QWC document comments and criticisms

You claim you could pass undergraduate courses in physics. In all your thousands of posts and in all your work you can't provide a single example of you having such knowledge and using it in a discussion?

The fact you have never risen to a discussion on such things ever illustrates my point. Either you spent time and effort learning something which is relevant to your 'work' and have made a deliberate decision to utterly avoid using it at all or you never knew it in the first place.

Can you provide any evidence, any at all, you have such understanding? If you claim I'm 'flaming' by picking something you haven't claimed you have (a post showing such knowledge) so you pick the evidence. A post, a section from your Google document, an answer to one of the questions I linked you to. Anything. Because as yet you give no reason for anyone to believe you claims and a hell of a lot of reasons to not believe them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In this post, http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2449939&postcount=168 I gave you all the details about my high school college prep courses in physics, chemistry, and advanced biology. Are you referring to my claim that those courses included exams and that I passed those exams as some claim of unsubstantiated expertise in physics. The substantiation is that I passed the courses.

In that same post I explained that I attended MSU on a full tuition and books scholarship received due to financial need and high school performance. I graduated with a degree in Finance, not Physics. Did you misunderstand that? The first year students at MSU all take the basic science courses. I gave details of how I passed the exams for those courses. Substantiation that I could pass the tests is that I passed the tests.

You are continuing to repeat the same flames. Why not address the topic:

The QWC discussion starter current status 1 5 2010

I have offered several discussion starter updates. It may at first appear that each time I restate the discussion starter it just repeats exactly what was said in the previous update but that is not true. Each update either addresses the latest on topic content if any, and usually includes additional discussion about previous content or adds new content.

QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I replied and confirmed what I have always said, “I am speculating”. Science is not into speculation and I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?

I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.

Prom says that BBT does include the event itself but he is wrong and I pointed that out in my response. 10^-30 is still after t=0. Could he be confused about time? No, not prom

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.

As I mentioned in response to Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.

As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.

I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to the energy of our currently expanding known universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I begin to discuss those steps below.

In a recent response to Prometheus I added the step that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.

I am talking about a big crunch that I speculate forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding “universes” (Hubble volume arenas) intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?

All of a sudden, the universe I am talking about has more than one expanding Big Bang type of event that is capable of expanding. They expand until they ultimately intersect and overlap. To avoid the lame phrase “multiple universes” I refer to expanding Big Bang type events as arenas. In QWC, the big crunch forms when two arenas intersect and overlap.

... And Fraggle Rocker in his role as Linguistics Moderator introduced the phrase, "Hubble volume" in reference to defining the portion of the universe/multiverse/cosmos/whatever that an observer can observe: a Hubble Volume. Our Hubble Volume is the practical limit for our speculation about the universe."

I left off with the arena concept and with the possibility of multiple “Big Bang” type of events, each one occupying an arena of space that can be referred to as the extended expansion potential of a finite Hubble volume?

Really all that means is that if there was one Big Bang, with only a few modifications in the theory, there could be a potentially infinite number of big bangs across the QWC landscape. One rather significant modification is that space and time are not coupled in the way that spacetime is characterized by General Relativity. Not being coupled in QWC means that space already existed, and the spacetime applicable to a single Big Bang is only valid within the individual arenas before the expansion of the arena is interrupted. Interruption occurs when an arena intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding arena due to the continual extending of the Hubble volume that makes up each arena.

I have no proof or evidence as repeated pointed out by AN. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch. I speculate that there is nothing to prevent multiple big crunches and bangs, and have adopted Fraggle Rocker’s use of the term “Hubble volume”. I have speculated that as Hubble volumes expand they will eventually intersect and interrupt the geometric expansion that is GR spacetime. This interruption results in the mixing and merging of the galactic material from multiple expanding Hubble volumes.

That mixing and merging results in the formation of new centers of gravity, and big crunches begin to form around new centers of gravity by accumulating the galactic material from the parent extended Hubble volumes that have intersected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't understand your answer. If you are genuinely interested in cosmology then why don't you learn to do it properly? As I said, there are plenty of avenues in physics that can deal with what happened before the big bang, speculatively in the scientific sense of the word. If you're really interested what you are doing now must be very dissatisfying for you.

That last sentence tells tales. "Changes are improvements in my humble opinion." It's your opinion that is important in QWC, and the universe does not care a jot for your opinion, or anyones.

Not quite:
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past."

From here. No mention of infinite density, singularities and the like. Really, as the universe expands today the big bang is still going on.

There is nothing consensus about QWC, and at any rate consensus is not important - facts are. You are welcome to make up any fairy story that most appeals to you of course, but don't try and pass it off as either quantum or cosmology.

What really puzzles me is what you expect the point of all this to be? What I do may be minor in the scheme of things, but people will take my work, build on it or use it in some way in their own work and so it continues. With your "work" it will come to an end when you lose interest in it, or when the inevitable end of your life happens. If you have a real interest you could really and genuinely help to push the boundaries back, but instead you chose QWC. Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you want to define how I should pursue a genuine interest in cosmology and how it should be learned properly. Please explain. To say I must be dissatisfied is flaming me. You are being passive aggressive but you are flaming me just the same. Why bother, or must I speculate about that too?

Oh darn. I was hoping the universe cared. That is an old and tired rebuke. I hate to admit I used it in reverse on the “Nothingness of Nothing" thread just yesterday

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. But for you to say it is another way of flaming me by implying that I thought anyone cared about my opinion. I care about my opionion but I'm not expecting the universe to care.

Cut and paste, for what purpose. Are you trying to say that you were correct that the Big Bang event itself is part of Big Bang Theory? You do understand that t=10^-30 is after the Big Bang event, not before it don’t you?

Where did you get the idea that I said QWC was the consensus? And you claim that the consensus is not important? You just trashed every science text book on the planet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. And you are flaming me to refer to QWC as fairy tales. I explained that QWC is connected to the scientific consensus cosmology. You said the consensus wasn’t important. You are wrong. You said that you can’t distinguish between speculation that is connected to science from fairy tales. That shows your lack of understanding, not mine. QWC is step by step speculation from a departure point in science. You don’t acknowledge that or you are ignoring that, but that is what distinguishes reasonable and responsible speculation from idle speculation and certainly fairy tales are far removed from that. But you are set on flaming me about it just like Quest 256 has done until recently. So I will let you rant about it all you want, assuming you never will man up and just admit you have no interest instead of insisting on flaming me for having an interest myself.

Just more of the same objections coupled with predictions that you are or will contribute something while even though I am doing what I enjoy, a hobby not work, it will die with me.

You don’t value what I find to be an interesting hobby. If you do you haven’t acknowledged that it is not work by any means, it is fun for me and a way to pass time in an area that I am interested in. I worked for many years just like I expect that you will have by the time you retire. If you pursue any interest after you retire it is likely that it won’t be directly related to your career and it is not likely that you will consider it equivalent to your career accomplishment. Cosmology is an interest to me; an interest that I pursue as a hobby in retirement. Do you believe I am predicting it will be a legacy of mine? That whole paragraph is more of your passive aggressive flaiming. I give more credit to people who man up and say what they think and move on if they have no interest in QWC. You aren’t moving on so you are intent on continuing the flaming. At least do a little study of time and acknowledge that 10^-30 is after t=0.

 

And Prom, I meant to ask you if you are actually participating in the discussion starter update or are you planning to limit your participation to flaming me? Do you acknowledge that QWC is connected to science by starting with the scientific consensus cosmology? And do you grasp the steps of speculation leading to the most recent addition:

 

QWC is not cosmology. Hence, if you are trying to do cosmology you must be dissatisfied because you aren't pursuing your interest. Holy logic batman!

To do cosmology properly you'd need to learn some physics, which would probably take you more time than you are willing to invest. You could try and understand current cosmology by reading pop science books and articles, something I'm sure you do already. The point here is that doing the latter does not give you enough to contribute to the former.

The point is that you are trying to base QWC on consensus. It's not a good method for producing cosmology.

The big bang, strictly speaking, is the theory that states that the universe was very dense and hot at some time in the finite past. There was then an expansion and cooling leading us to now. That is the big bang. What you're referring to is the extrapolation of the theory to t = 0 and a point of infinite density. You certainly can't do that in the context of GR, and if you have no framework what you are doing is worthless.

You said QWC was based on consensus cosmology: "I am connecting QWC to the Consensus Cosmology which is Big Bang Theory."

That's where you are wrong. People accept science because the evidence supports it which then creates a consensus, not the other way around. You might summarise it in the following phrase: "consensus is not important - facts are." Oh look, I already did.

QWC is connected to real cosmology in the same way that homoeopathy is connected to medicine. The both have the same stated aim and they do share some of the same words, many of which homoeopathy misuses but they share them just the same. The real clincher is that medicine is based on experiments and evidence whereas homoeopathy is based on nothing rigorous whatsoever. Do you see the point?

I already have contributed. It may not be that important and it may be shown to be wrong (or more likely, incomplete) sometime in the future but it is a contribution nonetheless.

I get it now, you're filling the days until you croak. That's pretty much what the rest of us are doing too though. What you are doing is akin to masturbation - it may give you a warm glow but you don't necessarily want to involve other people that you don't know in the act.

This is genuine trolling. I never said that \(10^{-30}\) isn't after t=0

 

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
So you want to define how I should pursue a genuine interest in cosmology and how it should be learned properly. Please explain. To say I must be dissatisfied is flaming me. You are being passive aggressive but you are flaming me just the same. Why bother, or must I speculate about that too? ”

QWC is my cosmology, it is well connected to science, and it follows a methodology that distinguishes my speculations from idle speculation.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Oh darn. I was hoping the universe cared. That is an old and tired rebuke. I hate to admit I used it in reverse on the “Nothingness of Nothing" thread just yesterday . But for you to say it is another way of flaming me by implying that I thought anyone cared about my opinion. I care about my opionion but I'm not expecting the universe to care. ”

I’m starting from the consensus which is a must as far as speculation about cosmology goes IMO.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Cut and paste, for what purpose. Are you trying to say that you were correct that the Big Bang event itself is part of Big Bang Theory? You do understand that t=10^-30 is after the Big Bang event, not before it don’t you? ”

I’m not extrapolating t=0 at all. I am saying there was no t=0.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Where did you get the idea that I said QWC was the consensus? ”

QWC is based on the consensus cosmology as a departure point from where science has been able to go. Beyond that is speculation. To have a cosmology that answers the fundamental questions of time, space, and energy you need to speculate. I want to have a concept of what such a cosmology might entail, one man’s view of the possibilities. I use the internet to help evolve my view. You are out there fighting with me about your view vs. mine. Mine is fine for me and I presume yours is fine for you.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
And you claim that the consensus is not important? You just trashed every science text book on the planet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. ”

You seem smug. You aren’t making sense though. Please elaborate on your meaning here. It seems obvious that facts are important. It seems obvious that a consensus can be formed around the facts. It seems obvious that where the facts end, speculation begins. Are you denying there is speculation going on in science? Are you saying that all speculation has to be done by scientists? You are wrong about that.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
And you are flaming me to refer to QWC as fairy tales. I explained that QWC is connected to the scientific consensus cosmology. You said the consensus wasn’t important. You are wrong. You said that you can’t distinguish between speculation that is connected to science from fairy tales. That shows your lack of understanding, not mine. QWC is step by step speculation from a departure point in science. You don’t acknowledge that or you are ignoring that, but that is what distinguishes reasonable and responsible speculation from idle speculation and certainly fairy tales are far removed from that. But you are set on flaming me about it just like Quest 256 has done until recently. So I will let you rant about it all you want, assuming you never will man up and just admit you have no interest instead of insisting on flaming me for having an interest myself. ”

OK, now you are getting it. The standard cosmology is Big Bang Theory. Are we in agreement on that simple point? What does BBT say caused the Big Bang?

I suspect you know it doesn’t say anything about it because BBT begins at 10^-30 as you and I have both confirmed.

So if I start QWC from 10^-30 and speculate back, we have no experiments, or evidence.

If you go back from 10^-30 you get to an event. That event happened. I know you agree with that.

If you explore the many possbililites of what that event might have been you can go to this link about non-standard cosmology. I’ve given you that link and it is in my Google.doc.

If you want to focus your speculations and explore the speculative possibilities of just one of those non-standard cosmologies, you might select the big crunch as being part of the circumstances that preceded the Big Bang. That is what I have done.

Try to clear your mind and contemplate the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch. What is the first thing you have to address to connect a big crunch to the Big Bang?

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Just more of the same objections coupled with predictions that you are or will contribute something while even though I am doing what I enjoy, a hobby not work, it will die with me. ”

QWC is a cosmology of the universe. It makes a contribution to my life but it is more than that. I have a personal desire to understand things that science does not yet understand; cosmology for example.

Have you ever practiced contemplation? I’m talking about serious intentional contemplation of the unknown, a specific focus on one question, leaving all other thoughts aside? Whether you have or you haven’t, try it with the question I just posed. “What is the first thing you have to address to connect a big crunch to the Big Bang? “


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You don’t value what I find to be an interesting hobby. If you do you haven’t acknowledged that it is not work by any means, it is fun for me and a way to pass time in an area that I am interested in. I worked for many years just like I expect that you will have by the time you retire. If you pursue any interest after you retire it is likely that it won’t be directly related to your career and it is not likely that you will consider it equivalent to your career accomplishment. Cosmology is an interest to me; an interest that I pursue as a hobby in retirement. Do you believe I am predicting it will be a legacy of mine? That whole paragraph is more of your passive aggressive flaiming. I give more credit to people who man up and say what they think and move on if they have no interest in QWC. You aren’t moving on so you are intent on continuing the flaming. ”

I don’t think so.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
At least do a little study of time and acknowledge that 10^-30 is after t=0. ”

You can’t troll on your own thread. I take it from your response that you understand the sequence t=0, t=10^-30.

 

Two points, firstly QWC is not well connected to science - see the homoeopathy example above. Secondly, if it's your cosmology why put it on the internet at all?

More important for speculation about cosmology is a good knowledge of cosmology, and I don't mean the pop science knowledge which is at best woefully incomplete and at worst downright misleading. I mean a good working knowledge of the big bang theory and the various offshoots.

You know full well I was referring to the moment in time you get from extrapolating back where the universes size was zero and temperature and density were infinite. Stop trolling.

Wrong. To have that you need a theory that passes the experimental tests you lay for it. With what you're doing you can make up anything you like, based on whatever you like and extract "answers" from it. Basically, this amounts to the question "Would you lie to yourself to be happy?" It seems your answer to that question is yes.

Have you ever heard of an educated guess? It's when you develop an intuition for something, then look at something similar and speculate based on your experience. In a more scientific way, you do a calculation, then you look at a calculation you can't do. Maybe you do the hard calculation in some approximation scheme and then you speculate about the missing bits. That goes on in cosmology and physics all the time and is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate is someone trying to speculate in a subject they have no expertise in at all.

For example, it would be no good for me to speculate about the economic systems of the US because I really know nothing about that at all. Sure I read the international news section of the newspapers but that doesn't make me Alan Greenspan. You seem to think it's OK to speculate about things you don't know about. Sure you've read some pop science, but see above for my views on that.

Doing that is pointless because it's a question we currently don't have the means to answer. There are plenty of those of course - If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? What happens when you pour dettol into a yakult? ad infinitum. When those sorts of questions come up you can only really say "GR says... String theory says... loop quantum gravity says... but we don't know which of these if any is right yet."

Of course, another option is that the universe simply began at the point we are calling t = 10^-30 in the initial state it was in. That may not be pleasing to you or any scientists reading but it's not an impossibility.

You are not understanding things with QWC. You are making things up that suits your world view. Again, if it's your personal view that gives you a warm glow, why put it on the internet at all?

Of course. That's one of the reasons I chose to study physics.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

From here. You were being intentionally inflammatory by accusing me of something I patently did not do. You were trolling.

 

No, but feel free to whine to a moderator.

You don’t demonstrate a working understanding of cosmology or speculation. That is easily explained by your position that speculation about the things I am interested in is pointless and I respect your view. I have an understanding of cosmology and have practiced speculation that is connected to science for a long time so I’m am undaunted by your narrow view. Over the years that I have been doing this on the Internet I have been through similar attempts to discuss my ideas with people who hold your views. This time my attempts have failed. Discussions like ours come to an end because one or both decide to move on. You simply ignore the points I ask you to respond to and repeat what you have just said in spite of the fact that I have responded. Your characterizations of me are wrong and belittling and you underestimate me every time you characterize me. That means that my attempts to discuss QWC with you have proven futile.

 

I've got a busy day today but I wanted to respond to this. A great majority of my posts go through your post line by line and responds. You on the other hand very often simply mass quote and cry trolling, even though you clearly don't know the definition of the word, and use that as an excuse not to answer the questions I've put to you. This is the QWC comments thread is it not?

One question from the previous post you've ignored was "if it's your cosmology why put it on the internet at all?" There are countless others from our past conversations.

 

The people who reply to your threads, ie Prom, myself and Guest, have and unlike you we've got work to show for it, work which has passed peer review and contributed to understanding.

Still no evidence you can do any university level physics I see... Obviously I missed nothing by not reading this thread for a few days.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2453823&postcount=189
Have a good day.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2450412&postcount=170
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2452588&postcount=182

Good luck with your thesis. Have a good day.

 

A question that I posed to Prometheus before it was finally obvious to me that he was not interested in discussing my speculations was this: “What is the first thing you have to address to connect a big crunch to the Big Bang? “

It is obvious and I wondered if he would man up and answer but I have moved on. The obvious answer is what could cause a big crunch to burst into an expanding ball of energy, i.e. if a big crunch preceded the Big Bang, what new physics would be necessary to cause the "burst". I speculate about that and will offer my view of the speculative steps that would lead to such an event in the following posts.

 

I think people, especially physicists, get irritated by your story telling because you attempt to present it as science, speculative or not.

No one would comment on your stories if, throughout, the word "quantum" was replaced by "happy", the word "energy" was replaced by "fairy dust"... and so on. E.g:

"The universe was created when the elf god sprinkled happiness everywhere, which in turn created bubbles of love made from fairy dust."

No physicist is irritated by this. It's harmless story-telling. Could we elevate this story to speculation? Yes, of course. You can speculate pretty much anything! Pre-big bang, there was an alternate universe in which everything was made of cheese - there, I speculated.

But you try to elevate the scientific credibility of your story telling with the use of certain words which, as we've discovered, you don't even have a meaning for. Let's look at our story again, but insert some fancy words:

"The universe was created when the quantum aether broke down into a non-local quantum action, from which hypersurfaces of pure energy were created."

This is what you try to do, and it's sad.

For those who read your posts, I imagine the train of emotion goes: pity->surprise->irritation. Pity because it's sad that someone actually thinks that this is a not laughable. Surprise when they find this person holds their laughable stories in such high regard. Then irritation that this person wont listen, even though they are being told things by someone who works in the field of physics.

As one man, to another - I'm telling you that the kind of thing you're posting on the internet, whether you call it "Quantum-Wave-Cosmology", or "Awesome-Fairy-Story", is embarrassing to read and not a good way to spend your time. I gain nothing from telling you this. It's not like I get points for telling someone they're wasting their life. I think it's genuinely fun to learn about new areas of physics - so why don't you spend your time doing that? Seriously, tomorrow, what's stopping you going on amazon and picking up a few cheap undergrad physics books, and working your way through them?

 

And I might add that Guest and I don't see eye to eye on much either. Now he makes three whom I have tried to bring into the discussion and who have declined the offer. I've moved on. May you have a good day too Guest.

As for the speculations of QWC, if you are following the discussion starter and aren't embarrassed to read my thread, I will point out that it doesn’t take a genius physicist to start from where Big Bang Theory leaves off and using reasonable and responsible speculation arrive at a point where we are contemplating the cause of the burst of a big crunch. You have to have noticed that there are no objections to any of the step by step speculations themselves.

 

Emphasizing again that there are no objections to any of the step by step speculations themselves I would say that is because there is no sign yet of fantasy. No mention of fairies, or fairy dust. There is nothing supernatural yet. It is just reasonable and responsible speculation so far.

Let me recap those speculations so that those wishing to take exception can refer to the exact step that they claim is fantasy:

QWC departure point: Big Bang theory does not address the big bang event but starts somewhere between 10^-47 and 10^-30. One simple explanation for that is we just can’t know anything about the event itself because of the cosmological event horizon. We cannot see the universe as it was before the event. All we know is that some event happened.

First step: There are attempts at cosmology that address the event and the link I have often provided discusses non-standard alternatives to Big Bang Theory. No one objected when I said that I selected one alternative, the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch. QWC is about exploring that possibility, leaving the other possibilities for others to explore.

Step two: No one objected when I speculated that the event referred to as the Big Bang could be referred to as the burst of a big crunch.

It doesn’t take a degree in Physics or Math to grasp the sequence from the point of departure to the question at hand, i.e. what could cause a big crunch to burst into an expanding ball of energy that has become our expanding Hubble volume.

I like cosmology; I read about it and think about it. Since that means I am reading and contemplating things that cannot be observed or tested, I am taking the insults for doing and discussing those things as an interest instead as a physicist or mathematician. The thought police are out in force on my threads and yet they never actually address the thoughts and ideas. I have moved on from flaming them back because I am pretty sure anyone who reads their insults see how hollow they are, especially if they actually consider what I am saying and doing in comparison to the insults.

I left off with three insulting posts from people who call speculation beyond the standard cosmology things like fairy tales, fantasy, and wasted time. One wonders how they justify their time reading my threads and insulting me.

I maintain that it doesn’t take a genius physicist to start from where Big Bang Theory leaves off and using reasonable and responsible speculation arrive at a point where we are contemplating the cause of the burst of a big crunch.

Getting to the matter at hand, we have a speculative big crunch preceding the Big Bang, but it is a reasonable and responsible speculation or else someone would point out why it is not.

The Schwarzchild radius is associated with the collapse of stars and the formation of black holes. It is based on energy density of mass. And I don’t doubt the theory or that it would be in play during the formation of a big crunch. But QWC is not about the burst being composed of the electromagnetic radiation, cosmic rays, dust and debris that get pushed off by the Schwarzchild collapse.

The intersection and overlap of two extended Hubble volumes will include billions of whole galaxies with their central black holes and all the collapsed stars as well as galactic debris, cosmic dust, dark matter and even EM. It all has to go into the crunch before the crunch can “burst”. If the only science I had to depend on was Schwarzchild, we wouldn’t get homogeneous and isotropic burst, we would get the big shock wave of energy, we would get the cosmic ray burst, we would get the billions of degrees in thermal radiation, we would get the huge clouds of dust and debris, and we would get a central black hole, but we would not get a Big Bang that satisfies current observations.

QWC speculates about some extraordinary physics that would be necessary to make the big burst happen. Once the question arises about the new physics that could cause the QWC big crunch to burst into an expanding ball of energy there are new issues to contemplate:

Is the Schwarzschild radius involved and if so, how? Does the burst involve thresholds of matter and of energy density? Is there a maximum level of energy density or can it be infinite. Is there a form of energy that mass can be converted into under extreme energy density conditions? Could the formation of a “new” form of energy also affect gravity? Those are the things that have to be contemplated to arrive at the QWC steps of speculation leading to the burst of the crunch.

 

This is worrying, because it indicates you failed to understand the point I tried to make. Can you counter either of the following:

"Before the big bang the universe was made of cheese".
"There are 17 alternate universes to our own. The only difference between each of the 18 universes is that humans have a different spelling of the word "the".

They are both speculative. And I could, of course, build a series of logical steps from these speculations... and perhaps I could call it "Quantum fairy theory". I'll insert the word "quantum" because it makes it sound more scientific.

I will try again: I get no reward for telling you you're wasting your life. I'm not doing it for the good of my health. You could have just as much fun doing actual science, if only you'd accept a little humility and start learning from scratch.

 

Some objection to speculation into areas that interest me has come through. And since no one objects to any specific speculation, on to the formation of the big crunch. It is a simple physical picture of two intersecting and overlapping expanding Hubble volumes (arenas):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The intersection and overlap interrupts the expansion momentum of the galaxies in each arena.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, he's doing his diagrams again. Must have found them while looking for a post of his where he shows any knowledge of university level physics. Obviously didn't find such a post.

Hey q_w, if you can't provide such a post, just answer a question or two from the problem sheets I linked you to. You know, put your physics where your mouth is.

For once.