Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

You admitted that you have no intellectual integrity earlier, you admit to trolling and hounding me to respond to a theory you post on my thread, you admit to hijacking, you brag about being a scientist which you say means you know what is and is not science, and yet you show no discernible understanding. It is an enigma. Do you have a bed time soon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Having been moved here to Pseudoscience and attracting a following over here the likes of guest254 you probably have formed an opinion of my ideas and my intentions.

My basic motivation is to find out what people have to say about the cause of the big bang. I phrase it, “what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe”, just to acknowledge that BBT does not go back to the event itself. I think most people are OK with me asking that but what set off the onslaught from Prometheus and AlphaNumeric, and then D H before he was made moderator, and then guest was the impression that I was saying that QWC was a theory instead of ideas. The protagonists, as in leaders of the cause against my ideas, claim I am promoting QWC as the replacement to standard theory. I call it QWC because it is my personal view of cosmology, not the answer to all questions scientific.

If you were to actually read what I say you could form you own opinion but I know that is asking a lot. Like my critics say, it isn’t written in scientific terms and maybe they are right that it is hard to follow. Also in a way by asking you do decide for yourself it is encouraging those same people who tore me to shreds over in the Cosmology forum to come here to Pseudoscience and stomp me down. We’ve heard what they have to say so I hope that someone in this forum will discuss the topic with me. Not the kind of discussion I am getting from Guest254 though.

Actually I first started posting on SciForums here in this forum. I found that interested people will search out threads that they like and they will find me here. I also find that there are personalities who are threatened by ideas that talk about the cosmology of the universe in plain English instead of higher math. They go to extremes to save the community from my dangerous ideas. In reality the community might better fear the attempt to suppress discussion.

So my thing is to discuss what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe and I have my own ideas about it that I offer for discussion. That is a lot different from threatening your children and a lot different from suppressing ideas that we don’t like.

Here is the famous Google document that caused such an uproar before I was removed from the Cosmology forum. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So just to clarify: you can't explain to us why your theory is better than my elves+pixies offering?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't have any ideas, that's the point. You aren't doing cosmology, you are simply making things up randomly.

All you're doin is buzzword bingo. You want to talk about cosmology but you don't know any cosmology nor have you ever done any science so you think to 'do cosmology' is to simply string together sentences with 'expansion', 'inflation', 'big bang', 'CMB' and other cosmology buzzwords in them. That isn't 'talkig about the cosmology of the universe in plain English', infact it's worse than talking about it in technical terms because what you say is just meaningless nonsense.

Guest's pixie theory is just put together randomly. His conclusions do not follow from his initial statements. And that's obvious. You work is put together randomly, your conclusiosn do not follow from your initial statements. The only difference is you think you're talking science because you've used words you know appear in actual scientific discussions of cosmology. This isn't how science works. Four people who do science (DH, me, Prom and Guest) have told you this. You, like all cranks, claim it's about suppression and we're afraid. Funny how ALL cranks say that and I have zero fear of your work. Submit it to a journal, I'll even format it correctly for you. I bet you $500 (or whatever your local currency is, I'm British) it'll be rejected from any reputable journal.

So come on, if you think it's about fear and my wish to suppress things, put your money where your mouth it. I will.

 

AN
No thanks. But isn't it strange that you keep trying to save the world from me. There is something in my list of ideas that motivates you to be so dedicated and it isn’t saving the world from these ideas. Anyone reading the ideas can see that you are over reaching. What is it? I think if people read them they can decide for themselves.

Good morning guest254. You may have people wondering why you are so dedicated to your trolling on my thread. I doubt if anyone thinks that my ideas could be as filled with pixie dust as you and AlphaNumeric, OK and D H and Prometheus would have us believe. Especially since I have been posting here for a couple of years and have been building QWC from the bottom up with input and review of the step by step process all the way. The over zealous push based on the things D H mentioned didn’t draw all of them into the attach until I posted my list. It’s not that bad for just ideas and speculation. These ideas are for discussion, and shouldn't attract unabashed trolling. The Google document I linked to in my last post is far from perfect but they can’t let it go and Guest254 and AlphaNumeric troll about the pixie dust. I simply asked people to look at it and discuss the ideas, all linked to the question, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?” It is all reasonable and responsible step by step bottom up speculation about what the physical picture might be like to have resulted in the Big Bang.

We both know that you Guest254 are motivated by ego. I had a thread named Mass has Gravity back in 2008. I made a reference to the possible size of an energy quantum that would help explain the cause of mass and gravity on a level of order much smaller than the quarks that make up some of the fundamental particles. I tossed out an idea for discussion that they might measured on a scale smaller than Planck measures and mentioned 10^-50 or some such thing.

You latched on to that in this post and we had an exchange that lasted for thirty posts where you repeated the same question in a passive aggressive way over and over in spite of me saying the figure was for talking purposes and to put the scale that I was thinking about into perspective. What I didn’t know was that your ego was damaged so much. You came back over a year later and posted to this thread to tell people that I had been defensive when you and I had a prior exchange but you didn’t mention the thread or the story. Here is where you entered the picture on this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2273861&postcount=128
Here is my response that must have done the damage to your ego by telling my side and by telling where and when the so called prior exchange took place http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2273884&postcount=129.


The first exchange lasted over a span of 30 posts. Every since your ego was hurt you have been trolling my thread. Is it out of vengeance for pointing out how you mis characterized the previous exchange?

So the question is why? Ego has to come into play, but how big an ego would you have to have to let such a small incident motivate you to a lengthy barrage of trolling. Well it might mean you have a pretty big ego and you perceived that the damage to it was great. The size of your ego and the damage to your ego are measured by how long you have been keeping up your childish trolling.

You and AlphaNumeric can get away with trolling at SciForums because the moderators are tolerant and don’t have time to follow each thread and each small conflict. But this type of forum behavior most likely carries over to your personal lives. You both bragged about being scientists several times and how you were smart enough to know that my ideas were the same as pixie dust. That is not true and actually your behavior is unbecoming of a professional in any field.

 

I'm delighted to see how much you've read into all this! And yet, after all that consideration, you couldn't find the time to give us one reason why your theory is better than my elf-pixie offering.

Ouch.

 

No, but we are measuing the damage to your ego by counting how long you feel you are justified in trolling

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

You are keeping me motived to ask people to decide for themselves though, and slowly as that happens the commuinity of people who realize you must have other motives grows one person at a time. Have a good day.

 

I'm not entirely sure why you think my ego should be damaged, but ho-hum. I guess if you're the guy who's just admitted his two years worth of work doesn't amount to any more than my fairy-elf story, damaged egos might be at the forefront of your mind.

On that point - have you managed to come up with anything that makes your theory better than the elf-pixie offering? Come on - you must have something!

 

Let’s let people decide if your trolling is damaged ego or is about the ideas that you label pixie dust. It is clear that something is motivating you to troll and you deny it is a damaged ego???? What could it be? I think I nailed it in your case. And you are a professional? A professional scientist would actually have a job.

Anyone who cares knows that you haven’t actually mentioned what I said that equates to pixie dust now don’t they. Let them go to the document and read and decide for themselves. It’s as easy as that. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

I think your mama is calling you.

 

As I said, I'm not sure why you think my ego should be damaged. I've simply pointed out, several times, that your theory offers nothing more to physics than a story involving elves and pixies. You've even admitted as such!

Regarding the professional comments: you're right, you've broken my cover. I'm actually a 14yr old school girl, currently on my summer holidays.

 

Now that I can believe. You are acting childish for a reason. You won't say why. Your admission is as good as the hurt ego I guess. Still haven't actually read the document have you. Just trolling for the fun of it. Must be nice to have a mommy to take care of you.

 

As your discussion with Guest shows, you're heavily into drinking your own koolaid.

You talk about 'letting people decide for themselves'. Well who exactly are 'the people'? The layman on the street? Well he/she can't tell the difference between good and bad physics anyway, they aren't able to make informed decisions. Or do you think science should be done by the least informed, that it should be a popularity contest and not about experiment, prediction and the scientific method? Because down that road lies Creationism. I will give you just enough credit that I'll assume you aren't advocating turning science into a Pop Idol clone, where idiots ring in to vote for what they like (or dislike) the most. So that narrows down 'the people' to 'the scientifically informed'. Unfortunately that hasn't gone too well for you, as I've already commented Guest, myself, Prom, DH and I'm sure others like CptBork, BenTheMan, Temur etc would say as we have, you have nothing of value. But let's set aside us, just incase we're only motivated by fear and worry and that's why we patrol science forums shouting people down. So 'the people' is now 'the scientific community' minus the parts of the scientific community you've already spoken to (ie the aforementioned people, including myself). So how do you get them to see your work? Submit it to journals. After all, if you consider te scientifically educated forum poster to be all about suppressing new ideas you specifically want people who are scientifically educated but don't read forums. So why are you posting them on forums? You're avoiding the only real target audience you could be wanting, if you're really interested in scientific contributions.

So why are you refusing to submit to a reputable journal? You can't post on forums if you want your work to be read by non-forum readers, should you be equating forum reading + scientific education too closely with 'they hate new ideas'.

If you truely want to expose your work to scientists, you should submit to journals. If you aren't actually interested in developing your work then confine it too forums and ignore all forum posters with a hint of science education. That way you can continue to delude yourself you're 'doing science'.

If you feel I've hit too far from the mark in regards to my definition of 'the people' and my logic of who exactly the relevant 'the people' are, feel free to explain where I'm wrong.

 

Yes, yes - you've got me, etc. Your attempt at physics has demoralised me. I find your depth of physics knowledge intimidating. I'm a child who lives with his mother.. and so forth.

Come on, let's be serious for a second. I'm giving you the opportunity to sway my opinion of your work. At the moment I don't think it offers any more than my elf+pixie theory. If you're serious about your work, then you'll need to convince people in the academic community (i.e. people like me), that it's worthy of attention. So I'm asking you: explain to me why I'm wrong - explain why your theory is better than my pixie-elf story.

 

Get over it AN and pest254.

BTW, your regular schedule of responding to my thread keeps the ideas in the forefront. I remember now that quest254 did mention that he was OK with the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang type of event. AN, do you agree too or want to dispute that idea? Feel free, but I am thinking that you must have seen the pixie dust creep in with the next idea.

Where the ideas go after that has to do with what circumstances would seem reasonable that would result in a big crunch. Do you remember reading about that idea? Is that where the pixie dust creeps in IYHO?

The idea that I posted for discussion purposes was that if there was one big bang type event then there could have been many. This is an old idea but it fits with the big crunch idea nicely don’t you think. Nothing wrong with talking about that is there? I described a physical picture of the landscape of the greater universe that could be made up of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas, some expanding and some collapsing into big crunches.

Maybe your problem is that you believe that space is being created as our observable universe expands, i.e. BBT and GR. And maybe when I mentioned an alternative that could lead to many big bangs here and there across the landscape of the greater universe you are threatened? Grow up. It’s just ideas for discussion; nothing is going to replace BBT for a long time. And it certainly won’t be called QWC when and if it happens. I bet you are one of the String Theory mathematicians. Hmm. Well kept at it.

Do you think that space is being created as the universe expands? I’ve said that BBT is the best we can do with the tools we have. There is nothing wrong with saying that, but maybe the alternative would help explain some of what we observe? The thing is that BBT doesn’t address what caused the expansion.

You see how I proceed step by step? Read the document and give me some feedback that has merit, given that you say you are in fact a real scientist. This is to the community; don't let AN and others do your thinking or belittle you by saying you can't contribute to science. This is about a forum discussion not a Nobel Prize for God's sake. Read the document I posted and lets discuss different alternatives that you like, or comment on my ideas.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt That is what this thread is about; hijacking and trolling too of course.

 

You've quoted my post, but in no way whatsoever have you responded to it. If you're unable to do so, then please say. Otherwise, here it is again:

Yes, yes - you've got me, etc. Your attempt at physics has demoralised me. I find your depth of physics knowledge intimidating. I'm a child who lives with his mother.. and so forth.

Come on, let's be serious for a second. I'm giving you the opportunity to sway my opinion of your work. At the moment I don't think it offers any more than my elf+pixie theory. If you're serious about your work, then you'll need to convince people in the academic community (i.e. people like me), that it's worthy of attention. So I'm asking you: explain to me why I'm wrong - explain why your theory is better than my pixie-elf story.

 

Hi. Well I know the idea of a greater universe that I mention in my last post has occurred to you. That would “demote” our expanding observable universe to an insignificant expanding arena somewhere in the landscape of the greater universe. Pixie dust or just a possible alternative of the theory that the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time? You decide. Call it pseudoscience or emerging science or just ideas for discussion, I don't care.

 

You're not addressing my question - I really don't see why this is so difficult for you. I am asking a straightforward question: why is your theory better than my pixie-elf attempt?

If your answer is simply "because I've used scientific words", then so be it. But at least make an attempt to answer.

 

Hi again.

OK, I know you are with me to this point. The next step in the speculative ideas about the cause of expansion is how a big crunch forms out there in the greater universe where all of those arenas are expanding and contracting.

Obviously you can see that I am not talking about space expanding or contracting, space has always existed and is potentially infinite in my book. The expansion is the galaxies all moving away from each other, except in small local groups. The galaxies are separating in a co-moving coordinate system. That means that as time passes, the distance between galaxies increases everywhere across the entire arena.

Agree or disagree? Let’s discuss.

 

Look, I'm asking you a very straight forward question, and each time you reply you completely fail to answer it. Your actions resemble those of a slimy politician, and it's unpleasant to watch. Could you please answer my question. I will help start you off...

"I believe my theory is better than your elf-pixie attempt because..."

 

OK, I hear you. You are in agreement with me so far and don’t see the pixie dust. That is understandable. Picture two of those expanding arenas out in the landscape of the greater universe. Can you do that in your mind?

Good. Then extend that physical picture so that as they expand they intersect and overlap. The overlap space is now occupied by galaxies from each “parent” arena. Can you picture that?