At Rest with our Hubble view

[origin]

Here is a brief list of ideas that are included in my so called model

You should not say "my so called model", you should phrase it this way, "my incoherent, uneveidenced, illogical, half thought out idea that I call a model even though it is not remotely close to what a model actually is".

That way at least there would be one thing correct in your posts.

 

[PartyBoy]

I thought models were pretty women who shed their clothing for money, not little girls who gripe loosely around the locker room.

 

[eram]

I thought models were pretty women who shed their clothing for money, not little girls who gripe loosely around the locker room.

Is that how one physicist insults another? "Your model is like a little girl who gripes loosely around the locker room!"

 

[PartyBoy]

Some things are just too funny and inacurate not to say. I don't believe that was one of them

 

[origin]

I thought models were pretty women who shed their clothing for money,

Nope. Those individuals are properly refered to as strippers or exotic dancers.

 

[PartyBoy]

Oh well in that case I guess I was mistaken on an obvious metaphor. Shedding clothes is much like sharing an idea. The hope is someone who understands aesthetics is watching. Then you have to bet they are good folk before you go into the back room and begin dancing with them.

 

[quantum_wave]

Oh well in that case I guess I was mistaken on an obvious metaphor. Shedding clothes is much like sharing an idea. The hope is someone who understands aesthetics is watching. Then you have to bet they are good folk before you go into the back room and begin dancing with them.

It isn't a mystery why someone would ask the questions I ask, and many science professionals ask them as well? But if we are going to have free thinkers in the world we have to let people like Origin and the other flamers rip us verbally for asking; are they pretending they know the answers? Too bad their posting is wasted on flames and disparagement. Wouldn't it be good for a discussion forum if the self proclaimed experts actually knew the answers, and proved it by saying what they find to be inconsistent in mine. And wouldn't it be refreshing if they admitted that their consensus theories are themselves inconsistent, just to acknowledge that laymen are not outcasts for asking.

So I would assume it is not any internal inconsistency or violation of observational evidence in my above list that drives the detractors who flame free thinking and alternative ideas. Maybe it is personal, or a vendetta for my past sins of having questions about the inconsistency of their favored models. Certainly it isn't caused by my disparagement of their free thinking. I've never seen any of the avid flamers show any of that.

Mine are clearly just common questions that people ask. I have had dozens of people try to answer them and some who say we just can't know. A few have ideas but no mechanics to go with them. Generally though, I have had lots of discussions with people about various ideas over the years here at SciForums, and if you ask about the preconditions to the big bang, the big crunch idea is not absurd. The flamers of the forum know so much more than I do about their rigorous understanding of models that are inconsistent.

I'll just carry on in my thread, that I have asked again to have moved to Alt Theories, and let them flame me and show us who they are. It isn't always a science issue that gets clarified on these threads, and so we judge for ourselves as far as character and self respect go as well.

The big crunch idea that I consider, does immediately lead to the problem of infinite regression. My answer, that there was no beginning, may make you wonder what is wrong with a model that has a beginning of time and space; why not be satisfied as long as the theory has an explanation for how a big bang occurs. Oh wait, there is no explanation in mainstream theory. But think about it; like Farsight and I discussed, any beginning suffers the "slings and arrows" of infinite regression. Only the answer that, "there was no beginning to the universe", escapes that problem.

Sometimes you hear about Eternal Inflation as the new cosmology, and though it doesn't acknowledge a beginning, it is not "past eternal", meaning that it doesn't address the question. A paper, "Eternal inflation may not be eternal", does a good job of presenting the case for and against Eternal Inflation. Its conclusion was that any cosmology based on a beginning of space and time cannot be eternal. To be eternal it must be past eternal as well. "Past incomplete inflation cannot be future eternal".

Link to the abstract page on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3542

Link to paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3542v1.pdf

(26998 tot. views)

 

[Aqueous Id]

It saddens me to see so many abusive comments.

So stop abusing science.

 

[quantum_wave]

It saddens me to see so many abusive comments.

Thanks Farsight. Seeing you post here, I am reminded of an incomplete discussion between us, and before I go on and list some more hypotheses that set the scope of my so called model, let me finish the discussion from my perspective on the topic of infinite regression vs. turtles all the way down. There is a difference, and there is a line item in this post that helps me distinguish between the infinity of the time continuum in a universe with "no beginning", and the infinite size scale of "turtles all the way down".

...
The time delay occurs because many tinier waves exist within the medium of space that are not a quantum of energy. That tiny wave action contributes to the sponginess of the medium below the quantum level, hence a time delay when two spherical quantum waves intersect and form a high density spot in the lens shaped space; the spot itself has internal wave content consisting of tiny non-quantum wave action ...

That tiny wave energy content of the high density spot at the convergence of two parent quanta is where the "turtles all the way down" fallacy might creep into my so called model. The illusion is that within the tiny unobservable "world" inside a particle, there is somehow room for an entire universe, i.e. the turtle below.

We have evidence of the existence of our level of order, and the size scale goes from the tiniest meaningful amount of energy, the quantum, and the largest meaningful amount of energy of big crunches and big bangs. Though the arena landscape in my so called model is eternal and potentially infinite, the size scale is limited by the foundational level quantum of energy and the arena level quantum of energy.

(27078)

 

[Aqueous Id]

It isn't a mystery why someone would ask the questions I ask, and many science professionals ask them as well?

Only narcissists paint themselves embellished by the light of glory.

But if we are going to have free thinkers in the world we have to let people like Origin and the other flamers rip us verbally for asking;

Free thinkers do not live chained to their illiteracy. This ripping is the sound of the prisoner tying pieces of bedsheet into rope, intending to escape his the confinement of ignorance.

Origin is one of the scholars seen passing by the prison who incites the prisoner into fits of envy.

are they pretending they know the answers?

Asked the prisoner, lying in the chains of illiteracy, of the scholars seen through the window of the prison cell. *rip*

Too bad their posting is wasted on flames and disparagement.

Indeed, had the prisoner attempted to liberate himself through rehabilitation programs in literacy, the jury verdict would not be weighing so heavily on his troubled mind. *r-rip*.

Wouldn't it be good for a discussion forum if the self proclaimed experts actually knew the answers,

Cried the admitted illiterate, watching the scholars pass by, from the window of his prison cell. *r-r-rip*

and proved it by saying what they find to be inconsistent in mine.

Proof is for geometers, the rest is pearls to swine; but neither teaching reaches through the prison walls. *r-r-r-rip*

And wouldn't it be refreshing if they admitted that their consensus theories are themselves inconsistent,

The prisoner is condemned not by consensus of the jurists' opinion but on their consensus that the admission of guilt is sufficient to return a verdict of same. *r-r-r-r-rip*

just to acknowledge that laymen are not outcasts for asking.

All laymen are not convicted on their illiteracy, just the hardened offenders. The rest attend rehabilitation classes and remain free on probation. *r-r-r-r-r-rip*

So I would assume it is not any internal inconsistency

The chains of illiteracy deprive the captive of freedom of movement through the pillars of consistency and informed conclusions. *r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

or violation of observational evidence in my above list

The only material evidence was the prisoner's admission of guilt. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

that drives the detractors who flame free thinking and alternative ideas.

Free thought is the commutation of sentence which can only be granted in the light of new evidence that rehabilitation through literacy has been earned. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Maybe it is personal, or a vendetta for my past sins of having questions about the inconsistency of their favored models.

The court of personal integrity limits all averments on the character of the defendant as to the material facts admitting deliberate intent to remain ignorant, already placed into the record. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Certainly it isn't caused by my disparagement of their free thinking.

Captive ignorance has no grounds for adjudging free knowledge. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

I've never seen any of the avid flamers show any of that.

In the mirror, the prisoner finds his bones of contention. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Mine are clearly just common questions that people ask.

Rationalizing illiteracy is no justification for pitting ignorance against knowledge. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

I have had dozens of people try to answer them and some who say we just can't know.

From within his cave, the prisoner creates his own reality. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

A few have ideas but no mechanics to go with them.

Ignorance of a subject invalidates judgment of same. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Generally though, I have had lots of discussions with people about various ideas over the years here at SciForums, and if you ask about the preconditions to the big bang, the big crunch idea is not absurd.

The prisoner's speculations on freedom are inseparable from the distortions of confinement. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

The flamers of the forum know so much more than I do about their rigorous understanding of models that are inconsistent.

Ignorance of a subject invalidates judgment of same. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

I'll just carry on in my thread, that I have asked again to have moved to Alt Theories, and let them flame me and show us who they are.

Claiming thread ownership does not absolve the offense of posting absurdities. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

It isn't always a science issue that gets clarified on these threads, and so we judge for ourselves as far as character and self respect go as well.

Ignorance of a subject invalidates judgment of same. Character and self-respect are measure by the will to pit knowledge against ignorance, beginning with oneself. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

The big crunch idea that I consider, does immediately lead to the problem of infinite regression.

A conclusion for which there is no factual predicate. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

My answer, that there was no beginning, may make you wonder what is wrong with a model that has a beginning of time and space;

Ignorance of the subject invalidates judgment of same. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

why not be satisfied as long as the theory has an explanation for how a big bang occurs. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Stating that a theory has been posed is false and incorrect. Any explanation for cause of the big bang which does exclude the creation of time is absurd. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Oh wait, there is no explanation in mainstream theory.

False and incorrect. There is no initial causality in the big bang theory. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

But think about it; like Farsight and I discussed, any beginning suffers the "slings and arrows" of infinite regression.

The slings and arrows of failing out of math and science are paid in the outrageous misfortune of denying science. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Only the answer that, "there was no beginning to the universe", escapes that problem.

Any escape into the freedom of discerning causality from non-causality is restrained by the chains of illiteracy. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

Sometimes you hear about Eternal Inflation as the new cosmology, and though it doesn't acknowledge a beginning, it is not "past eternal", meaning that it doesn't address the question.

Ignorance of the subject invalidates judgment of same. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

A paper, "Eternal inflation may not be eternal", does a good job of presenting the case for and against Eternal Inflation.
Its conclusion was that any cosmology based on a beginning of space and time cannot be eternal. To be eternal it must be past eternal as well. "Past incomplete inflation cannot be future eternal". Link to the abstract page on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3542
Link to paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3542v1.pdf

Links to papers are no substitute for illiteracy. Parole denied. *r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rip*

 

[Cheezle]

It isn't a mystery why someone would ask the questions I ask, and many science professionals ask them as well? But if we are going to have free thinkers in the world we have to let people like Origin and the other flamers rip us verbally for asking; are they pretending they know the answers? Too bad their posting is wasted on flames and disparagement. Wouldn't it be good for a discussion forum if the self proclaimed experts actually knew the answers, and proved it by saying what they find to be inconsistent in mine. And wouldn't it be refreshing if they admitted that their consensus theories are themselves inconsistent, just to acknowledge that laymen are not outcasts for asking.

So I would assume it is not any internal inconsistency or violation of observational evidence in my above list that drives the detractors who flame free thinking and alternative ideas. Maybe it is personal, or a vendetta for my past sins of having questions about the inconsistency of their favored models. Certainly it isn't caused by my disparagement of their free thinking. I've never seen any of the avid flamers show any of that.

Mine are clearly just common questions that people ask. I have had dozens of people try to answer them and some who say we just can't know. A few have ideas but no mechanics to go with them. Generally though, I have had lots of discussions with people about various ideas over the years here at SciForums, and if you ask about the preconditions to the big bang, the big crunch idea is not absurd. The flamers of the forum know so much more than I do about their rigorous understanding of models that are inconsistent.

I'll just carry on in my thread, that I have asked again to have moved to Alt Theories, and let them flame me and show us who they are. It isn't always a science issue that gets clarified on these threads, and so we judge for ourselves as far as character and self respect go as well.

The big crunch idea that I consider, does immediately lead to the problem of infinite regression. My answer, that there was no beginning, may make you wonder what is wrong with a model that has a beginning of time and space; why not be satisfied as long as the theory has an explanation for how a big bang occurs. Oh wait, there is no explanation in mainstream theory. But think about it; like Farsight and I discussed, any beginning suffers the "slings and arrows" of infinite regression. Only the answer that, "there was no beginning to the universe", escapes that problem.

Sometimes you hear about Eternal Inflation as the new cosmology, and though it doesn't acknowledge a beginning, it is not "past eternal", meaning that it doesn't address the question. A paper, "Eternal inflation may not be eternal", does a good job of presenting the case for and against Eternal Inflation. Its conclusion was that any cosmology based on a beginning of space and time cannot be eternal. To be eternal it must be past eternal as well. "Past incomplete inflation cannot be future eternal".

Link to the abstract page on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3542

Link to paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3542v1.pdf

(26998 tot. views)

You claim to have an open mind and to be a "free-thinker". But are you? The papers you cited are meant to support your idea. And sure, people with ideas seek to justify them. But that is not what having an open mind means. And while free thinker has many connotations, I don't think its main idea describes you. You are locked into a mindset. You seek support for your idea and avoid criticism (put people on ignore if you don't like what they say). By only looking for support for your ideas, you always are moving toward it, never away. So by always approaching you can be sure that you will either arrive at your goal, or just get stalled out.

If you have ever watched a TV detective show, you will notice that the initial suspect is seldom the culprit. The detective searches crime scenes and interviews witnesses. If instead he initially decided who did the crime and only looked for evidence that incriminated main suspect, that person would surely be the person put of trial and possibly convicted. That is what you are doing. And it shows that your so called model is all that really matters to you, and not any truth, especially a truth that might be a little difficult for you to accept due to preconceived prejudices.

 

[quantum_wave]

In my threads I pick the topic, my posts are civil and on topic, and I often ignore the flames to break the flame cycle, as moderators and administrators recommend. Sometimes the disdain toward me is too great, and the flamers don't need an angry response from me to fuel their disparagement. I wonder how they live with that, but they do, and I accept their incivility as a fact of life when alternative discussions are at hand.

The nature of forums, and especially "alternative" threads does not often result in frequent discussions once the flamers have ridiculed anyone bold enough to participate on topic, and though I welcome it, I don't need on topic participation to say what my ideas are. I'm at the point in this thread where I am updating the so called model presented in previous threads to incorporate the newer ideas discussed earlier in this thread. I'll then have it written down, in a context that welcomes discussion, and in a place where I can refer back, the next time I want to do some updates.

Why do I include so much about the quantum level? The fact is that the questions that I am asking cannot be answered unless there is a foundational quantum level, below the observable and/or theorized fundamental level of the standard particle model. My so called model includes hypotheses about the quantum nature of particles and gravity, and I describe the role of quantum action in the formation and collapse of a big crunch, in quantum gravity, and in particles composed of energy in quantum increments.

And oh yes, it is a fun hobby, and I have no idea why it drives the peanut gallery crazy, lol.

"""""""""""""""

Cheezle, you have no clue. I'm not surfing for links to impress you, I have used the Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton paper before because it is pertinent to my interest in cosmology. Check post #4 in the thread below; you could spend hours and hours with just the footnote sources as I did back then.

Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?108662-Lorentz-invariance-and-the-multiverse-possible-or-not
Started by quantum_wave, 06-30-11 08:59 AM
12345...11
quantum_wave
10-04-11, 09:15 AM *
Instant notification

(27255)

 

[Aqueous Id]

No, q_w, you are posting garbage, not science. It's not sufficient to pretend to be avant-garde. You're exactly the opposite. You are doing nothing more than seeking mollycoddling cranks to give you strokes as if there is some micro movement of backward pretenders to science who think they are special. They aren't - you aren't. You are simply illiterate. By this I mean you could not pass the math or science section of a college entrance exam, and I suspect you would rate at about the 6th grade if properly tested. It's simply unacceptable that person of your low standing would continue to pretend to hold advanced or "alternative" or "free thinking" ideals that are worthy of standing against the world body of knowledge we call science.

For this reason I say your posts are nothing but sytrofoam. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Cheezle]

In my threads I pick the topic, my posts are civil and on topic, and I often ignore the flames to break the flame cycle, as moderators and administrators recommend. Sometimes the disdain toward me is too great, and the flamers don't need an angry response from me to fuel their disparagement. I wonder how they live with that, but they do, and I accept their incivility as a fact of life when alternative discussions are at hand.

The nature of forums, and especially "alternative" threads does not often result in frequent discussions once the flamers have ridiculed anyone bold enough to participate on topic, and though I welcome it, I don't need on topic participation to say what my ideas are. I'm at the point in this thread where I am updating the so called model presented in previous threads to incorporate the newer ideas discussed earlier in this thread. I'll then have it written down, in a context that welcomes discussion, and in a place where I can refer back, the next time I want to do some updates.

Why do I include so much about the quantum level? The fact is that the questions that I am asking cannot be answered unless there is a foundational quantum level, below the observable and/or theorized fundamental level of the standard particle model. My so called model includes hypotheses about the quantum nature of particles and gravity, and I describe the role of quantum action in the formation and collapse of a big crunch, in quantum gravity, and in particles composed of energy in quantum increments.

Are you still not doing science? We all know you are not, but often it seems like you think you are doing science. If so you would be the only one to think so.

And oh yes, it is a fun hobby, and I have no idea why it drives the peanut gallery crazy, lol.

"""""""""""""""

Cheezle, you have no clue. I'm not surfing for links to impress you,

Good because I was not impressed. I don't think anyone here is impressed with you or your theory.

I have used the Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton paper before because it is pertinent to my interest in cosmology. Check post #4 in the thread below; you could spend hours and hours with just the footnote sources as I did back then.

Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?108662-Lorentz-invariance-and-the-multiverse-possible-or-not
Started by quantum_wave, 06-30-11 08:59 AM
12345...11
quantum_wave
10-04-11, 09:15 AM *
Instant notification

(27255)

I am sure that Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton would just be pleased as punch to know that you and her see eye to eye on your so called model. Maybe you and her can get together over coffee and discuss your hypothesis on wowions and the multiverse. Somehow I think she would not appreciate your linking her work into your so called model.

 

[Aqueous Id]

When it comes to making up sciencey sounding word salad just to stroke your own ego, I'm an A__hole, sue me.Grumpy

Not at all. Your posts are always clear and to the point. You're always responding like a teacher, winnowing your way into the cracks and holes you see in the less fortunate folks' posts, in order to help them see their errors. In return q_w just ignores your help, argues, ridicules you, and continues glorifying ignorance.

Besides, "heap of steaming bovine poo" is not only the predictable last recourse when you've already been ignored 50 times - it just happens to characterize the mess q_w has left in this thread. His loss, the sad sack. You've already given him a generous amount of information to turn himself around and start a new tack. He's just not hearing it. In fact, the bovine personality would be even more amenable. Even the stubborn old mule!

 

[quantum_wave]

One thing leads to another when you go off the grid. Simply hypothesizing about possible causes for the big bang is off the grid, as Grumpy points out; it is impossible to him that there could be any evidence of preconditions. What he stated as the answers to my questions are vague and without mechanics. In addition, he believes that the CMBR is causally connected to the Big Bang, and that it is impossible that there is evidence in the CMB to lead someone to think otherwise.

I am trying to look for what caused the big bang and I don't reject the idea that there is evidence in the CMBR of preconditions. I'm far from alone on that. Though the flaming is focused on me, it is the same as flaming those in the scientific community that not only don't think it is impossible, but are spending big dollars to find out. There is likely to be more and more support for the idea of preconditions evidenced in the CMB data as the scientific community searches for explanations of the anomalies, especially at wide angles. Time will tell.

Obviously, the detractors feel justified in flaming, just like I feel justified in hypothesizing. I take an idea that works for me and see where it goes without being constrained by models that don't work together; there are well known inconsistencies. That motivates them to abandon forum rules by being abusive toward me personally. My challenge to them is to show where my so called model is internally inconsistent, as many agree GR and QM are, and to show where anything in my so called model is inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

(26532)

Note the challenge in the last paragraph. I followed that challenge with a list of ideas I include in my personal answer to the question of what caused the big bang ...

Here is a brief list of ideas that are included in my so called model leading up to and including the cause of the big bang, so that you can address what is not internally consistent or what is inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

Ideas or premises, or hypotheses related to my explanation of the cause of a big bang:

There were preconditions to the big bang

Out of many alternatives, my favorite idea is that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch that collapsed/banged

"Collapsed/banged" conveys the idea that matter and energy can be compressed by gravity to a critical point; I call it critical capacity of a big crunch

Matter is composed of energy quanta, i.e. wave energy in quantum increments

Energy quanta are prevalent at the foundational level in the medium of space

The foundational level of order is characterized by wave energy traversing the medium of space in all directions, at every point in space, at all times

Energy quanta are produced by the intersection and overlap of parent quanta, and in the overlap space, a high density spot forms that itself then expands spherically as a quantum wave; it is called quantum action

The formation of a new quantum from parent quanta involves a time delay which means the speed of wave energy is limited, and not instantaneous

The time delay is caused by the compressibility of the medium of space which has wave action of all sizes, larger and smaller than quantum; but to be wave energy quanta incorporated within a particle they must be of a certain energy which is defined as a quantum of energy

The time delay occurs because many tinier waves exist within the medium of space that are not a quantum of energy. That tiny wave action contributes to the sponginess of the medium below the quantum level, hence a time delay when two spherical quantum waves intersect and form a high density spot in the lens shaped space; the spot itself has internal wave content consisting of tiny non-quantum wave action

That tinier wave action is always going on in the medium of space but if there are no quantum sized waves, particles do not form in the medium or are not stable

The failure of the big crunch occurs when the gravitational compression of the particles in the crunch causes them to fail to be able to maintain sufficient individual particle space to allow quantum action to continue to occur

That level of compression occurs at "critical capacity" of the big crunch, and the particles give up their individual space as the crunch collapses

That is the big bang

(26687)

Instead of anyone manning up and taking the challenge, I got nothing on topic. Someone who intensely wants to, should be able to pick it apart; show how it violates scientific observations and data. I would consider it a major contribution on your part to the objective I stated years ago of having a personal view of the cosmology of the universe that suits me, not you.

I readily admit when I am wrong and have done so often in past years. Every time though, I have corrected my mistakes and have rethought everything, and updated the so called model to be better than it was before, in my personal view of course. I believe it is getting harder and harder for anyone to find inconsistencies and outright errors, but certainly they are there to be picked up.

I'll be updating things and restating past posts from other threads as I do the update, so be alert and find an internal inconsistency or something inconsistet with scientific observations and data. I'll be appreciative.

(27523)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

So, your challenge is for people to disprove your 'whatever' as to what caused the big bang.

Nice.

 

[quantum_wave]

So, your challenge is for people to disprove your 'whatever' as to what caused the big bang.

Nice.

I'm not raising i + 40 to the power of 99 (with a root of -1) here, it is not a challenge to disprove something that can't be disproven. It is a challenge to find inconsistencies, correct them, improve my so called model; you know the difference, I suspect.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

No, I can't so I know the difference here.

Too many words so far.

 

[Grumpy]

quantum_wave

As Beer w/straw is alluding to, it is not up to us to disprove YOUR model, it is up to YOU to support it with evidence(something you fail, miserably, at doing. Since the current Big Bang theory is well supported by observations, computations and experimentation it will be the one accepted as true UNTIL YOU SHOW OTHERWISE. Good luck, but I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.

One thing leads to another when you go off the grid. Simply hypothesizing about possible causes for the big bang is off the grid, as Grumpy points out; it is impossible to him that there could be any evidence of preconditions.

It is impossible for there to be any evidence on this side of the singularity(or near equivalent)of what conditions were on the other side of that singularity(or near equivalent). This is not my opinion, it is fact. It is impossible to everyone.

What he stated as the answers to my questions are vague and without mechanics.

Nothing vague about those answers, they were very specific and accurate to the best of our current knowledge. You just have a bias, looking for support where there is none(IE in reality).

In addition, he believes that the CMBR is causally connected to the Big Bang, and that it is impossible that there is evidence in the CMB to lead someone to think otherwise.

Don't believe it, know it. The CMBR is the radiation of the Big Bang stretched by expansion to about 2.7degrees k, ask any competent Cosmologist. And the evidence contained in the relic radiation has led no competent Cosmologist to think otherwise, quite the contrary.

I am trying to look for what caused the big bang and I don't reject the idea that there is evidence in the CMBR of preconditions.

Scientists would love to know the cause of the BB, there's just no evidence to be had. That does not mean there were no pre-conditions, it just means there's nothing on this side of the singularity that tells you anything about that cause, and there never will be.

I'm far from alone on that.

Yes, there are many cranks and kooks, a product of our so-called edumacation system and Luddite religious institutions.

Though the flaming is focused on me, it is the same as flaming those in the scientific community that not only don't think it is impossible, but are spending big dollars to find out.

No, no one is spending big bucks on this, proposing your scenario would get you laughed out of any review, you'll get no research money to look for Unicorns.

There is likely to be more and more support for the idea of preconditions evidenced in the CMB data as the scientific community searches for explanations of the anomalies, especially at wide angles. Time will tell.

Yes, we will continue searching the CMB data, but anomalies do not automatically mean evidence for pre-BB conditions, it's much more likely that they are caused by conditions during Inflation. And these anomalies are very, very tiny differences in something smoother than smooth.

Here is a brief list of ideas that are included in my so called model leading up to and including the cause of the big bang, so that you can address what is not internally consistent or what is inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

Ideas or premises, or hypotheses related to my explanation of the cause of a big bang:

There were preconditions to the big bang

(yes, there were, but we will never know a damned thing about them)

Out of many alternatives, my favorite idea is that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch that collapsed/banged

(whatever, you will never know and the current accelerating expansion seems to indicate otherwise)

"Collapsed/banged" conveys the idea that matter and energy can be compressed by gravity to a critical point; I call it critical capacity of a big crunch

(So you like to make up words and concepts. We call those points "Black Holes" and nothing that goes in comes out again in our Universe, they certainly have never "Banged")

Matter is composed of energy quanta, i.e. wave energy in quantum increments

(er, no. Matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, but matter has different properties than energy does, they are easy to tell apart and one is not "made out of" the other)

Energy quanta are prevalent at the foundational level in the medium of space

(word salad)

The foundational level of order is characterized by wave energy traversing the medium of space in all directions, at every point in space, at all times

(word salad with non-sense dressing)

Energy quanta are produced by the intersection and overlap of parent quanta, and in the overlap space, a high density spot forms that itself then expands spherically as a quantum wave; it is called quantum action

(word salad with dressing and cheese)

The formation of a new quantum from parent quanta involves a time delay which means the speed of wave energy is limited, and not instantaneous

(and a side of woo)

The time delay is caused by the compressibility of the medium of space which has wave action of all sizes, larger and smaller than quantum; but to be wave energy quanta incorporated within a particle they must be of a certain energy which is defined as a quantum of energy

(some of that might come close to being real, but the rest is poo, how much poo do you like in your word salad?)

The time delay occurs because many tinier waves exist within the medium of space that are not a quantum of energy. That tiny wave action contributes to the sponginess of the medium below the quantum level, hence a time delay when two spherical quantum waves intersect and form a high density spot in the lens shaped space; the spot itself has internal wave content consisting of tiny non-quantum wave action

That tinier wave action is always going on in the medium of space but if there are no quantum sized waves, particles do not form in the medium or are not stable

The failure of the big crunch occurs when the gravitational compression of the particles in the crunch causes them to fail to be able to maintain sufficient individual particle space to allow quantum action to continue to occur

That level of compression occurs at "critical capacity" of the big crunch, and the particles give up their individual space as the crunch collapses

That is the big bang

(This last bit is pure poo, evidently you prefer more poo than anything else in your word salad, plus generous portions of woo. The poo you obviously pulled straight from your own buttocks, the woo is probably a result of breathing the fumes, calling the results word salad is being kind, it's actually closer to what salad becomes after it's been eaten.)

Instead of anyone manning up and taking the challenge, I got nothing on topic.

No, you just didn't like the answers you received, like the ones I just gave you. You know, when almost everyone says you are wrong, you ought to at least consider that they might be seeing something that you don't(if learning something is your intent). While occasionally the lone wolf turns out to be right, it isn't going to happen in this case.

Someone who intensely wants to, should be able to pick it apart; show how it violates scientific observations and data.

I have done so, though showing you where you have violated science and observation doesn't seem to register with you at all, the how is that it does not conform to the evidence we have and you have presented no evidence to support your unscientific pronouncements, many of which are the gobbledygook, word salad, spewings of a diarrheal butthole. Further effort to correct your misconceptions seems futile, but rebutting such non-sense is always worthwhile.

I would consider it a major contribution on your part to the objective I stated years ago of having a personal view of the cosmology of the universe that suits me, not you.

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. You are distorting the facts to support your opinion, that is not science and reason, that is religion and belief(despite the evidence, of which you appear to know nothing). Scientific concepts do not reside within a sciencey word salad, they reside in meticulously evidenced models which are supported by all the available evidence. That does not describe your vague and unevidenced ramblings.

Grumpy