be due to the curvature of spacetime by the presence of mass?” No.

Why not? If gravity in QWC is a function of mass and gravity in spacetime is the effect of mass on the fabric of spacetime why couldn’t gravity be the same in QWC? It is because spacetime is geometry of a universe that has a finite amount of matter and energy and can be bounded within its geometry and where space can be added to the geometry without changing the energy content. You can’t add space in QWC because space is infinite and has always existed, and matter and energy in QWC are infinite and unbounded. There is a distinction between adding space to spacetime and changes to the volume of space occupied by the arena in QWC.

This thread addresses how gravity works in QWC without geometry of spacetime. It equates arena action at the macro level to quantum action at the micro level and describes how the same limits of energy density and mass functioning range control both levels of quantization. It describes how the inertial connection of all mass is accomplished by QWC gravity.

First let’s talk about gravity as a function of mass. It starts with how matter forms and how the presence of mass is maintained by quantum action. Once matter forms and is being maintained by quantum action, matter becomes mass, is inertially connected to all other mass, and gravity emanates from mass in the form of quantum waves. Those gravity waves are what makes and maintains the inertial connection in QWC.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

waffle

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speculation in QWC is that energy wants to equalize its density across all space and matter wants to collapse into one place.

But when matter collapses into one place, before all of the matter in the universe can collapse into that place, a limit of maximum energy density causes the matter in that crunch to be negated into energy and that causes the crunch to burst into an expanding ball of energy whose density is too high for matter to exist. That energy wants to equalize its density with the energy density of the greater universe surrounding it and so the ball of energy goes into rapid expansion.

In an expanding ball of energy the energy density decreases to the threshold where matter forms abundantly across the expanding ball. Gravity that ceases when matter is negated begins again when matter forms. Two competing forces then exist within the ball of expansion; expansion energy that I refer to as dark energy, and gravity that works to cause the newly formed matter to form clumps.

Gravity is strongest at short distances and matter clumps into particles, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, and large structure. During the time that matter is forming structure, expansion momentum is transferred to the objects that form. The result is that the expanding ball fills with galaxy groups that are all moving away from each other. The distance between galaxy groups increases and the force of gravity decreases causing acceleration of the expansion.

The ball of matter and energy now in the form of galaxy groups all moving away from each other will expand forever unless the expansion is interrupted.

If we go on the idea that the crunch and burst of the ball that has now become populated with galaxy groups was a finite amount of matter that collapsed under the attraction of gravity then the other matter out there was doing the same thing in a potentially infinite number of other big crunches and big bursts across the landscape of the greater universe.

Expansion of the galaxy groups that are all moving away from each other is going to be interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with similarly expanding balls of galaxy groups that have the same history. When they overlap the expansion momentum is interrupted. That results in gravity exceeding expansion momentum and the galaxy groups that converge from each expanding arena collapse into a new big crunch around the center of gravity in the overlap space.

The process starts over as the new crunches form. The matter caught up in them is negated into dense state energy which causes gravity to cease. The cessation of gravity allows the expansion potential of the dense state energy to overcome the declining compression of gravity causing the big crunch to burst into expansion.

So because energy wants to equalize its density, the ball of energy expands. And because matter forms when the ball of energy expands to the matter formation threshold, the arena fills with matter which clumps into galaxy groups that are moving away from each other. And because the matter that formed the big crunch was a finite amount, and there was other matter existing across the greater universe, other crunches form and burst. And because there are other expanding arenas filled with galactic matter they inevitably intersect and overlap. And matter wants to collapse into its center of gravity forming a new big crunch that itself will eventually burst into expansion. This is a perpetual process that characterizes the landscape of the greater universe and defeats entropy.

According to the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology we live within an expanding arena that will eventually intersect with another expanding arena and there will be a new big crunch formed where they overlap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More waffle. Are you ever going to actually do anything?

 

QWC tries to strip away all of the unintuitive aspects of cosmology. What is unintuitive about the consensus BBT cosmology?

It is unintuitive that something like our known universe came out of nowhere from nothing in a timeless spaceless zilch. Of course there are other alternative cosmologies but there is and always will be only one consensus cosmology and right now that is BBT.

It is unintuitive that space is being created as the universe expands. Some alternative cosmologies see space as infinite and eternal but BBT doesn’t say so.

Though it is intuitive that energy cannot be created or destroyed it is unintuitive that all energy appeared from nowhere in zero space before which there was no time. Classical physics is really pre Einstein though and Hubble and Guth have put a beginning on things, even space and energy themselves.

It is unintuitive that space and time be coupled into an actual physical geometry where mass is inertially connected by the warping of the fabric of spacetime in such a way that all of the curvatures caused by all mass everywhere started as a point in space as time began 14 billion years ago and those ever changing warps seamlessly extend across the fabric without a wrinkle to direct the motion of all other mass from then to now.

It is intuitive that an event horizon exists but it is unintuitive that BBT stops short of saying what the event was that caused the event horizon and though it implies a Big Bang the theory reframes from mentioning any cause of the expansion.

It is unintuitive that there could have been or had to be a superluminal exponential inflation in the first instant after the event that is not mentioned so that the CMBR that is almost perfectly thermalized in all directions can be causally connected to the Big Bang event. But if everything has to be connected to the big bang then exponential inflation has to be part of BBT.

There are many things about the standard cosmology that seem unintuitive and I have mentioned a few of them. Name others if you like so we can discuss how they could be explained by QWC.

QWC eliminates all of these imponderables. It does so with a step by step bottom up reasonable and responsible set of speculations. These speculations work together to form a physical picture of an infinite space filled with energy that has always existed and that transforms between matter and energy making both matter and energy infinite in proportion. It speculates about a quantization process that operates both on a grand scale where the landscape of the greater universe is populated by arenas and at the micro level where energy is quantized and matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. Mass forms and is maintained by quantum action that is ongoing within it and that causes mass to emit quantum gravity waves that form the gravitational connection between all mass. All of that is controlled by simple limits of energy density and a range of energy density within which mass can function. Matter when compressed by gravity reaches a point where mass is negated into energy and gravity ceases. These limits and ranges of energy density combine to defeat entropy on a grand scale and to allow mass to form and maintain its presence while emitting gravity waves that maintain the inertial connection between all mass.

But of course QWC is just one of a bezillion and one possibilities. There are enough possibilities so that everyone can pick one and think about it and write about it. That is what I have done with mine; what have you done with yours?

 

Got quantitative results, solved problems other people hadn't, published the work and been given recognition from the scientific community for it.

And in less time than you've been peddling QWC

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Notice how aside from Prom and myself telling you what a joke you are no one replies to you. Even the other cranks can't be bothered with you, you might as well just start a blog.

 

As for noticing that no one else has posted to my threads, that is not true though the numbers are few. My topic is of little interest to most. Further, most who are interested are not finding anything wrong with what I post. Nor are you and Prom for that matter or at least you have failed to point anything out. Dragon pointed out something but seemed to be satisfied with my response on the Limits to Energy Density topic.

That is not exactly true either. You and Prom seem to be sticking around

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I guess if de Sitter was still around he would still be taking the mass out of alternative cosmologies to see what makes them tick. This post compares what he would find if he took the mass out of QWC. Remember that one solution to the EFEs was de Sitters massless expanding geometry. In GR, the geometry of spacetime originated with the same event that accounts for the presence of matter and energy in the universe. In other words when he took the mass out of the fabric of spacetime we are left with geometry where space and time are coupled and space is being added without upsetting the geometry.

Of course that was just a thought experiment that follows the logic of GR where mass warps spacetime but spacetime itself is independent of the presence of mass.

In QWC as I have proposed it, there is no similar geometry of spacetime except for good old 3-D space and time simply passes.

But if we think about QWC as boundless 3-D space and remove the matter do you think it would leave empty space? You would be wrong. In QWC all space is filled with energy. Any point in space, even without the existence of mass, has a level of energy density. Remove just the matter from QWC and the remaining energy would equalize itself across all space. That would result in an energy background where the energy density was the same at all points in space. It would still be an infinite amount of energy, just not enough energy to fuel quantum action which is necessary for the presence of mass.

It would also leave the energy density of the QWC boundless space at the lower end of the matter formation range, just below the point where matter can exist. But just adding a bit of dense dark energy at a given point in space would not automatically result in the formation of matter or the initiation of quantum action.

If we were to add back just a tiny amount of energy in one place it too would begin to be equalized with the energy density of the greater universe. That lone tiny energy increment would begin as dense state energy which is the other end of the energy density scale. Matter cannot exist at the energy density at that end of the scale either so we have a greater universe where the energy density is too low for matter to form, and we have added a tiny amount, say a single energy quantum, at one spot and that quantum of energy is destined to expand forever as the process of energy density equalization proceeds.

But the QWC universe has always existed and all of the energy in it has always existed so there has always been matter in a fixed proportion to the energy; matter has always existed in QWC and quantum action has always operated to establish the presence of mass. In order to get quantum action going in our thought experiment we would have to add energy quanta in more than one place so that as the quanta expand during the equalization process they would eventually intersect and overlap. At some point there would be one quantum accumulated in the overlap space and in QWC, the presence of a quantum of energy whose expansion has been interrupted by such an overlap will collapse into a high density spot which is part of the process of quantum action.

Following the process of quantum action, the high density spot would bounce back into expansion because as it reaches the maximum possible energy density permitted by nature, the energy density surrounding the spot is too low to maintain the compression and so it bounces into expansion. Quantum action has begun.

So in QWC, if de Sitter removed the mass, there would still be an energy background and that background would be perfectly equalized so that every point in space has the same energy density. Let’s call that level of energy density the perfect energy background.

Don’t confuse the energy background of QWC with the CMBR which we observe in all directions. The CMBR contains electromagnetic radiation which is immersed in the energy background. Obviously the speed of EM reflects the fact that it is immersed in the energy background.

 

Utter nonsense. He went about finding a solution to the generalised Einstein Field Equations with T=0, ie \(G_{ab}+\Lambda g_{ab} = 0\)

When you talk about 'geometry' you mean the structure of the metric, yet you then say "and space is being added without upsetting the geometry." But the geometry is defined by space and time already. Saying "and adding space" implies you have some space-less entity before hand, with geometry, and then you add in space to make space-time and, according to you, don't alter the geometry. This is both incoherent nonsense and not what deSitter did.

A friend and I were casually talking about deSitter space-time a few days ago (as we both work on things related to it) and using a few things from Wikipedia and our knowledge we managed to, in less than 10 minutes, construct the derivation of deSitter and Anti-deSitter space-time. It bears no resemblence to your nonsense :

\(0 = G_{ab}+\Lambda g_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab}+\Lambda g_{ab} \)
Take the trace and in n dimensions you get \(0 = (1-n/2)R + \Lambda n\) and so \(R = -\frac{2\Lambda}{2-n)\) and so if \(\Lambda\) is a cosmlogical constant you have a space of constant curvature, with the sign of \(\Lambda\) determining the open or closed nature of the space. This makes your EFEs \(R_{ab} + \frac{2}{2-n}\Lambda g_{ab} = 0 \)

This is much simpler than the original case, even though they are equivalent on some level, and from that you can find the deSitter and Anti-deSitter metrics.

That is how you get it. Your crap about adding in space to space-time without altering the geometry shows you're either ignorance and willing to lie or just deliberately lying in order to desperately try to further your delusions.

 

QWC is about an alternative that among many things eliminates the need for a causal connection between the CMBR and the Big Bang. Do you understand the significance of that? Probably not, but maybe you see yourself as an expert on cosmology. I doubt if from what you have shown so far. Let me help you.

In order for the CMBR to be causally connected, i.e. a result of the Big Bang, there has to have been superluminal exponential inflationary expansion in at ~10^-30 seconds after the event in order to create a sufficiently large universe to accommodate a thermalized background to exist in the time frame that GR provides. I probably give you too much credit but you do realize that the need for such an incongruent complication to cosmology would be completely unnecessary with a simple change to the history of the universe.

Instead of starting from nothing out of nowhere when time did not exist just consider how many of your GR and BBT problems would be solved if there was a greater universe. Yes, that’s right; an already existing universe that didn’t come into existence with the Big Bang but that already provided a homogeneous and isotropic cosmic microwave background. We wouldn’t need Guth to propose the troublesome Inflationary solution now would we?

My view simplifies the cosmology and eliminates some of the most troublesome aspects of the standard cosmology that you seem to think replaces the need to think about cosmology. You believe that the answers are already embodied in the consensus. :smirk:

You show your ignorance about the problems with the standard cosmology while coming out to support it with a zealousness that drives you to strike out at everyone who has ideas that contrast with yours. You stop at no false and obnoxious criticism to make it look like you have a grasp of cosmology which you do not.

Any criticism from you that says that de Sitter solutions to the EFEs means that space is not being added to the universe shows your ignorance. When you make completely false statements in order to imply that my discussion of an alternative cosmology is crap shows that you are a zealot for your favorite theory and don’t realize how lacking it is in total.

To take me to task for not conveying GR in full detail when I compare the primary flawed characteristics of it to an alternative cosmology that suggest solutions is obtuse. There are obvious problems that your cosmology bears. Your ignorant support of a consensus that has many flaws of which you are not aware of or won’t acknowledge says all that is necessary. People easily justify disregard for your objections to my alternatives because of your ignorant denials. Pull your head out of the sand or remain a zealot, it is no skin off my nose either way. People see you for who you are.

Don’t look to me to have any interest in giving you expert characterizations of GR or de Sitter solutions. My mentioning characteristics of them that are correct is part of comparing them to alternatives, not to educate you on GR or EFEs though you obviously have little personal grasp of either. You are the one that said the de Sitter universe was an alternative to GR. I called you on that and you all of a sudden changed your story. That is typical of your tactics.

 

I do not do cosmology and I'm not an expert. But I do know how deSitter obtained his results and it's nothing like the clap trap you are talking about. This has nothing to do with QWC, you claimed something about deSitter's work which was absolute nonsense.

You lied about deSitter's methods. This has nothing to do with opposing views, you made factually inaccurate statements. It's quite clear that's what my post was talking about, you saying "Oh it's about opposing views!" is just you trying to dodge the fact you're caught lying again.

deSitter solutions are static. You can start talking about expanding universes with non-zero cosmological constants and classify them by the value of the constant (or rather, its sign) but dynamical time dependent space-times are different. The FRW metric can have a cosmological constant term and thus can describe inflating space-time and you label the space by the sign of the constant but that's not a deSitter solution.

But then its your ignorance which means you don't know that, having never done any GR at all.

This is an out and out lie and you know it. You wanted 'cosmlogical ideas which were alternatives to GR' and involved 'shapeless space'. I asked for an example and you gave deSitter space-time. Not only does that have a shape, it is a well known GR solution and relates to mainstream models of the universe, in utter contradiction to your 'It's shapeless and an alternative to GR cosmology'. You got it wrong, you spouted crap and now you are lying. Yet again.

I suppose the last laugh is on you, given you'll ultimately go nowhere and even if you lied day in and day out you're going to achieve nothing. Reflect on that for a while

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reflect on this:

Here is a refutation of your accusation:
Shape of the Universe thread. The OP was: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...90&postcount=1
“In the Cosmology forum there is a thread asking if the universe is spherical in shape. The shapes that are attributed to the universe by the consensus cosmology which I refer to as Big Bang Theory with Inflation have been mentioned. Open, flat and closed are references to the value of the cosmological constant, and they each predict a different outcome of the universe."

"Does anyone object to adding a possible shape called "shapeless" when discussing non-GR alternative cosmologies that view the universe as spatially infinite? Just Google "spatially infinite cosmology" to get some idea of different cosmologies. One example of a source of ideas is this link which shows up on that search and large portions of it are available on the Internet."

The next post was from AN and mentioned de Sitter:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...86&postcount=2
"Spacially infinite does not mean shapeless. Anti deSitter space-time is infinite but has a well defined 'shape', with such things as constant negative curvature. There's different kinds of FRW universes. And there's a difference between an Einstein universe and a flat one."

Clearly you brought up de Sitter as an alternative to GR and I corrected you. It is right there. Tossing out the term liar is your specialty. It is an obvious character flaw in you.



To cut through the bull let me say that I compare Quantum Wave Cosmology to the standard consensus on cosmology, and I’m not teaching GR or solutions to the EFE. Either I know more than you do about the standard cosmology, or you are playing dumb. It is necessary to recommend that you learn what the standard cosmology is and what it says and doesn’t say. You can challenge anything I say about it but you probably notice that no one challenges me on that. What I say about the standard consensus is easy to verify because it is well publicized, it is taught to students, it is in the texts, it is all over the Internet and there should be no misunderstanding of what is meant by the Standard Cosmology.

Big Bang Theory (cosmology, not the TV series), http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oq=&aqi=g1g-m4 has 325 million links.
Inflationary Theory, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi= has 1,280,000 links.
General Relativity, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi= has 2.5 million links.
The Cosmological Principle, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi= has 863,000 links.

My alternative views are more about what is not in the standard cosmology than what is in it. There are problems with the standard cosmology:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...big&aqi=g3g-m7, there are over a million links.

My point is that there is room for discussions of alternatives to the standard cosmology. That is what my threads do, discuss alternatives. If no one participates in a thread that I start on the topic right away I will elaborate on a point or add to the thread with more content to encourage discussion of the content. I know that there are only a few of you who are interested and I know there are a few of you who lurk and pay some attention to me but don’t post to my threads. You may want to be as critical as Prom and AN, and I say go ahead, let me hear it.

Most of my threads soon get cluttered with AN’s and Prometheus’ trolling and our hateful trade-offs. I start new threads when 1) I think that a casual reader will abandon their effort to follow the thread because of the clutter that interferes with the content and any meaningful discussion, or 2) when I am satisfied with how I have presented my idea on the specific topic of the thread.

This thread will probably soon end because of reason 1, but the three previous threads that lead to the discussion on this thread are:

Big Bang Soup thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=96050
Shape of the Universe thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95634
And one of my favorites lately, Limits to energy density and mass functioning range thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95843
I also recommend one of my old favorites, Aether, mass and gravity in QWC thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88620

And this one, Zeno time thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95074, which deals with the question, “Is it possible that the universe has always existed?”

I value all comments that address the content even if you tell me I am wrong as long as you mention what I am wrong about and why. But really, I just want to discuss my ideas and compare them with others in the forum. Being as there are so few people interested in alternative cosmology and that hang out in the Pseudoscience forum the discussions are few and far between. But I am continually reading about and thinking about cosmology.

My QWC introduces ideas that involve an as yet undetected state of energy called the dense state. It is not the Higgs boson or Higgs field and in QWC mass does not come from the Higgs, it comes from quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of mass. The particles that make up the Standard Particle Model called the fundamental particles that have mass are composed of energy in quantum increments from the QWC perspective. Matter exists within a range of energy density. Beyond that range matter cannot form and matter that exists is negated into dense state energy on the high side. On the low energy density side there are theories, one being the Big Rip which occurs on the low side of energy density (685,000 links) in an eternally expanding universe. There is no possibility of a big rip in QWC because QWC expects that the expansion is not eternal and that each expanding arena is eventually interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with similar arenas from similar but distant big bangs.

Think about our universe as infinite in space, energy, matter, and time, i.e. no beginning. The big bang would be a common event across the landscape of the greater universe and a new perspective on the Cosmological Principle unfolds. In many ways, contemplating infinity is part of what QWC is about. Is infinity the limit that is approached by increments in space, energy, matter and time, or is the infinity of space, energy, matter and time the reality?

 

No, I asked you to explain what 'shapeless' meant and if you could give an example of it. I elaborated on my point by giving an example of an infinite space-time with a well defined shape. AdS is viewable as an hyperbola embedded into higher dimensional Euclidean space. Nothing to do with "Is this GR or not?", I was explicitly and obviously referring to your claim that 'shapeless' was somehow an obvious and valid concept to discuss for infinite shapes.

If you aren't a liar then you can quote a post of mine where I say "deSitter space-time is not used in GR" or "It's an alternative to a GR cosmology". I didn't. It was obviously an example for an infinite space with a well defined shape, contracting your claim. Everything else is just you paraphrasing for your own twisted purposes.

How can you teach something you do not know? Or are you claiming a working knowledge of GR?

Wow, just wow. You really are so mindlessly delusional and drinking so much of your own koolaid that you seriously say such a thing?

You have never learnt any cosmology other than via Wikipedia. I'm not an expert in cosmology but I have done some courses on it and I have a working understanding of the theories used in them. You made incorrect claims like infinite structures being 'shapeless'. AdS is infinite but not shapeless. You made claims about how deSitter found his solutions, you were wrong. You've never even done any GR so its impossible for you to have a working grasp of the EFEs and their solutions. TThat isn't me 'playing dumb' or disliking non-mainstream work, it's a simple fact of you having never done any GR, not knowing any calculus and this being unable to understand the language of the EFEs.

Answer these direct questions : Have you done calculus? Vector calculus? Tensor mathematics? Differential geometry? Lagrangian methods? Electromagnetism? Quantum mechanics? And by 'done' I mean well enough to pass a university exam on them.

If no to any of them then your ability to do anything to do with cosmology other than read Wikipedia and New Scientist is very very restricted. That's another fact, not me 'playing dumb'. Every university in the world teaches those things to people who plan to do cosmology research for the reason they are required understanding.

This whole "AlphaNumeric doesn't know standard cosmology" has coome entirely from your twisting of things I've said, your lies and your desperate, desperate need to avoid accept you're wasting your time on your worthless nonsense. I didn't say AdS or dS spaces aren't in GR, I have published work mentioning all of them in the realm of supergravity. So your "OMG, you said AdS/dS isn't in usual cosmology!" is nothing but what you wish I'd said.

It's really rather pathetic that you have to sink to such tactics.

which you have either made up or stolen from others and formed into a serious of unrelated, non-predictive claims which fail the criteria for science or proto-science in every way. And in order to convince yourself you aren't wasting your life, you lie to everyone, including yourself.

Tell me, do you have a job? Please tell me you do something else with your life, that this isn't the sum of your life's effort, because that'd be very sad indeed but it would explain why you're unable to accept how worthless it is.

 

You are living in denial. My last post proved the sequence of events and you are a pathetic loser to think we can’t see through you.

You did and I showed where you said it.

I have twisted nothing and twisting is your tactic because you know little or nothing about what is even meant by the term “standard cosmology”. I even gave you links and you have never mentioned a single aspect of it in the year that you have been ranting against a simple discussion of alternatives to it. You don’t know what it is.

Did I say I was teaching it? You are grasping at straws because you have no concept of what I am talking about. Listen: Alternatives to the standard cosmology! Get it. Now if you ever figure out what the standard cosmology means you can simply apologize and we can move on.

You are a very big fool to think that you are doing cosmology. I suppose you think the people are working on the standard cosmology as we speak. Do you know what a consensus is? The standard cosmology is a consensus. It is not changed by ongoing work or new developments until they become part of the consensus. There is a significant time delay.

Excuse me but I have mentioned the standard cosmology in all of my threads by references to aspects of it. You have never acknowledged any mention I have made of it and so it is clear that it is over your head. Try to learn a little about the problems with BBT and then try to connect my threads to those problems and my posts will begin to make sense to you. Until you do that you are a pathetic loser by pretending that your off topic rants mean anything to anyone. You have never posted on my threads "on topic" except when you made a fool of yourself about de Sitter solutions to the EFEs being a non-GR alternative cosmology. And you aren't man enough to admit it.

What do you have to say for your lack of understanding of the problems with BBT that I have know about and have been talking about for years? No, you never responded to anything I said about the problems did you. Because you don’t know there are problems or you are just in such stoic denial that you can’t function on threads like I run. Why do you bother to try to obfuscate every time you post. Weak character traits are you calling card. No one is fooled. And BTW, get a life and stop worrying about what my life is like.

 

Let’s make this simple so that someone of your intellect can grasp it.

If I am right that space has always existed and all space has energy density that is always fluctuating due to quantum waves emitted from mass that are continually passing through it then your work is useless. Your hopes for a meaningful career and great recognition will prove to be a wasted life of fantasy. That is why you lash out at anyone who wants nothing more than to discuss the topic of alternatives. Alternatives to you mean your work is meaningless and your future is going to be full of wasted effort.

In your work don’t you have to have even a concept of the cause of the big bang? How can anything you are working on be anything more than a fantasy if you think that math is reality and math can move mass? And what is the source of mass? What gives mass to a fundamental particle? How does spacetime physically do anything? What are the particulars of binding energy?

You don’t know, and from your response to my posts, you either don’t care or you fear the answers. All you are doing is fooling yourself into thinking that convoluted manipulations of numbers can wave away the obvious fact that the future is moving away from you and from what you are planning to dedicate your life to.

 

Link to the post of mine where I say "AdS is not a part of mainstream cosmology". You can't, because I didn't. I used it as an example of an infinite space with a well defined shape, to illustrate why I didn't agree with you. Everything else is you making things up.

It's clear from my posts I have at least a passing knowledge of cosmology. I have not claimed to be an expert or to be doing cosmology but I am familiar with standard things in GR and their applications to cosmology. Time and again I've had to school you, CSS, Kaneda and others because Wikipedia is your only sources of information and even then you fail to grasp some of them.

So because I didn't mention cosmology means I don't know anything about it? I haven't mentioned the mechanics of driving a car but I can, none-the-less, drive a car. I haven't mentioned the vast majority of what I know about physics either.

You said 'Does any object to talking about 'shapeless' universes' and I explained why I did. Why is that so hard to grasp?

You said "I’m not teaching GR or solutions to the EFE. ". My point in saying "How can you teach something you do not know" is that your comment implies you have knowledge of those things but you simply choose not to teach them. I question if you have any knowledge of them which is beyond that obtainable from 2 hours on Wikipedia.

Apologize for what? Explaining why you were wrong about infinite size spaces and how deSitter obtained his work? Okay, I'm sorry you make claims about things you know nothing about. And yes, I am sorry you're resorting to lying so much.

Pray tell, where did I say I was doing cosmology? I said "I'm not an expert in cosmology but I have done some courses on it and I have a working understanding of the theories used in them". I have made it quite clear I do theoretical physics, specifically some part of string theory. I have never claimed to be a cosmologist, only to have a vaguely working understanding of particular things relating to it, like cosmological GR. This is an example of you twisting things.

Where have I said otherwise?

I'm quite bemused here. You seem to be trying ton convince me (or perhaps yourself and casual readers) that I've never mentioned cosmology, particularly the mainstream views, before. Have a look for threads where Kaneda and I post a lot (such as ones he had started) or PM to ask him his view of me and my cosmology views. He considers me one of the main defenders of the mainstream cosmology here and on PhysOrg. Time and again he and I have gone over basic mainstream view points, mostly due to his inability to grasp them. You and I have never had much of a discussion about mainstream views because you peddle your nonsense so much we end up discussing its problems instead.

I asked you if you have ever done any of a slew of different courses which every university in the world considers prerequisites for working in cosmology and you ignored my question. This suggests you don't want to admit you haven't done them. I've done them all. I've even taught a few of them. I've even done a smattering of research into the string theory description of how you might have inflation, which then slows to current behaviour, in string theory. My supervisor certainly has a lot of published work in that area. Like I told you, I have published work which talks about string theory constructions with AdS, Minkowski and dS space-time solutions. So the simple fact of the matter is I can and have proven, via exams, via publication and via threads on this forum, that I'm familiar with the standard cosmology. You have not, you have avoided every single direct question asked to you.

Tell you what, why don't we go through a few questions from here? That's the first sheet in my 1st (and only) cosmology course, though that is a 3rd year course. Question 7 seems to be up your alley, talking about expansions and crunches. Why don't you have a try of it and then I'll go through how I'd do it. Or are you worried about actually putting your physics where your mouth is?

AdS was an example of an infinite universe with a well defined shape. The post you link to where I said that I made no reference to it being a non-GR solution. Again, I have published work which explicitly involves AdS solutions. Have much more in denial are you planning on being?

My responses to your posts have been to address short comings or incorrect things in your claims or statements. For instance, when I explained to you how deSitter obtained his results its validity and relevance to the BBT is immaterial, because the issue is your claim of how deSitter found the space-times which bear his name.

I am well aware of numerous things in the BBT which need to be further developed, just as I am more than aware of various issues in particle physics, more so than any crank. For instance, the main issue in my area of research is something extremely technical, which would be meaningless to someone not very familiar with string theory (just this morning I just confused a Cambridge postgrad friend by trying to explain my work to him), and yet it's something which, if not addressed, would leave string theory worthless in the long run.

What prompts me to post in response to posts of yours is the incorrect claims you make, either about various parts of science or about how you think you're doing science when you aren't (as people like Prom have also said). For instance, I was prompted to reply to this thread by your incorrect claims about deSitter. deSitter's place in cosmology has no bearing on the factual (or not) nature of your claims about him.

I have thanks. Got a girlfriend of over 12 months, finishing off my thesis this side of Christmas, 2 papers soon to be published, then the rest of my life. I do not need to convince people on forums of the worth of my work, I have peer review and journals for that. And further more I can accept when I'm wrong, I've binned months of work previously, due to errors on my part. You seem to be so emotionally invested in your 'work' that you can't accept anyone saying anything even slightly against it. And here we are, you going nowhere.

Except you have no 'work' other than waffling paragraphs of words. What's the equation of motion for those fluctuations you mention? Oh yeah, you don't have any, you just make up the end results.

I don't want great recognition and I know I won't get it anyway, there's too many people much cleverer than me at things I do for me to rise anywhere close to the top. But you do reveal something of yourself in saying that, perhaps that's why you're so unwilling to accept any kind of correction, you're worried you're wrong. And besides, plenty of people have good careers in physics/science despite being wrong a few times. Do you think Einstein hit on GR first time? Do you think Watson and Crick got the DNA double helix first time? Do you think Darwin immediately concluded evolution the moment he got to the Pacific ocean? Every single famous scientist has been wrong on something at some time. Only cranks cling to their obsession with never being corrected. And because of this having a paper shown to be wrong a year or two down the line doesn't mean you lose your job in academia, nothing of the sort. The history of academia is littered with wrong conjectures, the people who made them kept their jobs because the ability to make testable, quantitative postulates which make predictions is a rare ability. You show how little you know of how science works by your comments.

No, I dislike people who try to deceive others, purely because they are unable to accept there's some things iin the universe beyond their comprehension.

Do I need to know where the metal in a plane has come from in order to model the airflow over its wing? Do evolutionists need to know where life first came from in order to study bacteria evolution? No, those are entirely seperate and independent issues. Yes, ultimately biology needs to address where life first came from but not knowing that answer dooesn't mean you can't address other questions about how life behaves. I am doing the physics version, in that I don't need to worry about where space-time has come from, I am only concerned with working out how it behaves now that its here. That covers your first question. The rest are a mixture of meaningless nonsense and questions you'd know if you knew the mainstream view of particle physics. Which would certainly aid your grasp of the mainstream view of cosmology. For instance, if you want the particulars of binding energy, learn QCD. Or is that too much like actual work?

That's the spirit. If you keep telling yourself that science doesn't need to be quantitative then maybe the magic Belief Fairy will grant your wish and redefine the meaning of 'science' so that your random collection of guesses, assumptions and borrowed ideas from other people's work will then magically meet the definition of 'science'.

That's about the only way it's going to happen for you though......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't want to get into this thread other than to register my amusement at the fact that the above phrase has a capital B and M, and propose that the M should be capitalised as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh and I so hoped you would enlighten us on the Zeno issue. You hijacked my recent thread claiming you hadn't had a chance to prove you were right that if the universe has always existed we would never get to the present, hence you conclude that it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

Have you prepared your proof yet? That is where the BM is sure to be.

No, instead of enlightening us on the issue of time, you are content to troll.

BTW, I am almost finished with that Ludlum book I mentioned, The Prometeus Deception. I'll let you know what I thought of it when I'm done. It is actually pretty good and so your proof that time could not be infinite backward because if it was we could never get to now will have to be pretty good to compare favorably.

Have at it. I turn my thread over to you.

(But yes to AN, I will reply line by line to your diatribe before I jettison this thread completely.)

 

Wow. You're so clever to come up with an insult based on my username (even though you can't spell it). /sarcasm. The argument is simple - I'm surprised you're too stupid to get it. Anyway if time has always existed then the time direction is infinite in extent. Therefore I can define a point in the past such that an infinite amount of time would have to pass to get from then to now.

 

No you can't. And I am reading Ludlum's Prometheus Deception. Why would that be an insult to you?