What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

Oh dear, poor little darling can't keep up with the conversation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it's not.

You missed the point:
Prometheus essentially quoted QWC back to with a change of names only.
(Which was justified since your use of the scientific terms was hideously twisted).
In other words QWC is the fantasy and all that you have done is substitute "quantum" for "fairy dust" etc.

The ONLY time I think about QWC is when I see a new post and I start to panic in case someone hoping to learn science reads it and thinks that QWC has any validity whatsoever.

I'll tell you frankly: were it not for the fact that there is no way at all to determine who would believe you and who wouldn't then you'd be posting to yourself the vast majority of the time.
It has become evident that there's no deflecting you (re: "You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option)").
So the sole reason any of us have (apart from the vain hope that you might realise what's wrong) is "protecting the innocent" as it were.
I.e. the person with little to no knowledge of science needs to notified that what you're writing is NOT SCIENCE. NOR PROTO-SCIENCE. IT'S NONSCIENCE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I’m sure that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric (and untold others) will appreciate you sharing the work load of saving the world from the ideas that something preceded the Big Bang and what it could have been. I’m sure too that until I brought up the idea, no one ever thought about it on their own

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

But it is nice to have readers.

Let me save you the agony of linking you to the OP which sets the ground rules for the thread and discusses the penalty for not following my rule. Here is what I am referring to:

“My rule is that any comments that don’t reference statements by me in the Google doc will be considered off topic and at my discretion will either be ignored or responded to with a comment and a reminder of my rule and a link to the Google doc so you can go to it easily.

The meaning of this rule will become clear as the thread progresses (if it progresses at all) because the Google doc is constructed to cover many eventualities.

I don’t expect very many people to participate, maybe no one will, but to comply with my rule you have to actually quote the Google doc.”

I mean you should quote what I said that is a danger to our youth. You haven’t, Prometheus hasn’t, AlphaNumeric hasn’t and you won’t either because there is nothing in what I say that is a danger to our youth.

Check it out yourself: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

Maybe it is just me but the complete lack of any specific quote from my Google doc showing me invoking fantasy makes your claim and the claims of Prometheus about fanatsy seem like they are fully empty. And BYW where did the anti-matter go?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To be honest I'd agree with you.
I'm nowhere near as qualified as those guys and their time would be better served getting on with the real stuff.
Maybe they should leave me to it and just be on call as it were, should I run into something particularly abstruse to me.

The difference being that until now there wasn't an internet to disseminate tomfoolery.

Unfortunately those rules are not enforceable.
What you SHOULD have done is put the word APLHA in the thread title, which would at least delineate some rules.

It's a nice idea, but why should we follow your rules when you don't actually reply to questions even when it's done?

The reason we don't quote the "danger to our youth" is mainly because there are site rules against huge sections of cut and paste. And the fact is that your ENTIRE DOCUMENT is what would be quoted.

As for specific quotes - you have still failed to overcome my first quote and contention: that your number one axiom is NOT an axiom.
The entire premise is flawed from the start.
If we can't get past that then there's no point continuing.

 

I think we can trust that you will continue. I'll change the termonology in the Google doc to get ride of the word axiom. Check out the new wording: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

 

Okay.
(For reference 4.1 still has the word axiom in it: CTRL-H will let you do a find and replace on the entire document if you're using Word).

 

OK, I'm caving in to Oli, Prometheus, AlphaNumeric, and countless others I'm sure. I'm making a new rule which will mitigate all of your concerns. See the new first line of the Google.doc here and only here.

Problem resolved!

Also, I'm tip toeing into step three of the step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible, collaborative speculations at the very bottom of the doc. Just a beginning to get my feet wet because we have to start with step one and work our way up to step three anyway in order to discuss the whole document.

 

I have two comments (and one protocomment. snigger.)

As I've said at least twice, science is exploring these questions in a properly scientific manner.

This is a lie. I've quoted from your document right here.

It annihilated with the matter and some matter was left over. I also think you mean BTW

 

Do you mean this post?

I don’t think that part registered because of the fairy dust thing. So I replied here.

Read the OP again, and the Google.doc all the way through here.

 

This is the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nah nah nah I'm not listening." When are you going to apologise for telling lies?

 

Nope, you've merely tried to sidestep the real issue.
It's not a question of age, it's a question of prior knowledge of physics.
All of my previously stated objections still apply if the reader is 50 and unversed in real physics.
But if the reader is 17 and an advanced student...

 

Well then from your perspective my goose is cooked, but from my perspective the prime objective is to have a physical picture (personal visualization) of cosmology where everything works, is connected, is internally consistent, and that is not demonstrably inconsistent with known physical observations.

For this paragraph only you personify the current state of standard theory and on a grand scale all you offer is inconsistency, uncertainty, and incompatibility. You don’t offer me an answer to my prime question. Everything that you do offer is filled with jargon that uses English words, but when used outside of their particular first usage (as a specific term in physics) you become haughty and don’t like to let me use the English word in a different context. You have pages of equations, mathematical support for thousands of theories that don’t work together and that no one fully understands. The math and energy of GR and the math and energy of particle physics don’t come close to each other. You admit that you don’t know what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, you think that you might know the cause of mass but have to wait for years worth of data from the LHC, and your cause of gravity requires the coupling of space and time that is supposed to precisely define the correspondence between physical objects and the fabric of spacetime and it doesn't for me. And GR fails unless there was a beginning or at least some event that effectively represents the beginning of the spacetime of our expanding observable universe. For there to be a beginning you have to have some idea of what caused the initial expansion and you said you don’t know. Again, using “you” to personify the current stated of standard theory. You as personification of the scientific community have pointed out what you must think are insurmountable obstacles in my Google.doc. Well duh … I have pointed out what have so far proved to be insurmountable obstacles to you being able to give me a better answer in the form of a complete cosmology where all the math works together, where the forces that caused the expansion, mass, and gravity are known and united. You live in a glass house too.

The prime objective is what you don’t condone. I want an opinion about answers that just aren’t available from the professionals. As some posters insist, the professionals are working on it. :smirk:. Read my document (meaning read my lips). QWC is the best set of step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculations that I am aware of that represent a set of ideas about a cosmology that is visualized to be internally consistent, answers the questions about the cause of expansion, the cause of mass and the cause of gravity in a way that they all work together. And furthermore, the only opinion of what constitutes a satisfactory personal view of cosmology is the opinion of the moderator of the particular cosmology and in the case of QWC, you are talking to him.

My document says all of this and more. This thread will allow input into the step by step documentation of QWC from anyone who wants to help shape it.

So if my goose is cooked even before we get to step one of QWC, your usefulness in the process of discussing step one is in doubt. But don’t think you are excused. I am going to finish discussing (on my own if necessary) the rest of the methodology and then I am going to discuss the steps, starting with step one, what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.

You might decide to go and stay away, and since you are practically my only audience, I will be talking to myself. That is permitted. Usually new people find the thread and comment from time to time. Most of the professionals don’t want anything to do with my prime objective and I put you in that group. I don’t like doing this on my own but I will if I have to. I’ll be dead and you will too before there is a consensus on a complete cosmology but until then I will have my QWC. And what I end up with will have survived all of the remarks from the professionals and the end result will be that my prime objective will have been fulfilled while you will still be way behind at the forefront of science as it unfolds.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that we will both be where we want to be in regards to our Cosmology. Peace.

 

Nearly correct: what you should have written is "From the perspective of science as science my goose is cooked".

And fairy stories also fit that description.
Truly.

Actually I don't offer anything: I merely point out how your perspective is incorrect.

Also incorrect: I use the words I use because that's what they mean, if you use them to mean something then you're going against usage and introducing spurious factors.
What if someone told you not go for a walk in the woods because a rabbit lived there?
And an hour or to later, when you crawl out of the woods bleeding and dying you complain that no one mentioned the bear.
"Oh, is that what YOU call them? I call them "rabbits", thought everyone knew that..."

No one?
No one at all?

I also freely admit that it's entirely possible that it may never be knowable what happened to cause the Big bang.

The fact there was a beginning is not relevant to knowing WHY there was a beginning.
Admittedly it would be helpful, but physics works with what it's got.

Glass house?
Simply because we don't know everything?
We know we haven't got all the answers: that's what science is about - getting the right answers, however slowly they come.

Fair enough.
Who would you go to for an opinion how to build a skyscraper?
Do you ask a veterinary surgeon to fix your car?

No, QWC is a comforting fairy story. Nothing more.

Untrue: that holds only if your personal view is required to remain a personal view of cosmology with no relevance or pertinence to reality. If it is designed to be cosmology then it can, in fact NEEDS, to be judged by people who know something about the subject.
Otherwise it remains a personal, unverifiable, fairy story.

So you require help to shape your personal view?

I see, MY usefulness is in doubt because I can see the errors...

This site isn't your personal blog.

I'm already not at the forefront of science - it's been a long time since I had any involvement whatsoever, I merely have an ongoing interest in science.
But QWC is not science and shows little sign of becoming so.

 

Everything you say is true. You didn't acknowledge that you understood the meaning of a prime objective and your comment about it doesn't seem to help. That makes everything you said true and irrelevant.

 

My position on that is in the document at 4.6. "For those reasons no one knows or even needs to know the math of every theory until the math all works together to describe one reality."

And 4.7. "My view is that the universe works as it is. Everything is connected and consistent. If everything works and is connected then someone who knows the right physical picture and likes doing math will be able to describe it mathematically with math that all works together, has no inconsistencies, and that all the great math brains can accept and agree to. Short of that the math is wrong in total and I have no way of determining what is right and what is not, and if any of the math does not work with all of the other math then I consider it the responsibility of the physics and math professionals to sort it out. I bet when they get it done there will be an understandable physical picture behind what they have explained mathematically."

 

Ah, so you missed the point I made. Okay I'll rephrase it.

How is, say, the fairy story of Thor being the god of thunder as an explanation for storms any different from QWC as a "cosmology"?
It has a physical picture (personal visualisation), it works, it's connected (full family tree and history in fact), and is not demonstrably inconsistent with the known facts (at the time it was posited)?
Or do think that mythology is a valid proto-science?

Untrue: if the maths isn't understood at each and every step of the way how do you know whether or not you're spending years working down the incorrect path?
If the maths isn't understood there's EVERY chance that the end result of it working as a coherent whole will never happen.

 

True.

You do realize that fairy stories invoke fantasy. You didn't link to the step where I first invoke fantasy. Maybe by doing so you will be helping you friends.

Fine, but my position on the lexicon is in the document at 4.4. "All of the words I use are part of the lexicon of QWC. They mean what I say they mean and not what any other usage of them says they mean. If there are any questions about the usage of words in QWC those questions should be brought to my attention and my decision as to the meaning of words is final as far as their usage goes in QWC. The fact that the same words are used to explain existing theory is not intended to imply that all of the science associated with those words in existing theory applies to QWC. It is your responsibility to understand my usage of those terms if you are going to understand QWC, and it is not my intention to understand the theories where terms that I use appear."

Glass house in the same respect that QWC has flaw from you perspective, the current consensus on the standard cosmology has flaws too.

And I know that.

In addition to appreciating where science stands, I have a prime objective. You don't have to like it.

QWC accepts science as far as it goes. QWC is the effort to fulfill a prime objects that science has not been able to answer to date.

True from your perspective but you are saying that anything that goes beyond and before the initial expansion of our observable universe is a fairy tail.

I solicit it as I work on documenting my view in line with my prime objective.

You can see the errors as can every right thinking human but you don't have to contend with my prime objective and I intent to contend with it.

True

I would agree with that as long as you keep the phrase, "shows little sign of becoming so.

 

My cosmology starts from defined departure point of scientific consensus and goes step by step with reasonable and responsible speculation. You have no departure point.

Maybe not but the existing math doesn't work together, there is no physical picture at all that is considered consistent, and so you or the professionals are no better off than I'm. The glass house.

 

Departure point for what?
Answer the question: is Norse mythology valid or not?
How does QWC differ from it (apart terminology and form)?
And the speculation (as has been shown) is only "reasonable and responsible" to you...

Glass house?
So you're another one who wants everything NOW?
Science is an ongoing process.
Why should we have ALL of the answers in your lifetime?

 

No need to answer if it is valid or not, it has mythology in its name, duh.

That is true, but I have a prime objective and what I consider reasonable and responsible is only intended to get me to the prime objective with out being inconsistent with physical observations. Show where my steps are inconsistent and we will be getting some place. Until then we are wasting each other time that could be spent discussing the steps.

I said it realize that. I agree with that. It will go on forever I bet. But it hasn't yet provided me with the fulfillment of my prime objective so science is science and QWC is not. I'm OK as long as I am satisfied with the methodology giving me the best answers available to the question, "what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe". Answer that question and if you can't let's talk about the steps.