QWC document comments and criticisms

Haven't read it, and don't have an inclination to do so at the moment. I tend to mess around on the Internet while doing other things, so don't have the luxury of reading long documents on here. Just thought I'd throw in a comment.

First, any time you propose any hypothesis, model, relation, or anything which is not part of the commonly accepted array of models and ideas, the very first and most prominent response will be heckling. The very first thought to cross the mind of any reader will be that you're a crackpot solely for proposing something which is not part of the common perception. It's a sad reflection on how fucked up humans can be, but that's what you'll have to deal with.

Secondary to that initial criticism, you will face some who actually think about what you're proposed. But they will consider it from the perspective of believing absolutely in the commonly accepted models and theories, and thus will be unlikely to consider alternatives when the things they believe seem to be functioning quite well.

You may find folks who will consider your proposals without bias. By which I mean that even though they acknowledge the current models are functioning, they may accept that other models may also function and explain things adequately, and they may weigh your proposal on its merits without such bias. You won't find many such people.

Just something you'll have to get accustomed to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess you are right. When I first started getting into cosmology I explored the Internet, bought science and physics books, checked popular books out of the library, and bought used books on a wide range of topics. I go for a practical understanding and relationships in my self study instead of names and theories. It was a mistake for me to think that educated non-science professionals had the same curiosity as I have about the universe.

By now I bet I am in the top 1% of retired financial executives in my general understanding of cosmology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. But to the professionals, cosmology has evolved to the examination of the tiny spaces where only math can go. We can't observe there yet. And on the macro scale we can't observe the nature of the universe before the Big Bang. There are departure points at both the micro and macro levels of order from where scientific observation leaves off and professional mathematicians take over.

My interest and self study has been in those areas where science leaves off. I read about the physical picture that the mathematicians are trying to sort out. They aren't very good at making the correspondence between the math and reality.

What I was mistaken about was that there were other laymen who were interested in the same things as I am. What I didn't expect when I first started posting was the response from the professional thought police who won't all such discussions.

You have nailed it. Perhaps I should just keep my personal ideas to my self instead of trying to find like minded non professionals willing to discuss layman cosmology in the face of the low ethics demonstrated by the few representatives of the professional community.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have some (hopefully non bias) critique and questions.

"Quantization of energy into quantum increments allows for the accumulation of energy quanta because they have mass and gravity and therefore they clump together to from stable particles that we can observe"

Gravity is not what causes subatomic particles to 'clump together'. Do you know of the strong nuclear force? What underlies your view of how particles are formed?
For example, the strong interaction is explained in the standard model (incredibly accurately) by a gauge theory of the symmetry group SU(3), (Physicists jump in if I'm wrong, I'm just a mathematician with an undergrad level Quantum Theory course under my belt, so am likely to make mistakes)

What mechanism underlies your claims?

"In quantum action there is no random “popping” in and out of virtual particles at the foamy fundamental level of spacetime as you would expect from spacetime quantum foam. In place of those uncertain virtual particles there are tiny quantized crunches that bounce into spherically expanding quantum waves that then intersect and collapse into tiny crunches again, over and over to maintain the presence of mass and to exert gravity. "

This is all very well and good, but can you justify this claim? Have you modelled it theoretically or proven it empirically?

I know for sure that there exist perfectly valid mathematical explanations of quantum foam, that do not even use ideas that go beyond undergrad level.


This is in no way a 'flame' or personal attack, I'm just curious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This sounds very strongly like a case of sour grapes to me. Have you looked back through QW's many threads to see if he's telling the truth with regard to trolling by myself and others? I suspect not.

Secondly, I believe in quantum theory, GR and the standard theory of cosmology because I have studied them and looked at the evidence for and against. That allows me to make an informed decision about whether I think it's right. I still don't understand the point of what QW is doing because he seems to want to proclaim, god like from on high. Should you try you won't be able to extract a single iota of experimental, theoretical or even coherent, logical support for QWC.

You realise that this is contradictory? How can you go beyond science when you admit yourself that you don't understand the science? It's like trying to fly a plane before you can walk.

The tired old maths isn't reality dross. If you want to compare your theory that you come up with to experiment how do you think it works - here's an example: my theory predicts that electrons are actually particles of magnetic charge so in a magnetic field the path of electrons will bend. If some experimentalist does that experiment he will find that electron trajectories do indeed bend in a magnetic field so I'll be hailed as a genius and awarded the Nobel prize forthwith right?

No - for a theory to make any physical sense it must be able to quantitatively predict how much electrons will bend in a magnetic field and should the experiment find that (it wouldn't because that's not what electrons are) then I'd get someone to write a Nobel nomination. The only way to know if theories of physics are right or wrong is to use maths.

Scientific ethics demand that scientists tell you that QWC is not science. It's not protoscience and it's not even pseudoscience in my opinion. It's more a religion than a science with you at the centre looking for people of limited intellect to come and tell you how clever you are.

 

Thanks alephnull, and I do think you are giving me fair questions without bias. And a day ago I would have accepted your offer to let me explain the step by step processes of quantization that I speculate about.

But Scaramouche was right. You have no clue about my understanding of current particle physics and cosmology. You will not be able to accept that I know enough about what your call correct science to know the limits of science. You will not question your view but instead will try to get me to learn your view. You automatically think I didn't already know enough about your view to know that there is no compete theory in cosmology because there are things we don't know. All of my speculations about about things you don't know, no one knows. To be told that I am not qualified to discuss ideas about what no one knows is a perfect example of how the professionals pretend they are the thought police. You might disagree but tell me what causes the precence of mass. Tell me what causes gravity. Tell me what you choose as the preconditions to the Big Bang or do you think it came from nothing. You don't know, I don't know. I speculate; the thought police attack me in every low ethical way they can to see that no one discusses these things. Watch the responses I get for this post.

That is the point that Scaramouche made and that I find to be the inevitable result of me discussing QWC with anyone seeped in the narrow faith of current theory. I could ask you questions that you could not answer about current theory because we don't have the answers. I could answer all the questions you have about QWC because it is my personal view. But sorry, I am taking the logical path. I will update my Google.doc, post a link to it on all of my QWC threads, and leave it at that, at least for now.

Thanks for the kind questions and good attitude. Check in a few weeks for the updated Google.doc if you are interested. I will discuss QWC by private message but the public forum is so full of characters who find dogma in science today that they are blind to the points beyond which they are just making things up and calling it theory. Numbers can be made to say anything, anything at all, and still be completely wrong relative to reality; or do you disagree?

 

Words can be made to say anything, anything at all, and still be completely wrong relative to reality.

 

True. That's my playing field

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. One thing is pretty certain, I am wrong and so are you (meaning that my words are not likely to be conveying reality any more than your numbers are likely to be conveying reality). It is just that I can use words to convey my wrong ideas and you can use numbers.

 

No, no , no. There's one vital point you're omitting; my 'numbers' can be used to make predictions, predictions that can be tested and confirmed/denied. Predictions and experiments that lie in the realm of reality.

 

I know, but the point beyond our ability to test predictions is the point that I begin my speculations. Your numbers may predict things in that realm but they cannot be tested with our current technology.

 

That would be fair enough if it were true, but it isn't. I read through your document and the concepts involved do not lie in the 'point beyond our ability to test predictions'.

They lie tangentially to some well established concepts which have made predictions about the universe, predictions that we have been able to test.

This is neither correct or incorrect.

We seem to have gone off topic, I asked a perfectly valid series of question related to your document which I took the time to read and you avoided them. Your grounds for avoiding them were unjustified, saying that I wouldn't listen and would try to sway you over to my way of thinking, that's quite offensive.

I am rather disappointed but hey ho. I think this thread is over now.

 

You get it.

 

I have yet to propose an alternative model for anything. So no, not sour grapes. Although I do wonder why you would wish to relegate my words to that category.

EDIT: Actually I have proposed a couple, but one was beaten to the punch by two weeks by a few guys from USA, whose hypothesis was found quite interesting by many. Apart from that, my earlier post was merely an observation of human behaviour, and it holds true in all fields, not just science.

Not really interested in testing it.

 

I (and I'm sure Prom and Guest will agree) have seen enough of your posts over enough of a time span to be able to gauge your level of understanding and it is very poor. You claim you have done material taught at universities but you can provide no evidence of that with specific posts, your posts generally don't demonstrate it and you refuse to do even a single homework problem from courses either taught to 1st years or related to topics you talk about, such as cosmology.

I love how you complain that Aleph doesn't know your knowledge but then you presume to know all about how he examines and learns university level maths and physics. Just like you try to tell me I have no personal view of cosmology and don't think about it, despite evidence to the contrary.

And you can provide no reason to think your speculation is any more worthwhile listening to than Guest's "It's invisible fairies" comments. You want people to invest time in listening to you but you give no reason why you're worth listening to.

Who said you aren't qualified to discuss such things? You aren't qualified to make claims of indepth knowledge or understanding. Your work doesn't qualify as science. You aren't making justified claims about your work. You can discuss whatever you like but claiming its worthwhile or valid or coherent or 'experimentally consistent' or anything other than random speculation is incorrect.

You don't like it when I supposedly misrepresent you but you have no problem doing it to others.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454156&postcount=193

 

*sigh*

So even when I respond to specific things you say you default to "Oh you've been mean to me in the past!" possum defence of linking again and again.

Does the fact I've insulted you somehow negate my comment you are hypocritical for saying Aleph shouldn't make assumptions about you but you do about him?

Does the fact I've insulted you somehow negate the fact you saying "To be told that I am not qualified to discuss ideas" is a baseless claim? If I'm wrong about that, provide a link to a post of someone saying that to you.

Does the fact I've insulted you somehow negate the fact you can provide no reason to think your speculation is any more worthwhile listening to than Guest's "It's invisible fairies" comments.

Does the fact I've insulted you somehow answer the question of why should someone listen to your claims about what we can't measure when you can't even describe what we can?

Linking to your collated list of me insulting you doesn't justify the claims of yours I've asked you to justify or respond to the issues I raise about your hypocrisy. Your link is an attempt to put me in a bad light but its clear I'm attempting to engage you in discussion and I respond point by point to your posts. You don't respond to direct questions, you don't justify your claims and you ignore your own hypocrisy.

If you can't respond to direct questions from someone you call a 'dweeb' and 'unprofessional' and 'unethical' and 'his own worst enemy' surely you're going to have serious trouble replying to physicists who are professional, ethical and polite? If I'm all the things you say I am then proving me wrong should be easy. If you called my claims about my work into question I'd slam you down by putting my maths where my mouth is. Can't you do likewise? Can't you justify anything you say?

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2455998&postcount=211

 

Completely pathetic.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2455998&postcount=211