Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

OK, I will.

To AN. There is another reason I use the co-moving coordinate system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excellent news. So to start your new lease of life, would you like to give us this co-moving coordinate system you claim you use. I'm interested...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was I talking to you? Was I?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now, now. Come on - you've got nothing to hide. Show us the coordinate system you said you use.

 

Please quote exactly what I said by using the forum "quote" function when you speak to me about what I said.

 

Seriously, that's pathetic.

 

I'm not sure you are ready for it. You have read the document right? You have not seen any pixie dust yet have you? Answer where the pixie dust is.

 

Let me be the judge of that. However, if you were making things up, feel free to admit it.

 

I admit it. Do you have a problem with that?

Where is the pixie dust in my "made up" steps?

 

Fair do's - not a lot of people would admit to blatantly lying. Let's hope this string of honesty doesn't end here.

 

Since you don't see any pixie dust that makes your entire near record breaking rant and trolling fest dishonest (not a record yet so stay with me through the week end).

So you do see how the big crunches form out in the landscape of the greater universe. The thing about the formation of the co-moving coordinate system is not just about that being what we observe. There is a reason that the arena developes into one.

Check out the document and see if you can tell me why that is? The big crunch takes us to step 2.6 fyi.

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

 

I would like to announce that I am enjoying this thread very much indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you. That's entertainment.

Actually that is the first thing we have agreed on I bet.

 

Which is....? You said there's no reason anyone should believe you, which is akin to saying "I've got nothing to justufy my theory over Guest's pixie/elf theory".

 

Please quote exactly what I said by using the forum "quote" function when you speak to me about what I said.

 

From here

If you can't provide a single reason for us to think QWC has a well defined notion of comoving coordinates then you have simply made it up. You then said :

If you were interested in discussing expansion in the universe you'd either justify that QWC has the ability to describe that in a clear way or you'd discuss the FRW metric and how to get exponential growth inflation from its equations of motion.

If you can't justify QWC possesses a comoving coordinate then its pointless us describing inflation/expansion in the context of QWC because there's zero reason to think it is actually capable of describing such things. Justify QWC can actually describe dynamical space-time (after all, Newtonian theories can't and it's highly non-trivial as a concept, it was abhorrent to physicists in ~1910) and it'll be worth discussing expansion in the early universe from the point of view of QWC.

 

I was looking for you to link me to the statement you attribute to me in this post.

You didn't.

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.

Then make you statements or questions in that context.

 

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.

Using the quote function, AN and Guest were trying to link to a specific statement that I made that equated to pixie dust in any of my statements, and especially in this document which has become the focus of this thread. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

In response to posts from Guest254 and AN 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.

Frivolous claims by people who hijack threads and troll about all of my ideas being pixie dust have been proven fallacious, disingenuous, and devoid of intellectual integrity. Who are these malcontents anyway? Do the rest of you follow in lock step with people of such character? No way, I’m sure. But step up and join them in contempt, or jump in with comments and questions at any point.

After the formation of a big crunch, QWC has a series of speculations that follow in a step by step fashion from 2.6.

The steps that follow are ideas about how a big crunch could burst into expansion. Look closely for the pixie dust as I present these ideas in the next series of posts.

I have said from the start, if you can point out where QWC is inconsistent with known scientific data or observations I will replace the falsified ideas with ideas that are consistent. That process has been going on for a few years and the current version of QWC has been updated to reflect all valid comments; I proclaim it pixie dust free.

 

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...

 

Thread failure.