QWC document comments and criticisms

The vortex is very strong today. Out of appreciation for your continued presence I will address one rant from each of you before I go out for New Years eve tonight. I will check and see if there are any rants or on-topic responses to address to end the year. Probably not. I will be starting a new QWC 2010 thread for your enjoyment. Refill your flame throwers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm wiling to step up and prove my knowledge and ability. You're the one avoiding doing likewise.

Nice attempt to change the subject to avoid justifying your clearly laughably false claims.

So you think that because you make such ridiculous claims about yourself and then invent baseless lies and claims about others that somehow you're achieving something because people reply "That isn't true". The way you get more replies is to lie more so having a 'strong vortex' is simply synonymous with you becoming more and more desperate in your posts.

And irrespective of how desperate your posts get, your work achieves nothing.

What a surprise, you plan a new thread which will achieve nothing, get no replies from anyone who doesn't think you're a lying failure and which you'll use to avoid backing up any claims you've made.

Your tactics are predictably pathetic.

No, you won't, you'll just mass quote and reply to only one part of the post. You'll ignore all direct questions which require you to justify any claim you made.

If you're going to address this rant then give a link to a post, just one post, of yours where you display a working knowledge of material which is taught to undergraduates. You and I both know there isn't such a post and I'm calling you a liar for claiming you know such material. Prove me wrong. If you can't, you'll end this thread with yet another display of how you make claims you won't and can't back up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, you don’t deserve it but in the spirit of you being such good fish bait all year, here is a point by point response. I recommend that you don’t read it and you don’t need to respond (except for the fact that you are fixated):

This is a complete lie. QWC is not about your knowledge and ability which I have said amounts to zilch. You are in a wasted career path, everyone knows it. You pretend that I am claiming something about my knowledge and ability which I am not. If I am not making those claims and you are continually putting out your foolish claims that I am, then you are a fool.

I have made no laughable false claims and you have utterly failed to step up to the plate and point them out. You wasted time digging through the past to come up with the revelation that I have flamed you. Stupid, I admit flaming you. What you know but won’t acknowledge is that you started the flame war and whine when you get flamed. You are an idiot and that proves it.

Yikes, you are an atrocious liar. I have made no claims that are untrue. You have called the truth lies. That makes you a fool, and idiot, a liar, and fish bait. Deny it.

My posts aren’t desperate.

You are the one that is desperate. You find yourself in a vortex of fixation, hate and vengeance from which you cannot extract yourself. That is OK with me. Who would I have coming to my threads if I didn’t have you

Between the time I last posted and now the tread was viewed over thirty times. None of them were me, how many were you?

And I am accomplishing something. I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do. Cosmology is a description of the universe and a complete cosmology addresses the origin and mechanics of the universe in an internally consistent way with a set of ideas that contain a minimum of new physics and a physical picture of how it all works together.

FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC and I started right from the start saying it was my personal cosmology and I gave the premises and speculations that is based on. You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it. Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify. I clearly connect my speculation to the departure points in science that are the best consensus of what science knows.

You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation. You pretend to have some skill or knowledge, worthless as it is, and then you challenge me to answer questions about physics and math that have zero to do with cosmology in the realms that I address. Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology. You are a foul, toothless gutter rat but don’t take it personally. You started the name calling and flaming.

I just went over what I am accomplishing. Since I am not a lying failure, whether you or anyone else stoops in the gutter to say that I am is of no interest to me.

Lol. Let me see; you call people idiots at the drop of a hat without knowing anything about them. Then as if to prove it, you tell them that you called them idiots and they didn’t deny it so that makes them idiots. When they deny it you say you are an idiot to deny it. You resort to any lie or twisted tactic to put words on paper that are straw men and then you attack the straw men. You get caught in your lies and you lie about being caught. You act offended when I return your tactics and you rant endlessly about how I lied, how I won’t respond to your lies, and how stupid I am because I won’t answer your questions that have nothing to do with my topics in the first place.

You mean predictable like that?

2010 prediction. You will try to break the fixation and get out of the vortex but you will fail. You will post endless drivel on my threads and I will bulk quote and call you fish bait or something new and better at least 50% of the time. You will hound me on other peoples threads, lie when I link you to this or a similar 2010 thread, and you will have no respect for other people or their threads.

Say what, fish bait?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Happy New Year!

 

You admit you don't know who I am, where I work or what I work in but you're damn sure I'm on a wasted career path? Making up your little fantasy world again....

You just claimed university level knowledge and now you're not willing to back that claim up.

You provide no evidence for your claims about your ability or about my supposed lies. I've provided evidence about my ability and your lies. It isn't denial to state facts.

No one and that's why you spin lies, to get people to respond. Without responses you have no one paying you any attention and you crave that, be it good or bad.

Probably 2. Seriously, get over yourself, I told you, I couldn't give a crap about you. If you never posted again I wouldn't lose a microsecond of sleep. I would lose some entertainment though.

Being ridiculed on an internet forum is not an accomplishment. And you cannot simultaneously claim I've got a wasted career with no accomplishment while classifying what you've done an 'accomplishment'. Anyone cited your work yet? Thought not.

Why would I stop pointing out what a hack and failure you are?

Because you have no actual retort.

As predicted, I challenge you to provide one link and you can't. While I might be 'fish bait', I am at least able to back up my claims. Still nothing from you. Can't you find one example of an accomplishment by you? :shrug:

 

Wait, are you somebody? If anyone cared who you are do you think they couldn’t find out? I said that QWC is not about your knowledge and ability, the zilch part was what it is worth to me. QWC is about those questions I have asked you and you don’t answer. And if I understand you, you do math associated with string theory. Do you deny working on string theory? What have you got to offer to QWC if QWC is not affected by what you do? It means zilch to me; and you are wasting your time unless you can relate what you do to reality, someday at least. Can you?

Maybe you didn’t like being called a fool? Funny, you can see the fool in everyone else but not in yourself. Are you calling me a liar again about being a college grad? You and Guest have both flat out said I am lying about that. I repeat, I graduated from Michigan State University. If you don’t accept that as the truth then what do you say is the truth about my education? I also claimed to have spent thousands of hours over time in self directed study of topics related to cosmology. You flat out call me a liar twice about that. Seems to me you can’t detect the truth or you don’t want to acknowledge that I am being truthful.

This was a response to your post. Please address it.

I repeat, you pretend that I am claiming something about my knowledge and ability which I am not. If I am not making those claims and you are continually putting out your foolish claims that I am, then you are a liar.

When you say you provided evidence of your ability, I said that your skill and ability means noting to me. You refuse to discuss QWC, your work has nothing to do with QWC, and your repeated evidence of your ability is one sign of someone who has self worth issues. Do you feel that by pointing out your ability, even going out of your way like in that last statement to mention it, that it somehow helps you deal with the fact that no matter what your ability is it is zilch to me and a dead end for you? Address that.

What I said you were denying was that I have made claims about myself that are true and you have called the truth lies. Are you again calling me a liar about having graduated from MSU? And about the time I spend in self directed study? Address that issue. You calling me a liar about those things?

Crave? No, you just would like to believe that.

I laughed when I read that. Let’s see, you claim my ego that is bigger than yours? And then you say you don’t give a crap about me? And you wouldn’t miss me if I left you? But you like the entertainment?

Low road stuff. Meaningless. The truth is you never let a chance go by to boast about your dead end career, if you didn’t give a crap about me no one could tell by the attention you pay to me, and I don’t see this as the kind of entertainment a socially well adjusted professional would like.

Oh my, this is the third time you have actually pretended to quote me and have changed the words that I said within the quote to make it fit your sick agenda. You claimed it was honest mistakes the other two times. This is a common tactic for you now but has nothing to do with our little chit chat, or would you just like to post, write my response for me, and then respond to what you would like people to think I said. That is what you have done. Like I said, you take the low road.

You need to face this and respond, not twist the words within a quote and pretend you are responding to me when it is a straw man, and a lowly reconstruction of what was actually said at that.

And it is really telling by what you replied to the phony QW quote. It was all about you and your accomplishments again, and idle calls for me to prove some accomplishment that you claim I have boasted about. That makes you shallow, deceitful, and arrogant all at the same time. A three bagger.

Hmm,

That is what I said you would do and you have just done it.

You don’t like being ridiculed? That is a weakness. And I do claim that you are in a wasted career path and everyone outside of string theory knows it. And I said about my accomplishments the following which you ignore but have brought up the claim that I have none twice so I’ll mention it again:

You mean why would you stop lying about me? Maybe because the truth will set you free.

Here is what I said:

You have already proved the prediction about you posting endless drivel on my threads. It is only a matter time before the rest comes true.

Funny, you completely skipped my retorts in your reply. Go figure. Maybe you would be better served to just bulk quote me and throw your flames in one paragraph. Then I could bulk quote you and flame back. You should find that pretty entertaining if we can believe that is the only motivation you have for your fixation.

I responded to that. I said I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do. Cosmology is a description of the universe and a complete cosmology addresses the origin and mechanics of the universe in an internally consistent way with a set of ideas that contain a minimum of new physics and a physical picture of how it all works together.

FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC and I started right from the start saying it was my personal cosmology and I gave the premises and speculations that it is based on. You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it. Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify. I clearly connect my speculation to the departure points in science that are the best consensus of what science knows.

You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation. You pretend to have some skill or knowledge, worthless as it is, and then you challenge me to answer questions about physics and math that have zero to do with cosmology in the realms that I address. Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology. You are a foul, toothless gutter rat but don’t take it personally. You started the name calling and flaming.

You whine when I bulk quote you and when I make a faithful effort to respond, you change what I say within a quote and pretend I said what you changed my words to say so you can make a boastful statement about your accomplishments or ridicule me as if you are responding to something I really said. You ignore the valid responses that I make to your post, and you respond to my post with more flames. And you wonder why I bulk quote you and flame you?

Maybe if you acknowledge my motivation and skip your drivel you would make more sense.

 

I don't doubt you graduated in something but I do not think you could pass a 1st year university physics exam, as you claimed you could/can.

If you went to university I do not think you did physics or mathematics or could pass such exams. If memory serves you said you were an accountant? I know a few and none of them covered anything related to the stuff 1st year physicists do. If I'm wrong in this please say precisely what relevant courses you did do.

I don't doubt you have spent considerable time doing something related to cosmology, like reading pop science magazines or websites but you haven't been reading textbooks, published papers, journals or lecture notes. So while you might have a better than layman knowledge of pop science cosmology you couldn't pass exams on the stuff. A lecture course in cosmology in my 3rd year was 24 1 hour lectures and 4 1 hour supervisions. Each problem sheet involved 4~10 hours of work, depending on person or motivation. So you claim you have done easily more hours of work than most people do when studying at university. Can you do any of theses? Thousands of hours would be more than enough time to learn the required calculus, read half a dozen text books cover to cover and work through all the problems in them. So if you have invested your time wisely, those questions are easy to you.

But you and I both know that you didn't do that and you can't do the questions. You wasted your time.

Nice hypocrisy. I repeatedly ask you direct questions and you ignore me but when I don't reply to something you don't feel any hypocrisy in repeating your request?

Tell you what, I'll address what you said when you respond to the following direct question :

Do you think that you falsely accusing me on two separate occasions of having wish you dead, the second time ]after you'd admitted to lying about the first time, is 'professional' on your part?

You claim knowledge in physics capable of passing the 1st year courses at university. You provide no evidence to justify such a claim and your posts imply quite the opposite. Where am I lying in saying that?

I'm not the one starting thread after thread about his work, trying to get people to listen to his fairy tales.

Yeah, I'm really cut up about the fact someone I don't know, haven't met and don't like much isn't bothered that I can do maths and physics better than him. Boo hoo. Why should I be bothered about what you think? To want your approval I'd have to respect your opinion and I very much don't.

Oh look, a straw man.

I'm simply calling it like I see it. When people don't reply to this thread for a while, you post a bunch of deliberately false comments about them (ie myself, Prom or Guest) and wait for the attention. If the thread dies you start a new one, make your claims more outlandish and wait for the attention. If you were interested in listening to criticism or about the merit of your work you'd not need to reboot a thread about your work every few months.

I find The Simpsons entertaining but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it got cancelled tomorrow.

I'm not starting threads about my career/work. I'm not pushing my work in people's faces. You are. And your 'weasel words' of 'dead end' are just your fantasy world coming into view again. If you weren't envious someone has managed something in physics and you haven't you'd not use such words.

Okay, let's see. You said :

And I am accomplishing something. I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

You claim that because you 'think about cosmology, study and learn' you are 'accomplishing something'. Well I spend all day (it literally is my day job) thinking about space-time, about general relativity, about quantum mechanics, about inflation (yes, inflation), all of that. I have read dozens of books, scores of papers, typed hundreds of pages of work, dozens of computer programs, 3 papers and one thesis. If 'thinking, studying and learning' counts for 'accomplishment' then I've accomplished things. And I have a hell of a lot more to show for it than you. By any measuring stick I've accomplished more than you.

and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

I have 3 papers on space-time configurations. 2 of them specifically involve talking about AdS and dS space-times. One of them has an entire chapter on finding vacua which have properties which make them viable to cosmologists. I have written computer programs which describe inflation. I have it published in black and white that I consider cosmology in my work. So yes, I am telling you I do.

FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC

So your cosmology, which you admit is just you making stuff up is okay but when I publish work on using string theory to model inflation in de Sitter space-times, thus providing a quantitative model which matches some phenomenology, I'm in a 'dead end career' and 'have no view of cosmology'?

You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it.

If I'm ignorant, how about you and I go over to the maths and physics forum and work through that cosmology question sheet I linked to. Standard homework stuff. What do you say? I've got nothing to hide.

Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify.

Did you really just try to insult me for the fact my knowledge of rational, justified science doesn't apply to your make believe story? Yeah, I'm gutted all my time and effort doesn't help me understand your unjustified nonsense.

You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation.

Neil Turok has managed to describe such things without random speculation but based on some quantitative model. So has Hawking.

Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology.

Are you really that dopey? I have tons of knowledge relevant to cosmology. I don't pretend to know it all or to have 'a complete cosmology' but I know relevant useful things. You make claims all over the place and you know much much less relevant material. You can't claim I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to correct you on something you know less than me about! My papers and thesis include descriptions of space-times, their evolution, space-time curvature, inflation, AdS/dS space-times. All relevant to a good grasp of cosmology. I don't claim to know it all but its a fact I know more than you.

There, that address your comments enough?

Its Catch 22. If I say nothing about my work, you claim "You on the other hand have no view of cosmology". When I explain my work and thesis includes construction of de Sitter or Ant de Sitter space-times and their dynamics I'm 'all about [me] and [my] accomplishments'. Or you claim you thinking about cosmology is 'accomplishing' something but my published work on stuff you claim to think about doesn't count?

And yet no link. Says it all....

 

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you calling me a liar again about being a college grad? You and Guest have both flat out said I am lying about that. I repeat, I graduated from Michigan State University.. ”

AN:
I don't doubt you graduated in something …

QW:
It was a degree in Finance from the Michigan State University college of Accounting and Financial Administration.

AN:
but I do not think you could pass a 1st year university physics exam, as you claimed you could/can.

QW: This as a flame. The type of flame is a lie and a twisting of words. A straw man.

I took the College Prep course in high school for honor roll students. That curriculum included Physics, Chemistry, and Advanced Biology. I passed them all with good grades. They all included exams. I passed all of the exams. I received a full books and tuition scholarship to MSU.

MSU has a series of science courses for first year students, all first years no matter what their major. The courses are a joke and many of us from the high school college prep courses, (at a Lansing, MI high School) ended up going to MSU, and were told that we would have no trouble taking the final exams, i.e. comping the courses. At first we enrolled in the courses and skipped the classes, crammed for the exams and we all passed first term. We did the same in the second term and then someone told us we didn’t even have to sign up for the courses if we applied to Comp the course. Based on our first and second term exam grades we were allowed to take the comprehensive exam for the final term and I passed with a good grade.
I referred to those courses as basic science not physics and math. They were primarily natural science basic freshman courses.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
If you don’t accept that as the truth then what do you say is the truth about my education? ”

AN:
If you went to university I do not think you did physics or mathematics or could pass such exams. If memory serves you said you were an accountant? I know a few and none of them covered anything related to the stuff 1st year physicists do. If I'm wrong in this please say precisely what relevant courses you did do.

QW: That is right, first year courses do not qualify as physics courses in the colleges of physics or math.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I also claimed to have spent thousands of hours over time in self directed study of topics related to cosmology. You flat out call me a liar twice about that. Seems to me you can’t detect the truth or you don’t want to acknowledge that I am being truthful. ”

AN:
I don't doubt you have spent considerable time doing something related to cosmology, like reading pop science magazines or websites but you haven't been reading textbooks, published papers, journals or lecture notes. So while you might have a better than layman knowledge of pop science cosmology you couldn't pass exams on the stuff.

QW:
This is flaming. Based on your intuition you mean? You have shown little comprehension of my course work, give me little credit for anything. That amounts to flaming because you don’t know those things but say them anyway.

AN:
A lecture course in cosmology in my 3rd year was 24 1 hour lectures and 4 1 hour supervisions. Each problem sheet involved 4~10 hours of work, depending on person or motivation. So you claim you have done easily more hours of work than most people do when studying at university.

QW:
Yes, but does that surprise you. I was a bright student, perhaps you were too. To me, studying in college was handled on the fly, just before class, casual prep for exams. College was not a challenge for me. I have spent many more hours in the past eight years than I did as a college student.

AN:
Can you do any of theses? Thousands of hours would be more than enough time to learn the required calculus, read half a dozen text books cover to cover and work through all the problems in them. So if you have invested your time wisely, those questions are easy to you.

QW: This is a flame. I’m not going to the link but you are making this into a straw man. I know a little calculus and have promptly forgotten most of it.

I know about slopes (up and sideways), tangents to the slopes of a curve, a curve being a the plot of an equation, and the f(x) being on the y axis at the tangent point. The very simple ideas, limits, slope of a tangent, blah blah. I didn’t claim to know calculus, you don’t take it in the finance curriculum, and I did invest my time wisely. It is a flame and a straw man to claim that I didn’t if I didn’t invest it in the same things as you did.

AN:
But you and I both know that you didn't do that and you can't do the questions. You wasted your time.

QW: That is a flame. I invested my free time in retirement in the way I saw fit and still do. To call that a waste of time is a flame and to suggest that there was a better way to spend my time is a personification of your self-image, not mine.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
This was a response to your post. Please address it. ”

AN:
Nice hypocrisy. I repeatedly ask you direct questions and you ignore me but when I don't reply to something you don't feel any hypocrisy in repeating your request?

QW: More flame. You didn’t respond when I posted it the first time, and this response shows you don’t intend to respond, yet you flame me for asking you to address it.

AN:
Tell you what, I'll address what you said when you respond to the following direct question :

Do you think that you falsely accusing me on two separate occasions of having wish you dead, the second time after you'd admitted to lying about the first time, is 'professional' on your part?

QW: If you didn’t say that you wouldn’t care if I dropped dead, then I will acknowledge that I misinterpreted what you meant.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I repeat, you pretend that I am claiming something about my knowledge and ability which I am not. If I am not making those claims and you are continually putting out your foolish claims that I am, then you are a liar. ”

AN:
You claim knowledge in physics capable of passing the 1st year courses at university. You provide no evidence to justify such a claim and your posts imply quite the opposite. Where am I lying in saying that?

QW: I addressed that above. Do you see the distinction between my claim and your characterization of my claim? You are lying in saying that because I didn’t refer to the science exams in my first year as physics exams, I referred to them as basic science and I clarified that above.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
and your repeated evidence of your ability is one sign of someone who has self worth issues ”

AN:
I'm not the one starting thread after thread about his work, trying to get people to listen to his fairy tales.

QW:
This is flaming. I have said that I am continually updating QWC. I update the Google.doc from time to time, and I start new threads to discuss the updates or to focus an a particular aspect of QWC. The fact that you flame me all the way through all of my threads is not the reason I start new threads. History shows that you will flame all of my threads. You also flame me on other peoples threads. I think that shows disrespect and try to divert your criticism of me off of their threads.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
that it somehow helps you deal with the fact that no matter what your ability is it is zilch to me and a dead end for you? Address that. ”

AN:
Yeah, I'm really cut up about the fact someone I don't know, haven't met and don't like much isn't bothered that I can do maths and physics better than him. Boo hoo. Why should I be bothered about what you think? To want your approval I'd have to respect your opinion and I very much don't.

QW: This is a flame. Not the part about you being bothered by what I think. We share a mutual disrespect. It is a flame because you say I am bothered that you can do math and physics better that “me” and you pretend I am crying. Then you flame me by belittling me by saying you don’t care what I think and then you say you have no respect for my opinion as if I was valueless.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you again calling me a liar about having graduated from MSU? ”

AN:
Oh look, a straw man.

QW: This is a flame. You repeatedly called me a liar, and I denied lying each time. It is not a straw man and that is a flame.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Crave? No, you just would like to believe that. ”

AN:
I'm simply calling it like I see it. When people don't reply to this thread for a while, you post a bunch of deliberately false comments about them (ie myself, Prom or Guest) and wait for the attention. If the thread dies you start a new one, make your claims more outlandish and wait for the attention. If you were interested in listening to criticism or about the merit of your work you'd not need to reboot a thread about your work every few months.

QW: Flame. It is a lie that I make false comments about “them” meaning you I suppose. You are always speaking up for Prom. He has proven perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I explained why I start new threads and it is a flame for you to say I do it because of criticism.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I laughed when I read that. Let’s see, you claim my ego that is bigger than yours? And then you say you don’t give a crap about me? And you wouldn’t miss me if I left you? But you like the entertainment? ”

AN:
I find The Simpsons entertaining but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it got cancelled tomorrow.

QW: That is irrelevant. The post was about your ego vs. mine. Then you flamed me saying you didn’t give a crap about me and wouldn’t miss me but you like the entertainment. Flames.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
. The truth is you never let a chance go by to boast about your dead end career ”

AN:
I'm not starting threads about my career/work. I'm not pushing my work in people's faces. You are. And your 'weasel words' of 'dead end' are just your fantasy world coming into view again. If you weren't envious someone has managed something in physics and you haven't you'd not use such words.

QW: This is flames. You equate my starting new threads (seems to be a repeating theme of yours) with your boasting. There is no similarity. You flame me by saying that I am pushing my work in people’s faces. First of all, you point out that very few people are left who even post on my threads. Second of all, and this applies to you too, no one has to come to my threads.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You need to face this and respond, not twist the words within a quote and pretend you are responding to me when it is a straw man, and a lowly reconstruction of what was actually said at that. ”

AN:
Okay, let's see. You said :

QW:
And I am accomplishing something. I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

AN:
You claim that because you 'think about cosmology, study and learn' you are 'accomplishing something'. Well I spend all day (it literally is my day job) thinking about space-time, about general relativity, about quantum mechanics, about inflation (yes, inflation), all of that. I have read dozens of books, scores of papers, typed hundreds of pages of work, dozens of computer programs, 3 papers and one thesis. If 'thinking, studying and learning' counts for 'accomplishment' then I've accomplished things.

QW: Tit for tat so far. No flame there, just an interesting perspective of how you spend your time, just like my statement was (I’m sure less interesting) about how I spend my time.

AN:
And I have a hell of a lot more to show for it than you. By any measuring stick I've accomplished more than you.

QW: This is flames. We have different life paths, different values, different types of accomplishments. You intend that statement as a flame? I see it as a lack of respect for people in general. I don’t expect respect form you but I wouldn’t choose you to be the one to determine the value of what I would call the accomplishments of my life.

QW:
and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

AN:
I have 3 papers on space-time configurations. 2 of them specifically involve talking about AdS and dS space-times. One of them has an entire chapter on finding vacua which have properties which make them viable to cosmologists. I have written computer programs which describe inflation. I have it published in black and white that I consider cosmology in my work. So yes, I am telling you I do.

QW: OK, I stand corrected. You have not shared with me what you do for what ever reasons so I just found out a little. I don’t value those accomplishments like you do but you wouldn’t expect me to either.

QW:
FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC

AN:
So your cosmology, which you admit is just you making stuff up is okay …

QW: This is a flame. I presume that you are referring to my discussion earlier in the thread with Guest about whether or not I claim to be doing science and his statement that then my speculation is storytelling. I have maintained that I am speculating, not story telling. I maintain that my speculation are connected to departure points in mainstream science, the consensus. I maintain the when there is no evidence and no current ability to observe at the micro and macro levels, that speculation is all that can be done.

AN:
…but when I publish work on using string theory to model inflation in de Sitter space-times, thus providing a quantitative model which matches some phenomenology, I'm in a 'dead end career' and 'have no view of cosmology'?

QW: It is my opinion that string theory has not fulfilled the expectations. Maybe you would say that it has or will. I won’t dispute that but I don’t see it happening and I am only going by people like Smolin and even Susskind himself.

QW:
You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it.

AN:
If I'm ignorant, how about you and I go over to the maths and physics forum and work through that cosmology question sheet I linked to. Standard homework stuff. What do you say? I've got nothing to hide.

QW: This is flame. Your challenges are a way of saying that I have claimed things that I have not claimed.

QW:
Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify.

AN:
Did you really just try to insult me for the fact my knowledge of rational, justified science doesn't apply to your make believe story? Yeah, I'm gutted all my time and effort doesn't help me understand your unjustified nonsense.

QW: This is flame. I didn’t insult you. You have characterized yourself to me, up until you opened up a little on this post, as immersed in math and string theory. I have said that QWC is not about math and string theory and that means that as I understood what you did it had nothing to do with QWC and you always seem to flame me about how you were doing such important things that I was overlooking in QWC.

QW:
You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation.

AN:
Neil Turok has managed to describe such things without random speculation but based on some quantitative model. So has Hawking.

QW: We went over this a long time ago. I linked you to where I discussed Turok and his model. At the time it centered on simulations of the collapse of our universe and a subsequent “bounce”. I was right not to buy into it. He proved that the computer program showed that the momentum of the in falling mass toward a center of gravity appeared to “bounce” off the center of gravity. When I read his synopsis he was hesitant to claim a final theory and referred to further work to be done.

QW:
Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology.

AN:
Are you really that dopey?

QW: Flame?

AN:
I have tons of knowledge relevant to cosmology. I don't pretend to know it all or to have 'a complete cosmology' but I know relevant useful things.

QW: OK.

AN:
You make claims all over the place and you know much much less relevant material.

QW: Flames. I discuss ideas and speculation, not make claims. You are flaming me when you characterize it as such. It is flames to say that what I post is less relevant than what you do. I am speculating and covering a lot of territory in my Cosmology. That is what makes for a complete picture. You are focused on a smaller perspective IMHO.

AN:
You can't claim I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to correct you on something you know less than me about!

QW:
This is flames. You have never corrected me in any fashion that was on topic that I didn't acknowledge and mitigate in my document.

AN:
My papers and thesis include descriptions of space-times, their evolution, space-time curvature, inflation, AdS/dS space-times. All relevant to a good grasp of cosmology. I don't claim to know it all but its a fact I know more than you.

QW: I have compared QWC to spacetime. I pointed out that spacetime runs amuck in the spacetime foam. Are you saying that the uncertainty will be overcome by your work or that spacetime can even be applicable given the basic premises of QWC.

AN:
There, that address your comments enough?

QW: That was full of flames. I attempted to weed them out and respond to the appropriate comments.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
It was all about you and your accomplishments again ”

AN:
Its Catch 22. If I say nothing about my work, you claim "You on the other hand have no view of cosmology". When I explain my work and thesis includes construction of de Sitter or Ant de Sitter space-times and their dynamics I'm 'all about [me] and [my] accomplishments'. Or you claim you thinking about cosmology is 'accomplishing' something but my published work on stuff you claim to think about doesn't count?

QW: I don’t see how you have addressed how your work applies to QWC given the premises I have laid out as the basis of QWC.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I responded to that. ”

AN:
And yet no link. Says it all....

QW: This is flame in that though I have responded to you, you repeat idle challenges for me to prove something that I haven’t claimed.

Now quit straying off topic. Here is the current status of the discussion starter I offered:

I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread even though I have offered several discussion starters.

I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN wouldn’t play and would disrupt. It almost looks like Prom is sort of discussing “on topic” but all in all you are seeing that I was right.

It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but I am updating it to include the responses to “on topic” comments from Prometheus. That way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in from a post that contains the current status of the discussion starter.

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.

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, 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 our currently expanding 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, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.

I have no proof or evidence. 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.

In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that 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 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.

That I agree with. I am going to go further though and describe a QWC arena as an extended Hubble volume that encompasses an entire quantized energy environment that starts from the burst of a big crunch and expands into existing space until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a similar expanding Hubble volume arena.

 

No link to even 1 post by you doing physics or maths of the level you are capable of. No stepping up to show you can do such mathematics or physics. No justifications for your claims. No answer to direct questions like which relevant courses you did. No retort to your hypocrisy and double standards about how I'm wasting my time but you supposedly aren't.

You responded to nothing.

 

You started the flame war by calling me an idiot in the first QWC thread. I noticed you were quick to label people idiots, cranks, crackpot, and stupid. The words seem to roll of your tongue like you had heard them often during your childhood.

I guess to someone who didn’t already know that they weren’t an idiot, they might not consider that flaming. But you started the flame war in the very first responses you made to my posts. You suspended the rules of ethics and conduct. You deserve to be censured for your behavior but you seem to be coddled by the moderators who disregarded your behavior toward me and many others. That is until D H finally demanded that you treat people with respect in his forum. Maybe others have too, I don’t pay much attention to the hard science forums since they seem to censure speculation as being non-science and I readily admit my threads are based on speculation. But I connect my speculations to departure points that represent the scientific consensus.

Fraggle Rocker seems to be introducing change in that respect but I haven’t seen any other moderator acknowledge his move.



QW:
I take it you are responding to this post partially reproduced for your benefit since your response seems somewhat unresponsive:

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you calling me a liar again about being a college grad? You and Guest have both flat out said I am lying about that. I repeat, I graduated from Michigan State University.. ”

AN:
I don't doubt you graduated in something …

QW:
It was a degree in Finance from the Michigan State University college of Accounting and Financial Administration.

AN:
but I do not think you could pass a 1st year university physics exam, as you claimed you could/can.

QW: This as a flame. The type of flame is a lie and a twisting of words. A straw man.

I took the College Prep course in high school for honor roll students. That curriculum included Physics, Chemistry, and Advanced Biology. I passed them all with good grades. They all included exams. I passed all of the exams. I received a full books and tuition scholarship to MSU.

MSU has a series of science courses for first year students, all first years no matter what their major. The courses are a joke and many of us from the high school college prep courses, (at a Lansing, MI high School) ended up going to MSU, and were told that we would have no trouble taking the final exams, i.e. comping the courses. At first we enrolled in the courses and skipped the classes, crammed for the exams and we all passed first term. We did the same in the second term and then someone told us we didn’t even have to sign up for the courses if we applied to Comp the course. Based on our first and second term exam grades we were allowed to take the comprehensive exam for the final term and I passed with a good grade.

I referred to those courses as basic science not physics and math. They were primarily natural science basic freshman courses.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
If you don’t accept that as the truth then what do you say is the truth about my education? ”

AN:
If you went to university I do not think you did physics or mathematics or could pass such exams. If memory serves you said you were an accountant? I know a few and none of them covered anything related to the stuff 1st year physicists do. If I'm wrong in this please say precisely what relevant courses you did do.

QW: That is right, first year courses do not qualify as physics courses in the colleges of physics or math.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I also claimed to have spent thousands of hours over time in self directed study of topics related to cosmology. You flat out call me a liar twice about that. Seems to me you can’t detect the truth or you don’t want to acknowledge that I am being truthful. ”

AN:
I don't doubt you have spent considerable time doing something related to cosmology, like reading pop science magazines or websites but you haven't been reading textbooks, published papers, journals or lecture notes. So while you might have a better than layman knowledge of pop science cosmology you couldn't pass exams on the stuff.

QW:
This is flaming. Based on your intuition you mean? You have shown little comprehension of my course work, give me little credit for anything. That amounts to flaming because you don’t know those things but say them anyway.

AN:
A lecture course in cosmology in my 3rd year was 24 1 hour lectures and 4 1 hour supervisions. Each problem sheet involved 4~10 hours of work, depending on person or motivation. So you claim you have done easily more hours of work than most people do when studying at university.

QW:
Yes, but does that surprise you. I was a bright student, perhaps you were too. To me, studying in college was handled on the fly, just before class, casual prep for exams. College was not a challenge for me. I have spent many more hours in the past eight years than I did as a college student.

AN:
Can you do any of theses? Thousands of hours would be more than enough time to learn the required calculus, read half a dozen text books cover to cover and work through all the problems in them. So if you have invested your time wisely, those questions are easy to you.

QW: This is a flame. I’m not going to the link but you are making this into a straw man. I know a little calculus and have promptly forgotten most of it.

I know about slopes (up and sideways), tangents to the slopes of a curve, a curve being the plot of an equation, and the f(x) being on the y axis at the tangent point. The very simple ideas, limits, slope of a tangent, blah blah. I didn’t claim to know calculus, you don’t take it in the finance curriculum, and I did invest my time wisely. It is a flame and a straw man to claim that I didn’t if I didn’t invest it as you did.

AN:
But you and I both know that you didn't do that and you can't do the questions. You wasted your time.

QW: That is a flame. I invested my free time in retirement in the way I saw fit. To call that a waste of time is a flame and to suggest that there was a better way to spend my time is a personification of your self-image, not mine.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
This was a response to your post. Please address it. ”

AN:
Nice hypocrisy. I repeatedly ask you direct questions and you ignore me but when I don't reply to something you don't feel any hypocrisy in repeating your request?

QW: More flame. You didn’t respond when I posted it the first time, and this response shows you don’t intend to respond, yet you flame me for asking you to address it.

AN:
Tell you what, I'll address what you said when you respond to the following direct question :

Do you think that you falsely accusing me on two separate occasions of having wish you dead, the second time after you'd admitted to lying about the first time, is 'professional' on your part?
QW: If you didn’t say that you wouldn’t care if I dropped dead, then I will acknowledge that I misinterpreted what you meant.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I repeat, you pretend that I am claiming something about my knowledge and ability which I am not. If I am not making those claims and you are continually putting out your foolish claims that I am, then you are a liar. ”

AN:
You claim knowledge in physics capable of passing the 1st year courses at university. You provide no evidence to justify such a claim and your posts imply quite the opposite. Where am I lying in saying that?

QW: I addressed that above. Do you see the distinction between my claim and your characterization of my claim? You are lying in saying that because I didn’t refer to the science exams in my first year as physics, I referred to them as basic science and I clarified that above.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
and your repeated evidence of your ability is one sign of someone who has self worth issues ”

AN:
I'm not the one starting thread after thread about his work, trying to get people to listen to his fairy tales.

QW:
This is flaming. I have said that I am continually updating QWC. I update the Google.doc from time to time, and I start new threads to discuss the updates or to focus a particular aspect of QWC. The fact that you flame me all the way through all of my threads is not the reason I start new threads. History shows that you will flame all of my threads. You also flame me on other people’s threads. I think that shows disrespect and try to divert your criticism of me off of their thread.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
that it somehow helps you deal with the fact that no matter what your ability is it is zilch to me and a dead end for you? Address that. ”

AN:
Yeah, I'm really cut up about the fact someone I don't know, haven't met and don't like much isn't bothered that I can do maths and physics better than him. Boo hoo. Why should I be bothered about what you think? To want your approval I'd have to respect your opinion and I very much don't.

QW: This is a flame. Not the part about you being bothered by what I think. We share a mutual disrespect. It is a flame because you say I am bothered that you can do math and physics better that “me” and you pretend I am crying. Then you flame me by belittling me by saying you don’t care what I think and then you say you have no respect for my opinion as if I was valueless.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you again calling me a liar about having graduated from MSU? ”

AN:
Oh look, a straw man.

QW: This is a flame. You repeatedly called me a liar, and I denied lying each time. It is not a straw man and that is a flame.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Crave? No, you just would like to believe that. ”

AN:
I'm simply calling it like I see it. When people don't reply to this thread for a while, you post a bunch of deliberately false comments about them (ie myself, Prom or Guest) and wait for the attention. If the thread dies you start a new one, make your claims more outlandish and wait for the attention. If you were interested in listening to criticism or about the merit of your work you'd not need to reboot a thread about your work every few months.

QW: Flame. It is a lie that I make false comments about “them” meaning you I suppose. You are always speaking up for Prom. He has proven perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I explained why I start new threads and it is a flame for you to say I do it because of criticism.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I laughed when I read that. Let’s see, you claim my ego that is bigger than yours? And then you say you don’t give a crap about me? And you wouldn’t miss me if I left you? But you like the entertainment? ”

AN:
I find The Simpsons entertaining but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it got cancelled tomorrow.

QW: That is irrelevant. The post was about your ego vs. mine. Then you flamed me saying you didn’t give a crap about me and wouldn’t miss me but you like the entertainment. Flames.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
. The truth is you never let a chance go by to boast about your dead end career ”

AN:
I'm not starting threads about my career/work. I'm not pushing my work in people's faces. You are. And your 'weasel words' of 'dead end' are just your fantasy world coming into view again. If you weren't envious someone has managed something in physics and you haven't you'd not use such words.

QW: This is flames. You equate my starting new threads (seems to be a repeating theme you yours) with your boasting. There is no similarity. You flame me by saying that I am pushing my work in people’s faces. First of all, you point out that very few people are left who even post on my threads. Second of all, and this applies to you too, no one has to come to my threads.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You need to face this and respond, not twist the words within a quote and pretend you are responding to me when it is a straw man, and a lowly reconstruction of what was actually said at that. ”

AN:
Okay, let's see. You said :

QW:
And I am accomplishing something. I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

AN:
You claim that because you 'think about cosmology, study and learn' you are 'accomplishing something'. Well I spend all day (it literally is my day job) thinking about space-time, about general relativity, about quantum mechanics, about inflation (yes, inflation), all of that. I have read dozens of books, scores of papers, typed hundreds of pages of work, dozens of computer programs, 3 papers and one thesis. If 'thinking, studying and learning' counts for 'accomplishment' then I've accomplished things.

QW: Tit for tat so far. No flame there, just an interesting perspective of how you spend your time, just like my statement was (I’m sure less interesting) about how I spend my time.

AN:
And I have a hell of a lot more to show for it than you. By any measuring stick I've accomplished more than you.

QW: This is flames. We have different life paths, different values, different types of accomplishments. You intend that statement as a flame? I see it as a lack of respect for people in general. I don’t expect respect form you but I wouldn’t choose you to be the one to determine the value of what I would call the accomplishments of my life.

QW:
and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.

AN:
I have 3 papers on space-time configurations. 2 of them specifically involve talking about AdS and dS space-times. One of them has an entire chapter on finding vacua which have properties which make them viable to cosmologists. I have written computer programs which describe inflation. I have it published in black and white that I consider cosmology in my work. So yes, I am telling you I do.

QW: OK, I stand corrected. You have not shared with me what you do for whatever reasons so I just found out a little. I don’t value those accomplishments like you do but you wouldn’t expect me to either.

QW:
FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC

AN:
So your cosmology, which you admit is just you making stuff up is okay …

QW: This is a flame. I presume that you are referring to my discussion earlier in the thread with Guest about whether or not I claim to be doing science and his statement that then my speculation is storytelling. I have maintained that I am speculating, not story telling. I maintain that my speculations are connected to departure points in mainstream science, the consensus. I maintain the when there is no evidence and no current ability to observe at the micro and macro levels, that speculation is all that can be done.

AN:
…but when I publish work on using string theory to model inflation in de Sitter space-times, thus providing a quantitative model which matches some phenomenology, I'm in a 'dead end career' and 'have no view of cosmology'?

QW: It is my opinion that string theory has not fulfilled the expectations. Maybe you would say that it has or will. I won’t dispute that but I don’t see it happening and I am only going by people like Smolin and even Susskind himself.

QW:
You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it.

AN:
If I'm ignorant, how about you and I go over to the maths and physics forum and work through that cosmology question sheet I linked to. Standard homework stuff. What do you say? I've got nothing to hide.

QW: This is flame. Your challenges are a way of saying that I have claimed things that I have not claimed.

QW:
Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify.

AN:
Did you really just try to insult me for the fact my knowledge of rational, justified science doesn't apply to your make believe story? Yeah, I'm gutted all my time and effort doesn't help me understand your unjustified nonsense.

QW: This is flame. I didn’t insult you. You have characterized yourself to me, up until you opened up a little on this post, as immersed in math and string theory. I have said that QWC is not about math and string theory and that means that as I understood what you did it had nothing to do with QWC and you always seem to flame me about how you were doing such important things that I was overlooking in QWC.

QW:
You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation.

AN:
Neil Turok has managed to describe such things without random speculation but based on some quantitative model. So has Hawking.

QW: We went over this a long time ago. I linked you to where I discussed Turok and his model. At the time it centered on simulations of the collapse of our universe and a subsequent “bounce”. I was right not to buy into it. He proved that the computer program showed that the momentum of the in falling mass toward a center of gravity appeared to “bounce” off the center of gravity. When I read his synopsis he was hesitant to claim a final theory and referred to further work to be done.

QW:
Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology.

AN:
Are you really that dopey?

QW: Flame?

AN:
I have tons of knowledge relevant to cosmology. I don't pretend to know it all or to have 'a complete cosmology' but I know relevant useful things.

QW: OK.

AN:
You make claims all over the place and you know much much less relevant material.

QW: Flames. I discuss ideas and speculation, not make claims. You are flaming me when you characterize it as such. It is flames to say that what I post is less relevant than what you do. I am speculating and covering a lot of territory in my Cosmology. That is what makes for a complete picture. You are focused on a smaller perspective IMHO.

AN:
You can't claim I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to correct you on something you know less than me about!

QW:
This is flames. You have never corrected me in any fashion that was on topic that I haven’t acknowledged and mitigated in my Google.doc.

AN:
My papers and thesis include descriptions of space-times, their evolution, space-time curvature, inflation, AdS/dS space-times. All relevant to a good grasp of cosmology. I don't claim to know it all but its a fact I know more than you.

QW: I have compared QWC to spacetime. I pointed out that spacetime runs amuck in the spacetime foam. Are you saying that the uncertainty will be overcome by your work or that spacetime can even be applicable given the basic premises of QWC.

AN:
There, that address your comments enough?

QW: That was full of flames. I attempted to weed them out and respond to the appropriate comments.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
It was all about you and your accomplishments again ”

AN:
Its Catch 22. If I say nothing about my work, you claim "You on the other hand have no view of cosmology". When I explain my work and thesis includes construction of de Sitter or Ant de Sitter space-times and their dynamics I'm 'all about [me] and [my] accomplishments'. Or you claim you thinking about cosmology is 'accomplishing' something but my published work on stuff you claim to think about doesn't count?

QW: I don’t see how you have addressed how your work applies to QWC given the premises I have laid out as the basis of QWC.

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I responded to that. ”

AN:
And yet no link. Says it all....

QW: This is flame in that though I have responded to you, you repeat idle challenges for me to prove something that I haven’t claimed.

Now quit straying off topic.

 

I said :

No link to even 1 post by you doing physics or maths of the level you are capable of. No stepping up to show you can do such mathematics or physics. No justifications for your claims. No answer to direct questions like which relevant courses you did. No retort to your hypocrisy and double standards about how I'm wasting my time but you supposedly aren't.

You responded to nothing.

And by repeating your post, you repeat your complete avoidance of anything I asked you to address. You can't back up any claims you make.

 

Have it your way.

Now quit straying off topic. Here is the current status of the discussion starter I offered:

I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread even though I have offered several discussion starters.

I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN wouldn’t play and would disrupt. It almost looks like Prom is sort of discussing “on topic” but all in all you are seeing that I was right.

It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but I am updating it to include the responses to “on topic” comments from Prometheus. That way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in from a post that contains the current status of the discussion starter.

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.

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, 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 our currently expanding 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, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.

I have no proof or evidence. 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.

In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that 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 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.

That I agree with. I am going to go further though and describe a QWC arena as an extended Hubble volume that encompasses an entire quantized energy environment that starts from the burst of a big crunch and expands into existing space until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a similar expanding Hubble volume arena.

 

A New Years resolution:

I’m not declaring the flame war over between AlphaNumeric, Prometheus, Guest 254, and myself, but I am withdrawing from it based on two things.

One, Fraggle Rocker, in this post described the distinction between pseudoscience and science, and acknowledged that there is room for speculation in discussions on boards other than Pseudoscience. He said, “I define pseudoscience as "bad science," i.e., science with bonehead mistakes. A common mistake is to continue a line of research discovered in an undergraduate thesis at a third-rate university, without bothering to find out that it had been scathingly refuted at the next Annual Convention of the League of Real Scientists.”

I presume that he and others are aware that if QWC had bone headed mistakes they have long since been pointed out and replaced with new bone headed mistakes that haven’t been pointed out yet. The biggest complaint I see now is that I am being told that QWC is speculation, and to the trolls there is no distinction between speculation and fairytales. They don’t agree that when speculations are tied to science and when a methodology of reasonable and responsible step by step speculation is adhered to that a distinction can be made. Maybe they are right and so when I don’t agree that QWC is no more than fantasy the flaming that commences is condoned.

Two, D H as a moderator does not allow the level of trolling, flaming and ad homs that used to be common in the Cosmology forum. Also, I like the way he has keep inappropriate pseudoscience threads moving along to Pseudoscience. Good for D H though he agreed with Prom and AH that I am a crank so don’t get concerned that I am about to start any QWC threads in the Cosmology forum.

As for being a crank, I’m sure to them and others of you I am. But if you flame me about it I will defend myself as I have in the recent lengthy posts to AN. I like doing what I am doing in regard to having a personal view of a complete cosmology. I agree that QWC is speculation. I flat out say it all of the time and have since my first thread here almost two years ago. I start with the consensus of science and connect the speculation to science, and from there speculate using a reasonable and responsible methodology. The discussion starter that I have recently introduced in this thread follows that methodology.

QWC is kind of uncomfortable alignment between science, speculation, and our failure to be able to quantify reality. It is simply my personal view of what a complete cosmology might be like; one man’s possible reality. That might just be the bone headed QWC mistake that makes it pseudoscience.

While I’m not saying the flame war has ended, I am saying that if I am flamed I will point it out and explain why I consider it flames instead of just being appropriate criticism. My previous few posts address all of the flames thrown at me that I know of and my responses to them instead of throwing flames in kind. I am restoring the code of conduct from my side of the war. AN’s three line retort to my recent posts repeats flames that I have already addressed. I am pointing that out rather than continually repeating my answers or continually repeating what makes his responses flames.

Those of you who defend AN or have unstated or incubating issues with me or QWC are requested to get them out on the table and let me defend myself and try to understand where you find problems.

 

... 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."

So is everyone comfortable 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?

 

No, because you haven't properly defined what arena action is and what causes it.

 

Still no link I see.... All that time spent replying to my post and yet he couldn't spend 20 seconds using the Search function. Of course, that's assuming a post of q_w's exists where he shows a working understanding of university level physics. Which, of course, is not true.

 

Are you talking about a proper scientific definition, theory, hypothesis, testing? I am speculating, and the departure point is the consensus cosmology, Big Bang Theory.

You have seen the speculative premises that I base QWC upon. Where do you first take exception to the speculations:

Do you accept that BBT does not address the event that has become known as the Big Bang?

Do you accept that there are various speculative explanations about what the nature of that event might have been?

Do you accept that in QWC, the one explanation that is followed is that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch?

 

You are correct. I did not link you to such a post in the lengthy response that you have ignored. In that response I said it was flaming for you to ask me to prove something that I did not claim.

 

You still haven't answered this question: what is the point? The universe doesn't care about consensus. Until about 400 years ago people believed that Ptolemy and Copernicus knew about cosmology. They didn't.

What are you doing that science isn't doing better already?

No. The big bang theory contains a big bang. What it doesn't tell us is what happened before \(t = 10^{-30}s\) or there abouts.

Yes, but they are speculations that are grounded in science which is not something you are doing.

QWC is certainly not the only speculation that contains a big crunch. I really can't comment on what QWC has in it because that seems to change depending on your whim.

 

You are flaming me saying that I still haven't answered your question. I have stated that I do it because I am interested in it. I have stated that I am interested in it because the consensus does not yet say what the event was that caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. I have been clear about the premises of QWC. I have responded to your questions and comments. Your repeated accusation that I haven't is flaming.

Your accusation that QWC changes is correct, but that it changes on my whim is not. It changes for the reasons that I have explained to you. 1) People like you offer comments and criticisms which, if I see your point, I modify the Google.doc as a result. 2) QWC changes as I do self study. It evolves so to speak; changes are improvements IMHO.

Let me try to clear something up for you. The Big Bang event that you claim is included in Big Bang Theory happened before \(t = 10^{-30}s\).

And about the alternative explanations offered for what the nature of that big event might have been, they are not the consensus. I am connecting QWC to the Consensus Cosmology which is Big Bang Theory. I linked you to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology previously in this thread and in my document. I said that the option that QWC is based on is the big crunch. You don't like the big crunch idea? Or is it that you just don't want to let me do my own speculation about it. If you don't like the big crunch why haven't you said which alternative you do like? If you just don't like me being the one doing the speculation, i.e. you would rather interest yourself in the work of those people mentioned in the link, then that is your prerogative. But then the question comes back to what is your interest in QWC, i.e. why is flaming me so important to you?