Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=155

Please explain why what you are doing is not trolling.

I'm putting you on ignore until D H addresses the guidelines for his forum. I don't think he would approve of your repeated posts saying the same thing, after I went to the trouble of addressing you responsibly in the post I link to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've just explained. I think we can all infer from your reaction that you've got the gist of the point I was making.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guest254. I noticed that you have posted to my thread. I can't read it because I have you on ignore. You might think that you are making a point but you don't realize that I pointed to content from your fanciful idea and falsified it by showing that you were invoking fantasy. You will remain on hold until D H addresses the issue.

D H, I believe that a claim that content is fantasy must be accompanied by reference to the content that you call fantasy. Guest did not reference any of my steps that he claims are fantasy and I referenced his invoking elves and pixies as fantasy. Is there a difference as far as you are concerned?

Is what Guest is doing called trolling in your book?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moderator comments
Issue addressed; thread moved to pseudoscience.

Quantum wave: The reason for moving this to pseudoscience is because this idea is not scientific. It is not even pre-science. What makes it pseudoscience? To name but a few,

• It is ad hoc. You do not have a simple set of axioms from which you derive your concepts. Instead, you make things up on the fly. How can you claim you have a theory when it doesn't have a theoretical basis?
• It has no mathematical framework. You appear to have added that stuff in about spherical caps as an add-on to give the illusion of a mathematical framework. Up front and center, you need to describe your axioms in mathematical terms. You don't do that.
• It is poorly written. Perhaps you do have the germ of an idea buried somewhere in these pages and pages and pages of writing. If you do, I can't see it. You are too wordy.
• Your defense against critiques comes straight out of the pseudoscience playbook. In particular, "Prove that my theory is wrong" is wrong. You are the one making extraordinary claims. In science the burden of proof falls on the person making extraordinary claims. You need to make some cogent argument that you are right.
• Your use of non-standard terminology and your abuse of standard terminology comes straight out of the pseudoscience playbook. Scientists are very careful with their terminology because failing to be careful fosters miscommunication.
• Instead of addressing the (often ill-worded) critiques of your concepts you put the person who is doing the criticism on ignore. While some of the criticisms are often worded childishly, Guest's last set are not. He did not call you names. He asked a simple question that you cannot answer.

 

You clearly didn't grasp Guest's point.

His 'theory' is clearly nonsense, even you see that. But if we replace the buzzwords in your posts, particularly the ones where you list lots of 'steps' with nonsense like "pixie", "elf", "cerfuffell" we have something which is indistinguishable from Guest's work. You can't do this with quantum mechanics because in quantum mechanics you have precise definitions, logical derivations, analytic predictions.

You use a buzzword like 'cosmology' and you know that to sound scientific you should use related words like 'big bang', 'relativity', 'dark energy', 'gravity', 'Hubble constant', but they aren't put together via logical derivation, just you playing random word generator. That is his point and it's the point Prom and I tried to get you to grasp.

And again you put someone who knows something on ignore. You don't like being told its not science, DONT POST IT IN A SCIENCE FORUM.

 

Well there's a win for common sense. Thank you, AlphaNumeric, for your elucidation of my point. I've added you to the relevant mailing list.

 

OK, since the moderator has moderated, I'm taking guest254 off of ignore.

Now that QWC is in Pseudoscience perhaps the discussion can include reference to the content?

 

I honestly feel it would be beneficial for you to answer my question. Why is your theory better than mine?

 

Lol, I’m not sure about your humanitarian motivation but I pointed out in your “theory” the words and phrases that you used that lead me to the conclusion that you invoked “fantasy”. At least we agree that fantasy is not science.

Intellectual integrity should have lead to you addressing my ideas and mentioning where “fantasy” crept into my list. But I missed where you did that.

 

This is the second time you've said this. As I pointed out, there's no way for you to prove it's fantasy, so for you to brandish it as such is a non-scientific dismissal.

I ask, yet again, why do you think your theory is better than mine?

 

Since I ansered that several times it is now time for you to spring the surprise answer. Why in my list is fantasy? What is the equalivant in my list to your elves and pixies?

 

Once again you've failed to answer. I have not said your theory is fantasy - you have inferred incorrectly. Please answer my question.

 

Maybe you should say the question again.

 

This dodging does you no favours. Here is the question, for the umpteenth time:

Why do you think your theory is better than mine?

 

What is your theory?

 

Is this your defence mechanism? A little sad, but hey ho - my theory is in post #153.

Come on - surely you think your work is better than "elves and pixies". No?

 

What thread?

 

The post is in this thread. If you once again fail to answer such a simple question, I will assume that this is your admission that your theory is no better than my pixie+elves theory.

Are you honestly this worried about comparing your work to the pixie+elves scenario?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This thread? My thread, your theory? Do you see the problem?

 

So now you've admitted your theory offers no more than "elves+pixies", can you understand why people treat your writings as a joke?