What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

It has mythology as its description NOW.
It didn't when it was formulated.
Duh.

How many more times - your VERY FIRST comment (what was Axiom 1) is not consistent with what is known.

So you're constructing a personal mythology?
Okay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you say so, but you have not got the same objective as I have and so a little thing like that is un-daunting to me. QWC includes the basic idea that the universe has always existed and I don't care if you say that is not self-evident. QWC is completely wrong if the universe has not always existed. But if it has, then you objecting to is just as useful as me saying it, if it hasn't. Moot as far as I am concerned.

OK, we can't get past the fairy dust just like with Prometheus. Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked. If all you can say is fairies are invoked because QWC starts with the idea that the universe has always existed then I reject it. Taking the stance that the universe has always existed simply sets the stage for a departure point that can explain the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. If there was a beginning you have your own fairy dust problem as to how the beginning came about don't you? You would have to come up with symmetry breaking. You did. I don't start with any theory. I look at what is observed and try to build a step by step set of speculations that account for what we observe. I didn't come up with symmetry breaking because it seem too much like getting something from nothing.

Step one is the discussion of what caused the expansion that we observe. There are many candidates as Prom has pointed out. I selected the one I like best. I am going to discuss it and why. If anyone can convince me that they have a better cause for expansion I am open to it.

Enough said?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Call it a game if you want. The game in this thread is to fulfill my prime objective. The prime objective is to have a personal cosmology that to my satisfaction answers the question, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe”. You start from the departure point, i.e. you let science take you as far as it can provide answers that are considered a consensus. From the departure point you have to speculate.

You can’t really add much to the body of objections that have been offered to this game because I have heard nearly all of them. If you don’t want to play the game, you are free to rant and if come up with a useful rant I will let you know by amending the Google.doc. Otherwise, rants away, just keep trying to follow along. If you play the game I expect you to be able to say the QWC is better than fairy dust

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Step one addresses the position that there was a cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe beyond the standard cosmology which starts 10^-43 seconds after some event.

People have suggested what are called alternative cosmologies and so let’s do a Google search on “alternative” cosmologies: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alternative cosmologies&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Good, at the time of this search there we only 929,000 links. Let’s begin with the first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

A non-standard cosmology is any physical cosmological model of the universe that has been, or still is, proposed as an alternative to the big bang model of (standard) physical cosmology. In the history of cosmology, various scientists and researchers have disputed parts or all of the big bang due to a rejection or addition of fundamental assumptions needed to develop a theoretical model of the universe. From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was equally divided between supporters of the big bang theory and supporters of a rival steady state universe. It was not until advances in observational cosmology that the big bang would eventually become the dominant theory, and today there are few active researchers who dispute it. The term "non-standard" is applied to any cosmological theory that does not conform to the scientific consensus. Today it is also used to describe theories that accept a "big bang" occurred but differ as to the detailed physics of the origin and evolution of the universe.

Interesting right?

One thing I get from this is that if I want my own personal cosmology then I have to be prepared to come up with a theory of gravity. I fall in the group that accepts that a big bang type of event occurred. The question is, “Exactly what occurred”. So that leads us to the question of the physics of the origin of the universe. Agreed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So since QWC only applies to a universe that has always existed let me Google that. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ays existed &btnG=Google Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Well, over 2 million links so let’s pick the first one for now: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm

Low and behold we have an excellent link to discuss. If you want to read it and comment about it, fine. If not, I'll read it through again and make some notes for discussion.

 

I'm sure this has been said before, but here it is:

If I may paraphrase, "arena action causes the big crunch." Now, I have no idea what arena action means in this context. If I was to guess I would get the answer wrong because an action in physics is something else entirely.

In your doc, arena action does not have an explanation that I can understand in physical terms, and remember, I am a physicist. Sure, there are some words about arena action with reference to some other things I don't understand but nothing that I can nail down.

So the arena action is the fairy that causes the big crunch. I anticipate that you're going to rebuke my ignorance of your terminology and that you do explain what arena action is, but what you're essentially doing is saying "fairies are created by unicorns." It doesn't help much because, not only do I not know what a fairy is or how it works, I don't know what a unicorn is or how it works.

 

QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.

From the link: “Where did the universe come from?"

“The Big Bang theory is an attempt to describe the creation and evolution of the universe. The theory appears to match observations, and the theoretical physics appear to hold back through time to within a tiny fraction of a second after the creation of the Big Bang. Beyond that the theory cannot explain how the Big Bang singularity came into existence. See The Big Bang Theory Indeed, it is really pointless to attempt to go back beyond the Big Bang, it is meaningless to ask what came 'before' because there is no 'before'. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang.”

QW’s notes: It is interesting that this description of BBT points out that if you accept it, it is meaningless to discuss “before or beyond” because according to the theory space and time began with the Big Bang. Quite a bit like in QWC in the respect that if you insist it is like fairy dust you can’t play the game because the prime objective requires liberties be taken. The end result is assured but the details that describe QWC are continually changing as it evolves. The Google.doc is changed when necessary to reflect the evolution. What will the end result be? My personal cosmology that contains the best I can do using the methodology that I have explained.

My comment is that I still want to talk about “before and beyond” the Big Bang even though BBT says I can't. I just don’t see where BBT explains how something can come from nothing.

The link goes on to that very question and points out that there are theories of how something can come from nothing and the author set out to describe a theory of nothing that could contain the universe.

He then defines Nothing

Definition of nothing.

"The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere."

That sounds good to me. Are you OK with it?

His conclusion is: “I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do.”

He then adds to his definition of nothing that it contains our universe and address the impact of that change. From his point of view:

“What does it mean to say the universe was always there? We believe it started with the Big Bang, but can we say the Big Bang was always there? This doesn't seem logical to me, it needed to have actually come into existence at some point, even the very term 'big bang', suggests a beginning.”

He as arrived at the concept of a beginning but he defers that discussion for a minute saying: “Let's now look at the implications of an infinite nothing containing an expanding universe, ignoring for now the actual creation. We will consider two possible problems, expansion and infinity.”

“1) Expansion. Can the universe be described as expanding? From our viewpoint within the universe, yes. From our 'perfect observer's' viewpoint in nothing, no. Why not? because a) as stated above our observer can have no knowledge of the universe, and b) what is it expanding in relation to? Nothing does not contain anything, other than the universe, so there is no possible way to determine either the size, or the expansion of the universe, as both can only be measured in relation to something else. Size or expansion are meaningless terms here. This would appear to suggest that from within the universe things are as they appear to be, but from the point of view of our perfect observer in nothing, the universe does not exist! Furthermore with the absence of time in nothing the fact that it contains an aging expanding universe is meaningless from the perspective of nothing. So far so good, our nothing is still intact, from the point of view of our infinite nothing- it still contains nothing! (The creation event, if it actually happened, still needs explaining however).”

“2) Infinity. We now have a picture of nothing as being an infinite void, containing an expanding universe that it has no knowledge of, but is it still infinite? We have not put any restrictions on nothing's 'size' it is still infinite, but it contains a universe so surely that puts restrictions on its 'completeness', nothing is 'barred' from the area containing the universe! I think we are still okay here, to contain the universe is within our definition, but as to whether or not we have somehow a little less infinity is open to question, but it does not contradict our definition. I can see no reason why an infinite nothing can not contain a finite universe. For a fuller argument on Infinity. See Can anything 'real' be infinite?”

“How is our new definition of nothing holding up? An infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is contained within it. I would suggest that so far its holding up pretty well. I have not been able to overturn it on the grounds of logical argument. It could exist providing that the Big Bang took place within it. However, there is still a major hurdle to overcome, what caused the Big Bang and how could it form out of nothing? Without introducing a mysterious source of energy into the equation, as a magician might pull a rabbit out of a hat, it simply can't be done, it's as simple as that. It's logically and scientifically impossible to produce something from nothing. I realise that in Quantum Mechanics? it is (arguably) possible but that is in an already existing universe, not in nothing. Having said it's impossible we are left with a paradox, it has happened, we ARE here. There are only three logical conclusion to be drawn from this, assuming of course that our definition of nothing is valid.”

Summarizing, 1) The universe did not come from nothing, it came from something.

2) We have to introduce a mysterious source of energy. I am forced to employ this highly undesirable tactic to make the creation of the universe possible. No matter how much I dislike the idea of using it I MUST, the unalterable truth is that we do exist, so the universe needed to be created out of nothing!

3) The universe did NOT have a creation event, it always existed.

In QWC I do not invoke the supernatural so I agree with #1, the universe did not come from nothing, it came from something. I reject #2, the creation of the universe from nothing on the basis that it implies a supernatural event. And I accept #3, “The universe did not have a creation event, it has always existed.

He offers this: “According to our definition of nothing as being timeless, then in order to contain the universe, the universe MUST have always existed within it. It is not possible for it to have been CREATED within it for that would require a moment in time. It is not a matter of convenience to suggest this idea, it is the way it simply has to be.”

He goes on: “If however you are uncomfortable with the concept of anything having always existed then I see no solution at all, because you will simply have to accept that at some point something came from nothing, and personally I find that prospect totally unacceptable. Either that or you have to conclude that the universe does not exist! …”

He does wrap up the model discussion with the three options of the shape of the universe and that if he were to stay within BBT what he would conclude. “Within the description of the Big Bang there are three main cosmological models. The open universe that will expand forever, the flat model that will come to a halt, or the closed model that will recollapse, possibly 'bouncing' back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is closed it is possible that it will 'bounce' back cycle after cycle, forever. This idea of an eternal universe expanding and collapsing and re-expanding for ever is my preferred choice, but purely on aesthetic grounds. I realize of course that the arguments are still swinging back and forth as to which cosmological model is correct.”

But then he goes on to say what he really thinks: “ … to answer the original question 'Where did the universe come from?' I believe that it didn't come from anything, it always existed. To say that I am unhappy with this concept is an understatement, but I am stuck with it because at this time I am unable to think of a viable alternative.”

“Of course my suggestion is just a model, created for the purpose of argument and discussion only and I do not pretend for one minute that it is anything like the real thing, that, I am sure, will be much more surprising. It may be that it all exists just in our minds!”

QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.

 

Are you ignoring me again?

 

No Prometheus, why would I ignore you … oh wait. Aren’t you still teasing me about QWC being nothing but made up fantasy pulled out of my ass? Oli put it clearly; he, you, and AN claim to have a cause. Put succinctly, you pretend you are saving our children from QW’s dangerous ideas.

I see you from a different perspective. I interpret your motivation as being a bit more self centered than the altruistic cause of burying crank ideas behind a barrage of bullshit posts to belittle and discredit people who you in your great wisdom have labeled cranks. I see it more of a striking out at ideas that differ from the patch of science that you have staked out as worthy of your rigor. I see it as some veiled threat that you perceive coming from simple talk about a universe that might be something more, something greater than your narrow view. I see it as egoism so great that when someone shows some little bit of intelligence about speculative views you freak. I see it as divisive attacks against anyone willing to collaborate with his peers, the normal average people in forums who together think deeply and come up with a view that the universe was not created from nothing, that the universe has always existed, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, doing so without invoking the supernatural or fantasy, and doing so with a methodology that makes going beyond the standard consensus possible in an orderly way.

I see you, AN and Oli as willing to say anything with no consideration for what I say or present, but with your various weird egotistic lashing out to protect some incomplete and unworkable theories that you aren’t even man or woman enough to speak out in favor of. You pick at the usage of words, you demand axioms, you insist on mathematics about things that can’t be observed, you talk about the audacity of anyone doing what I do without the credentials you demand. You insist on being egotistic elitist gurus who proclaim themselves professionals who have the authority to say what is and what is not science, who can and can’t talk about “before or beyond” standard theory, and what is and what isn’t a proper methodology to address questions that you as flawed representatives of the scientific community don’t approve. I see you as a small activist group from within a greater scientific community. Your segment are the tiny minority of scientists who can’t even discuss a physical picture of the precious math that you develop. Math can be made to represent anything, even fantasy and maybe you realize that the work you do is really the fantasy after all. The rest of the scientific community, those who understand their work and where it fits in the overall perspective of things are some of the greatest people in the world with the most altruistic motives; you just don’t qualify in that part of the scientific community as you are continually proving by the way you present your small dissenting group here.

But I don’t want you to be offended anymore than you want to offend me. I simply will not engage anyone who insists QWC is fairy dust instead going through the step-by-step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible collaborative speculation about possibilities that start with the point where science consensus leaves off and that offers possibilities that address “what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe?”. To engage you in a collaborative role when you think as you do would not be fair to all of the people in all of the threads and forums that I count as collaborators in the evolution of QWC. QWC will evolve as long as I live or until I am sufficiently satisfied with it enough to move on.

And further, you have shown your ass so consistently with regard to me that it wouldn’t be likely for me to ever consider you as a collaborator in the QWC evolution unless you specifically addressed my concerns about your participation in depth to my satisfaction. And why would you, how could you do that when everyone on the forum knows what you think of me and QWC? You can just keep pretending that there is some altruistic motive to you casting shit on my threads and keep showing the character that you seem to think gives you the self image that you like living with.

So no, I’m not ignoring you. Now you and your “protectors” of our youth can snap off some stinging rebuttals while I move along to discuss some alternative views about the origin of our expanding universe. We will all be having fun now won’t we.

 

You consistently fail to read what other people write. Is that the root cause of your scientific ineptitude? Who knows. Here you insist on claiming that the people arguing with you are trying to protect children when you have been clearly told that people of any age could have little knowledge of real cosmology and be sucked in by what you claim is cosmology.

I don't see why you're suddenly upset about QWC being characterised as made up when that's exactly what you say about it yourself -

• this is a bottom up approach that starts with speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.
  
• ...my personal individual research arrives at speculations that are consistent with those bodies of scientific knowledge.
  
• etc.

How do you expect to form a consistent anything when you can't maintain any consistency yourself?

You can see it how you like, but I honestly see no value in what you are proposing. I don't really care if you believe me or not. If you look back through our exchanges you'll see that I very rarely call someone a crackpot outright. I prefer to leave people to express themselves in a way that will make it obvious to anyone reading exactly how cranky they are, and you have just put a big black tick in the right box. The old chestnut "mainstream science is scared of my ideas," is a classic crackpot battle cry, and it's also crap. People in science have new ideas that they publish by the proper channels all the time. Some are accepted and used to advance knowledge and some are not for whatever reason.

We demand mathematics and axioms because a) that's how theoretical physics works and b) axioms are what you claimed you had. If we are a small group of dissenters in the scientific community then why are there no scientists rushing to your defence? In reality, you chose to disregard the views of the genuine scientists here in whatever way you can simply because we are telling you what you're doing is not even wrong - it's utterly pointless. Don't think I didn't see that little jibe about my being a self proclaimed scientist either. I've produced work that has been evaluated by my peers and found to have enough value to be published in one of the more prestigious particle physics journals. Proof.

You wanted me to point out where the fairies enter QWC and that's exactly what I did and now you wont engage in discussion? Wow, you're really on the run now aren't you? Let me be frank, at first I thought you were just someone who was uneducated, ie, you hadn't had the time to learn about cosmology and decided you wanted to mouth off about it. That's pretty arrogant, but it seems now that you know QWC is nothing but a fantasy but you cling on to it like a dogma. That makes you stupid and arrogant in my book. No offence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't get this. What does my ass have to do with anything?

I ask myself why I bother with these types of discussion because it's obvious that you wont be persuaded in the light of the above. I genuinely do feel that if someone wanted to understand cosmology and happened upon your words they should have a warning that it isn't cosmology at all. Also, I like these sorts of threads because they provide a diversion when I want a break from real work and I've already had enough coffee.

Yep. Perhaps you'd like to stop ignoring this post about fairies and we'll see if we can make some real progress.

 

You are wasting you time pretending that I care to enter the scientific community with some status derived from QWC.

Then you respond to me as if I have some status and you are the one who can see through me and alert the community about my snake oil.

Read the OP, read the Google.doc, get over yourself and pretend you have make some important point.

 

Done and done. It must be terribly upsetting for you to have your ideas shown to be fantasy. You have my sympathy.

 

I’m sure that the only people reading this thread are Prom, Oli, maybe D H and AN. But on the off chance that there are others who aren’t involved with the train wreck, let me point to the last post that was meaningful:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311129&postcount=66

The conclusion that is offered in the link I was discussing is that in spite of the fact that Big Bang Theory says it is pointless to discuss “before or beyond” the Big Bang, BBT does not address what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe or how space and time can be coupled mathematically in a way that perfectly corresponds to the physical universe, and where each point in the fabric of spacetime represents an event where space, time and energy can be represented as they all emerge from … well, nothing. From surfing science forums for years I see that the thinking on the subject is divided. It is clear where the professionals whose livelihoods and funding depend to the a flow of money might be committed to support their work as beyond the understanding of me, and you if you are a normal non-professional just interested in making sense out the what we observe.

How much sense is there in saying it is nonsense to talk about “before and beyond”? How much sense is there in saying that the universe came from nothing, no space, no time, no energy, i.e. out of nothing to be what we observe it to be? No sense at all to me. Let Prometheus use all of his verbal skills to say otherwise, he can’t make sense of nonsense.

On the other hand, I see it as self-evident that something cannot come from nothing. I see it as self-evident that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I see it as self-evident that space is potentially infinite, space and time have always existed, and all of the energy that exists today has always existed. Hence that is what QWC is based on.

Review the post that I link to above and then consider what other alternatives there are to explain what we observe in the expanding universe.

And next let’s look at the Google search, “multiverse”, to see what we get:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=multiverse&aq=0&oq=multivers&aqi=g10

We get 1.5 million links and one that I have discussed before on another thread is a good one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

Many words form both sides of the argument.

I teach technical writing from time to time. I demand executive summaries and I encourage executive summaries of the excutive summaries.

Here is the E.S. of the E.S for my evaluation of your work.

"You are waffling big time."

 

Ok, OK, waffling is what I seem to be doing. But I don't buy the standard cosmology because I don't buy something coming from nothing. That seems to be my biggest motivation to come up with something that I think paints a more complete physical picture of the universe.

I very much like the logic of a universe that has always existed. It doesn't require something coming from nothing, it is the epitome of the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and it doesn't leave one wondering about the cause of a beginning, i.e. the supernatural cause.

Then there is Big Bang Theory that is very good doing what it does but it doesn't say anything about a beginning. It implies that space and time started simultaneously and are therefore coupled in a way that can be translated into a mathematical 3+1 D spacetime continuum. But what about the beginning? What was the cause? No answer. In fact the theory all but says it is nonsense to talk about "before or beyond" the Big Bang because the Big Bang created space and time. There was no "before" to talk about. Advocates actually get crankier than me when you challenge them with the question, "what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?"

So I ask that question often as I discuss alternative ideas. Sorry I don't do a better job.

 

Honourable objective.

Personal incredulity is no basis for any kind of cosmology, even a personal one.

So don't get upset when people point out that you are presenting ideas using ill defined words, concatenated into meaningless phrases that are assembled into semantically barren sentences and nonsensical paragraphs in a milieu that lacks any discernible structure.

Here, off the top of my head, is what your writing reads like. (This is not a paraphrase of your writing, it is a stylistic copy.)

Event led developments seem to be central in all universal aspects from the sub-atomic to the intergalactic. In short we can demarcate scenarios, both in time and space and scale by distinct events that separate the before from the after. Without events there is no clear distinction between points; the events give meaning and clarity to the developments.
(When I say development I don't have to mean that these are progressive things, I just mean that they are changes of some kind. Clearly there is a heirarchy of such things.)
The fact that these events are found throughout all scales and times is highly suggestive. Why would this be so? It strongly suggests that there is no difference between the different scales. Is this not why we even use the word universal?


If you recognise you should be writing more clearly (doing a better job) then please get started.

 

We disagree. For example, the earlier comments about matter and anti-matter. A mathematician can make numbers show that something came from nothing but something coming from nothing is not observed. Is the math credible, yes. Is the concept credible? Not to me.

Note: Some may say something from nothing is observed but they are observing from within an already existing universe. There is a slight difference.

You might not see my point given my writing skills, but what is credible? What can incite incredulity?

No, and you wouldn't either I suppose

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Actually, I don't get upset as long as what you say is true.

I see. Not clear at all.

Let me give an example of a case in math of something coming from nothing to make a point about credulity:

So someone says that before the universe became, there was nothing and then we had symmetry breaking and there is somehow matter left over.

So we start with nothing = 0.

Then nothing separated into two somethings, one positive something and one negative something else, -1 +1 =0.

The two somethings with opposite charges didn’t immediately realize that opposites attract and so they went off on their separate ways.

One of the somethings was weak and fragile and as time passed it began to disappear into nothing and went from +1, down to +.9, then to +.8 and +.7 and then +.6. Poor plus something is disappearing into nothing, presumable in the same way that it appeared out of nothing. As it disappeared into nothing, nothing became +.4.

In the mean time the -1 something else is strong and wanders around and stays -1.

So now we have something at +.6, something else at -1.0, and nothing at +.4, that’s +.6 -1.0 +.4 = 0.

Then somehow they realize that opposites attract and they come together and there is some event where they cancel each other out.

And when they finally attract each other the +.6 cancels part of the -1.0 and leaves -.4. So there is -.4 something else left of the original -1.0 something else (our universe) that will just exist forever within a +.4 nothing. +.4-.4=0. Of course you could change the sign and have +.4 left over in a -.4 nothing if you prefer leaving our universe -.4.

Either way, the math works. Start with 0. Split 0 into +1 and -1, let some of the +1 fade back into nothing making nothing =+.4, and then let the -.6 of the -1.0 something else wipe out the +.6 something, leaving -.4 something and +.4 nothing.

Credible or incredible?

 

A real quantum wave.......

:wave:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi CT. A real cosmic traveler? Or this kind of cosmic travel :m

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

QW waves back at ya :wave:

 

You are grossly oversimplifying this, and getting it outright wrong to boot. The big bang theory states that the early universe was very hot and there was a lot of energy, and a lot of particles were created, both matter and antimatter. If that was the end of the story you'd expect matter and antimatter to be produced in about equal amounts which would then annihilate and we'd be left with a universe full of radiation and not a lot else.

The current best accepted mechanism for the creation of the excess matter we see lies with CP violation - that means that a particular set of particle interactions produces matter more than antimatter. It's not a huge amount more but there is a small excess of matter in the early universe so when we have expansion and cooling and the matter and antimatter annihilate we are left with a lot of radiation and a bit of matter left over. This is the matter that goes to make up things that we can see.

Of course, this is a wordy explanation and you'll have to take my word for it that the mathematical models have produced quantitative predictions that have been experimentally tested and are in agreement.

Also, why are you avoiding this post?

 

Now Prometheus, what possible reason could there be for me to ever engage in discussion with you or even acknowledge you?

And why do I even have to pay attention to you since I know you will stay around and comment about QWC as we get into the step-by-step speculations. I’ll know what you have to say all the way through and you won't get the time of day from me while we are on opposite ends of the ladder.

But I won’t engage you about your content. The topic is the Google.doc. I have referred you to the part that you have refused to comply with. I don’t engage with you if you wave QWC off as fairy dust.

And even beyond that I won't engage you unless you can state the prime objective and acknowledge that what you say must be able to be reconciled with that objective.

You ignore the part that says I don't start with any theory and that I only include theory that fits with the internal consistency of QWC. QWC will always have internal consistency to my satisfaction, not yours. So tell me all about the theory you accept but don't expect me to accept it if it isn't consistent with QWC. QWC is not inconsistent with observations and never will be because I change QWC to maintain that rule.

But it is not consistent with current theories that address "before and beyond" the Big Bang and which are not the current consensus. When one of them becomes the new standard theory, QWC will start from a new departure point, but you wouldn't have a clue about what that means. You can't possibly intentionally contribute without knowing what that means and so anything that I take away from your posts that gets included in QWC will be purely accidental on your part. But thanks for what ever it turns out to be. Read the Google doc from time to time and see if anything new might have come from your carping.

You can make math say anything. But if it isn't reality it cannot predict anything. Keep posting about the theories you treat as fact and I will keep waving them off until they become consensus.

Stick around though so you can learn how to achieve an objective. You will see that here and you will learn how to improve the content that represents the body of QWC continually using my methodology. How many like you do you think I have encountered in the past six years? What do they have to show for their efforts. I'm still going, QWC is still evolving, and I am perfectly happy with how it is going.