Limiting energy density and mass function range

[quantum_wave]

Limiting energy density and mass function range

This post is a split off from the “Shape of the Universe Discussion” thread which left off with this statement in post #35:

“I would like to state a disclaimer about QWC and that is that it is built from the bottom up and not from the perspective of existing theory. The reason I mention that here is that the discussion of dark matter, matter formation, galactic and larger structure formation are fertile grounds for all sorts of theories that all stem from the standard cosmology and the standard model. QWC does not incorporate any set of theories but instead it builds from step by step speculations starting from the general consensus; we are in a known universe that is expanding.”

“A bottom up approach quickly leads to a scenario that diverges from the various theories because to explain the cause of expansion which is not addressed by the consensus requires taking a position on preconditions and new physics. Existing theory does not have the convenience of tossing out new physics and does not encourage a consensus on preconditions to the Big Bang. QWC will necessarily be at odds with theory that must be based on the standard cosmology and known physics.”



This discussion follows from the convenience of proposing preconditions to the Big Bang and the convenience of proposing possible new physics to make a connection (causal connection) between a big crunch (the precondition) and the Big Bang. The Big Bang is demoted to a big burst by those conveniences, i.e. the burst is the result of the preconditions and new physics.

The new physics that makes a big crunch burst into expansion is that there is a limit to the maximum possible energy density. The limit is imposed at two levels of order, one being at the big crunch level out of which an expanding universe like ours emerges after the burst, and the other level is the quantum level where quantum particles called energy quanta continually collapse into quantum black holes and bounce off of the limit of maximum possible energy density and into spherically expanding waves of energy, i.e. quantum gravity waves.

The second piece of new physics is that before the maximum energy density is reached there is a threshold that marks the maximum level of energy density within which mass exists and functions. Gravity is considered to be a function of mass and so there is also a range of energy density within which gravity is emitted and absorbed by mass. When mass ceases to function because the energy density has exceeded the threshold, then gravity ceases to be emitted.

These new physics combine to imply a new state of energy. The new state of energy is reached when matter is compressed beyond the threshold. Matter is negated into “dense state” energy that is compressed beyond the mass threshold and does not exert gravity.

Dense state energy can be further compressed up to the maximum limit of energy density.

The operative implication of the combination of these new physics is that mass has gravity and dense state energy does not. This means that dense state energy contains the energy that was contained in the mass and that gravity is a function of mass but ceases when mass is negated into dense state energy. Gravity waves are absorbed into dense state energy but nothing is emitted. Dense state energy is a black hole.

These new physics that describe dense state energy that emits no gravity lead to the cause of the burst. Before I describe how the new physics leads to the burst let me say that the formation of the big crunch is dependent on the burst and the burst is dependent on the formation of the big crunch.

This is not circular reasoning. It is sequential reasoning. The conclusion of the new physics is that crunches form and burst normally across the greater universe. The burst of a single crunch is equivalent to our own observable expanding universe which is therefore demoted to a single arena within the potentially infinite greater universe. The multiple arenas of the greater universe interact and perpetuate the arena landscape of the greater universe. The arena landscape is perpetuated because expanding arenas intersect and overlap, and gravity causes the galactic material in the overlapping space to collapse around its center of gravity to form a new big crunch. All crunches succumb to the new physics and burst into expansion, thus perpetuating the arena landscape.

Obviously the burst is required to set an expanding arena into motion and the new physics must enable a crunch to burst. In a nut shell the big crunch compresses mass into dense state energy. The crunch forms due to gravity and literally the entire universe would fall into a big crunch if mass were not negated into dense state energy at the core of the big crunch. But the characteristic of dense state energy that precludes it from emitting gravity is the characteristic of a big crunch that keeps the entire universe from falling into it.

You have to follow the arena process. There is a sequence of action that characterizes the arena process; call it arena action. It goes as follows:

The arena forms starting at the point of intersection between two expanding arenas. The expansion beyond the point of intersection becomes an overlap and takes the shape of a 3-D lens. The lens shape encompasses the space that includes the galactic material from each parent arena. The overlap interrupts the expansion of the parent arenas in the overlap space and gravity overcomes expansion momentum resulting in the collapse of galactic material into a big crunch. That describes arena action from the point of intersection of two parent arenas to the formation of a big crunch.

This big crunch will continue to grow as galactic material from the continuing overlap accretes into it. But before the entire universe collapses in behind the galactic material from beyond the overlap space, the core of the big crunch reaches the threshold beyond which matter ceases to function; therefore gravity ceases to be emitted by the core.

The circumstances at this point are that accretion continues and the core continues to grow. When the core grows to the point that the amount of negated matter entering the core equals the amount of matter accreting into the crunch, the point of gravity equilibrium is reached. Gravitational equilibrium means that the total emitted gravity of the crunch ceases to increase because the non-gravity emitting core is growing at the same rate as mass is accreting into the crunch.

This condition marks the point where the total gravity emission of the crunch begins to decrease because the core negates mass faster than accretion adds mass to the crunch.

There is one more characteristic of dense state energy. It has expansion potential due to the fact that it is compressed to the maximum limit of energy density. Since this compression occurs within the containment of the big crunch, the expansion potential increases as the negated core grows. When accretion is diminished due to the decrease in gravity emission of the crunch the ratio between the expansion potential of the core and the containment potential of the outer crunch is shifting. When the expansion potential exceeds the containment potential the crunch bursts into an expanding ball of dense dark energy. Thus the new physics enables big crunches to form and burst across the landscape of the greater universe.

Quantum Wave Cosmology is the set of ideas that describe this process of arena action at the level of the greater universe and that describe the corresponding process called quantum action that characterizes the quantum level of order. Quantum action is strikingly similar to arena action and each defines how the new physics suggested by QWC operates at their respective levels of order.

 

[quantum_wave]

You can see how much more convenient it is to be able to suggest or propose preconditions to the Big Bang, and then suggest some new physics to tie the preconditions to the big event. I have taken advantage of that convenience from which professionals are prohibited (not really prohibited but discouraged) by little requirements like the need for math.

Eventually there will be some preconditions and some new physics that will connect into a new standard cosmology with math that matches. The convenient ideas of QWC can’t be tested or falsified. That alone is enough to make them pseudoscience. But beyond that QWC is roundly recognized for its audacity. Admittedly I am continuing to evolve and expand my ideas about a cosmology that seem so audacious. I do that by maintaining a presence on Internet forums and I update my Google.doc periodically. Feedback that I get often leads to changes to the document.

The first thing that surprises me is that professionals haven’t reached a consensus about what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. That lack of consensus highlights how nice and easy it is to depart from the scientific method and discuss cosmology from a pseudoscience perspective. Clearly the ideas of QWC could be put to shame by a joint brainstorming conference of professionals whose sole purpose was to agree on the preconditions to the Big Bang. Who doesn’t think that an auspicious group of scientists and mathematicians could come up with a really sensible explanation for the cause of the initial expansion?

But they haven’t come to a consensus. The closest consensus we have come to is Inflation Theory conceived of by Alan Guth and contemporaries. But Guth himself points out that he has simply pushed back the explanation of the time scale from the initial second or so after a pre-inflationary BBT to the new time scale that takes us back almost to t=0. In his 1997 book, The Inflationary Universe, he says, “The central feature of the theory is a brief period of extraordinarily rapid expansion, or inflation, which lasted for a time interval perhaps as short as 10^-30 seconds” [after the event]. A significant improvement, especially since Inflation Theory re-connects the observable universe to the Big Bang event. The causal connection was momentarily lost when Hubble found that the universe was expanding. Cosmic time and distance candles confirmed the expansion and even narrowed it down to show an accelerating rate of expansion.

Hats off to Hubble and Guth. In QWC there is no need for Inflation in the sense that Alan Guth describes thus the Big Bang can be reduced to only a big burst. The homogeneous and isotropic CMBR with slight anisotropy is troublesome to BBT because there has to have been a period of thermalization during which its temperature became almost perfectly consistent. Inflation fills the bill to enable thermalization and maintain the causal connection between the CMBR and the Big Bang. In QWC the background is already thermalized. The homogeneous and isotropic background radiation surrounded the big crunch before the burst and didn’t need a period of thermalization to take place after the Big Bang. Thermalization was maintained within the expanding arena because energy density equalization between the ball of dark energy of our expanding arena and the thermalized background of the greater universe takes place at the rate of expansion and so the entire arena thermal blackbody curve changes simultaneously across the entire arena as expansion proceeds.

And the cause of that burst is tied to the idea that there are internal components to the particles of the Standard Particle Model which are controlled by energy density limits and thresholds. The so called fundamental particles of that model are composed of the energy quanta that characterize the quantum level of order in QWC. An added benefit of having energy quanta where matter is composed of energy in quantum increments and gravity is energy in the form of quantum gravity waves is that the average energy density of the universe comes out the same at both the quantum level and at the universal level which could reconcile one current theoretical incompatibility.

By discussing and evolving QWC I keep in touch with what is happening in the field of cosmology. I find cosmology the most interesting segment of science because thinking about it is a contemplation of the boundary between the finite and the infinite, between the scientific and the philosophical, and between the known and the unknown. Now that is entertainment.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Who doesn’t think that an auspicious group of scientists and mathematicians could come up with a really sensible explanation for the cause of the initial expansion?

Yeah, it's not been done because cosmologists haven't got around to be good hard brainstorming session.

No, it's actually the reason you previously mention : "I have taken advantage of that convenience from which professionals are prohibited (not really prohibited but discouraged) by little requirements like the need for math.". Unlike you cosmologists have to supply more than "We sat in a room for a couple of hours and brainstormed a random guess which has absolutely zero phenomenological justification".

There are various attempts to describe the behaviour of inflation using such things as the CMB power spectrum and reheating, via such things as the inflaton modulus field. I would imagine you're not familiar with it as it's not something New Scientist and newspapers would really find that pleasant for their layperson readers.

By discussing and evolving QWC I keep in touch with what is happening in the field of cosmology.

So which journals are you a regular reader of?

Oh.... you meant you read new articles on press releases scientists make after they've done the hard work, experiments, observation and quantitative analysis and methodology and then put it into a simple paragraph for laypersons to understand. That's what you meant.... My my, that really allows you to work at the coal face of cosmology.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, I'm going to ignore you until you get over your fixation with me and address the content of QWC. And then I probably won't because you are such a low life.

 

[CptBork]

Limiting energy density and mass function range

This post is a split off from the “Shape of the Universe Discussion” thread which left off with this statement in post #35:

“I would like to state a disclaimer about QWC and that is that it is built from the bottom up and not from the perspective of existing theory. The reason I mention that here is that the discussion of dark matter, matter formation, galactic and larger structure formation are fertile grounds for all sorts of theories that all stem from the standard cosmology and the standard model. QWC does not incorporate any set of theories but instead it builds from step by step speculations starting from the general consensus; we are in a known universe that is expanding.”

Ok, and does QWC also postulate as a requirement that it must not make predictions which disagree with established experiments, and hence cannot disagree with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics insofar as they correctly predict the results of these experiments? Ultimately, after all your speculation is completed, if your "theory" doesn't somehow reduce to Relativity and QM in the low energy limit, you're screwed.

Yes, I'm going to ignore you until you get over your fixation with me and address the content of QWC.

I know your reply here was intended for AlphaNumeric, but my question is what's there to address? If AlphaNumeric says "you're wrong about blah blah blah" and you respond "you're wrong, you're a retard", where do you go from there? What's the criterion for judging who's right? Until you start making some sort of testable predictions and concretely tying your ideas into the phenomena we actually observe, your ideas are a nothing but a wild guess that can't be proved from universal truths. Saying something like "my theory predicts the universe is expanding, and that's what we observe" is useless, because I can come up with millions of theories on the fly that do the same thing. We want to know precise details- how fast is the universe expanding, how does this rate change over time, etc. etc. Details, details, details, my friend. You're not giving us any.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ok, and does QWC also postulate as a requirement that it must not make predictions which disagree with established experiments, and hence cannot disagree with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics insofar as they correctly predict the results of these experiments? Ultimately, after all your speculation is completed, if your "theory" doesn't somehow reduce to Relativity and QM in the low energy limit, you're screwed.

To test my understanding of your question let me restate it in my own words because you are sounding more like an attorney than a science professional.

What you are asking is does QWC accept valid experimental results that have been predicted by GR, QM, and let us add The Standard Particle Model of Particle Physics, Quantum Field Theory and String Theory just to be safe. Yes.

Now my attorney wants me to add that experimental results that confirm predictions made by theorists does not mean that the fundamental basis of the theory is proven, i.e. in the case of GR the predictions of the motion of planet Mercury does not prove that space and time are coupled and that the presence of mass curves spacetime. What it proves is that the EFEs are the best means of determining the motion of objects in space. This goes right back to the discussion you and I were having and that I would have pursued with you on the Zeno thread if James R hadn’t terminated the discussion. I admit that it looked like that thread was over but that discussion could have been interesting. It had to do with the correspondence between spacetime geometry and reality. Since then I have conceded that the concept of reality is somewhat philosophical but I don’t think either of us would say that science isn’t trying to describe and predict reality.

My attorney also insists that anyone who claims to be a professional must agree with the aspect of the scientific method called “tentativeness”. I’m not making a big deal about it but if we were to find experimental evidence that quantum gravity waves emanate from mass then spacetime could experience the meaning of “tentativeness”. Would you agree with that or would I be wrong to think that?

I know your reply here was intended for AlphaNumeric, but my question is what's there to address? If AlphaNumeric says "you're wrong about blah blah blah"

He doesn’t say that I am wrong about something in particular, he says that it is just wrong that I am alive or something to that respect. I won’t send you looking for a case where he legitimately used the quote function to refer to actual QWC content and then presented some comment that challenged it. What I will do though is challenge you to look at the content and quote me, and challenge it or comment on it in a legitimate fashion.

and you respond "you're wrong, you're a retard", where do you go from there? What's the criterion for judging who's right? Until you start making some sort of testable predictions and concretely tying your ideas into the phenomena we actually observe, your ideas are a nothing but a wild guess that can't be proved from universal truths. Saying something like "my theory predicts the universe is expanding, and that's what we observe" is useless, because I can come up with millions of theories on the fly that do the same thing. We want to know precise details- how fast is the universe expanding, how does this rate change over time, etc. etc. Details, details, details, my friend. You're not giving us any.

True.

But beyond that are you saying that what I do present is fairy dust as far as you are concerned? The possibility of big crunch preceding the Big Bang is comparable to a prediction that the Big Bang was preceded by fairy dust? Discussing the possibility of a greater universe out there is on a par with saying that beyond our observable universe there is blue fairy dust? The possibility that energy is quantized and fills all space is equivalent in your book to saying that particles are filled with fairy dust? The possibility the matter is composed of energy in quantum increments is just as wild as saying that fairy dust will make you sneeze? The possibility that there is a maximum limit to energy density is no more appropriate than saying fairy dust is infinitely fine and everything is composed of it? The possibility that mass functions within a range of energy density is as fanciful as saying fairy dust sprinkled on mass makes it exert gravity? The possibility that there is such a thing as dense state energy is the same as saying that energy turns to fairy dust when squeezed between your fingers? Is that why you say that you can come up with millions of theories and they are all fairy dust because no distinction can be made at all between reasonable and responsible speculation and fairy dust???????

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, I'm going to ignore you until you get over your fixation with me and address the content of QWC. And then I probably won't because you are such a low life.

There's no content to address. There in lies the fundamental flaw in everything you're doing here. And the insults are a little hypocritical when you keep getting caught utterly fabricating things I've supposedly said. Your parents must be so proud.

Now my attorney wants me to add that experimental results that confirm predictions made by theorists does not mean that the fundamental basis of the theory is proven, i.e. in the case of GR the predictions of the motion of planet Mercury does not prove that space and time are coupled and that the presence of mass curves spacetime. What it proves is that the EFEs are the best means of determining the motion of objects in space. This goes right back to the discussion you and I were having and that I would have pursued with you on the Zeno thread if James R hadn’t terminated the discussion. I admit that it looked like that thread was over but that discussion could have been interesting. It had to do with the correspondence between spacetime geometry and reality. Since then I have conceded that the concept of reality is somewhat philosophical but I don’t think either of us would say that science isn’t trying to describe and predict reality.

You utterly failed to grasp what Cpt said. It doesn't matter whether GR and QM describe the universe in it's underlying mechanisms, its a simple fact that they accurately predict the outcome of many experiments. So even if QWC or any theory which might wish to replace them says that the underlying mechanism of the universe is not say curved space-time the predicted results must be the same because we've done the experiments and found the numerical predictions match GR and QM.

So where's your demonstration that any of your work leads to the same results as GR or QM in the realms of applicability where we know the predictions of those theories are correct? Nowhere. You have nothing.

He doesn’t say that I am wrong about something in particular

Actually I've corrected you numerous times on a great many specific points. The tendency is for me to quote your posts bit by bit, replying to each bit in turn and you to just mass quote me and ignore my questions. We're incapable of a rational discussion because of you.

he says that it is just wrong that I am alive or something to that respect. I won’t send you looking for a case where he legitimately used the quote function to refer to actual QWC content and then presented some comment that challenged it. What I will do though is challenge you to look at the content and quote me, and challenge it or comment on it in a legitimate fashion.

I challenge your claim "he says that it is just wrong that I am alive". I have never said you don't deserve to be alive. You are, yet again, precisely as you did in the 'Shape of the Universe' thread claiming to be paraphrasing me but you simply make up an utter lie.

If I'm wrong about this, link to the post of mine where I wished death upon you. Go on, do it. You keep complaining I don't use the quote feature and yet you're making much much bigger complaints about me without a single linked quote of a post of mine. Practice what you preach you damn hypocrite! Jesus, do you really think doing precisely what you complain I do in the same paragraph you complain about me isn't going to be noticed?! Do you think that the fabrication of something as extreme as "He wished I was dead" isn't going to be noticed?! Are you that desperate to try to give a reason why you ignore my criticisms?!

Give a link to the post of mine where I said " that it is just wrong that [you are] alive".

 

[quantum_wave]

There's no content to address.

This statements shows you are an arrogant ignorant obnoxious fool.

 

[draqon]

Quoting Quantum:

"When mass ceases to function because the energy density has exceeded the threshold, then gravity ceases to be emitted."

My response:

funny me...but black hole does not cease to emit gravity even though energy density has exceeded the threshold.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quoting Quantum:

"When mass ceases to function because the energy density has exceeded the threshold, then gravity ceases to be emitted."

My response:

funny me...but black hole does not cease to emit gravity even though energy density has exceeded the threshold.

Pretty good. You quoted me and made an appropriate comment.

If you noticed, in the OP we are talking about a big crunch that contains the matter and energy equivalent to our entire observable expanding universe. That crunch, an ultimate black hole so to speak, would encompass billions and billions of black holes of the type that lurk in the center of galaxies and their accompaning galactic material.

I am saying that the threshold where mass ceases to function and where therefore gravity ceases to be emitted by the dense state energy that mass is negated into occurs when the big crunch approaches that content.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So no link to me saying that you don't deserve to be alive. I'll give you another chance. If you ignore me I'll be forced to take that as an admission you can't provide a linked quote and are thus dishonest, in having fabricated quotes of me, while being hypocritical in your complaints I don't quote you.

 

[quantum_wave]

I admit it. :shrug:

 

[quantum_wave]

Quoting Quantum:

"When mass ceases to function because the energy density has exceeded the threshold, then gravity ceases to be emitted."

My response:

funny me...but black hole does not cease to emit gravity even though energy density has exceeded the threshold.

So you see Dragon I am talking about energy density at the core of a big crunch, not a typical black hole. The negation of matter into dense state energy would be a characteristic of the big crunch but not a typical black hole. The idea is that the negation of matter converts the energy of matter into energy called "dense state energy". Gravity is seen as a function of mass and not a function of mass plus energy. Making that distinction reveals the way that the big crunch can lead to a big bang.

The sequence of ideas is:
1) The following question is raised about Big Bang Theory with Inflation; what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. BBT with Inflation tracks back to 10^-30 according to Guth and 10^-47 is the current thinking AFAIK.
2) One of the various possible candidates for the cause of the initial expansion, i.e. the cause of the Big Bang event itself is a big crunch that reached some limit of energy density that caused or lead to the “bang”.
3) The “bang” could be thought of as a burst of energy from the core of the big crunch when the crunch could no longer contain the expansion potential of the dense state energy.
4) The nature of the burst is not referred to as an explosion; it is referred to as the rapid expansion of a ball of dense dark energy. That expansion is distinguished from an explosion because there is no central point where the energy density changes relative to the energy density of the entire ball as the expansion proceeds. This is a technical point but the energy density of the expanding ball changes consistently across the entire expanding arena instead of blasting the dark energy away from a central focus leaving a low density donut hole.
5) The energy density of the expanding arena remains essentially equal across the arena because of the process of energy density equalization. Energy density equalization operates on an energy differential. The differential is the difference between the extremely high energy density of the dark energy released from the big crunch, and the extremely low energy density of the space surrounding the crunch at the moment of the “bang”.
6) Equalization begins at the instant of the burst. The speed at which equalization occurs is due to two forces; the force of potential expansion energy that is a characteristic of dense state energy that was contained by the crunch, and the force of the huge energy density differential between the released ball of dark energy and the surrounding extremely low energy density of the surrounding space.
7) The expansion potential pushes dark energy into inflation while the energy density differential pulls the dark energy into the surrounding low energy density as equalization takes place.
8) Each of these forces has an efficiency profile. The expansion potential of the ball of dark energy diminishes rapidly as inflation increases while the energy differential declines more slowly as the surface area and volume of the expanding ball increases. The combination of these efficiency profiles causes initial rapid expansion followed by a period of slowing expansion.
9) The slowing of expansion occurs during matter formation because the source of dark matter depends heavily on the availability of dark energy. Dark matter forms almost simultaneously across the arena when the energy density of the arena declines to the matter formation threshold.
10) The expansion profile is initially slowed by matter formation because gravity enters the picture. The transfer of dark energy into matter and the initiation of gravity as a result significantly slow the expansion of the arena.
11) The gravitational effect diminishes in proportion to the inverse square rule.
12) While the gravitational effect diminishes, the energy density equalization force that is pulling the arena outward as it equalizes with the surrounding energy density of the greater universe declines at a slower rate. This combination of changes in expansion profiles causes the expansion to accelerate but with the introduction of matter into the arena, the forces driving the expansion have changed.
13) Matter has formed and clumped, stars form, galaxies form and galaxy groups move away from each other. Expansion at this point in the process is determined by the relative motion of those galaxy groups as observed by Hubble.
14) The cause of the acceleration of separation is due to the changing relationship between the momentum of galaxy groups and the inverse square rule that describes the decline in the gravitational attraction between galaxies as the distance between them increases. Expansion momentum gains the upper hand as the gravitational attraction declines.
15) Accelerating expansion will continue forever or until it is interrupted.

 

[quantum_wave]

The sequence of ideas is:
1) The following question is raised about Big Bang Theory with Inflation; what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. BBT with Inflation tracks back to 10^-30 according to Guth and 10^-47 is the current thinking AFAIK.
2) One of the various possible candidates for the cause of the initial expansion, i.e. the cause of the Big Bang event itself is a big crunch that reached some limit of energy density that caused or lead to the “bang”.

It is not a criticism of Big Bang Theory, Inflation Theory, or the General Theory of Relativity to say that they don’t discuss the cause of expansion or any preconditions. There is a consensus about the event horizon, there is a consensus that we don’t and maybe can’t know what is beyond the event horizon, but there is no consensus on the idea that the universe came from nothing or that there was/is neither space nor energy before or beyond the event that caused the horizon to exist. An event horizon is the practical conclusion based on what we observe.

But I come to my own conclusions about the cause of the event horizon and about the nature of energy, space, and time. And I do so out in the open and on display and I encourage comments about my views. Most of you don’t have any such views that you are willing to air in public for whatever reasons. You seem stifled to me but I did say you have your own reasons. Some of you will come out against what I air in public and you do so for your own reasons. When you state those reasons you sound like zealots in support of the theories that you hold but I did say you have your own reasons and congratulations for taking a stand. Come on out and take a stand. But those who have come out against what I air in public and who I categorize as zealots have never made a valid point and for those of you who are zealots and think you have made any valid point, you are zealots without a cause. Your theories are incomplete and incompatible and there needs to be people who come out and talk about alternative ideas to keep you zealots contained and to limit the harm that you do to young minds.

Here is a simple question: can energy exist on its own?
Yes.
How?
Energy can exist on its own when it is in the “dense” state.
What is the dense state?
Dense state energy has been negated from mass by compression inside a big crunch, a big crunch being an ultimate black hole that contains the energy equivalent of our entire expanding universe.

That is exactly what 1) and 2) above is saying. You may be a zealot willing to come out in the open and tell me about how your theory proves me wrong, but more likely you won’t because you know you have no valid argument against 1) and 2) above.

Your silence will be considered agreement since most of you are the quiet types.

Can I prove 1) and 2)?
Some things cannot be proven. They may or may not be self evident to you. If you have a better idea about the cause of the event horizon and the nature of energy, space and time, out with it. If not, and if you are asking me to prove what I think is self evident, then consider that alternatives. Something came from nothing is one alternative. Is that what you accept? God did it is another alternative. Is that what you accept? Maybe just saying that we can never know is your answer? Fine but then that is self evident to you and my view is self evident to me. It is a draw. So state your view state and go on the record at least. I think you will like yourself for doing it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

But those who have come out against what I air in public and who I categorize as zealots have never made a valid point

The stuff you 'air in public' is no science. It cannot be made into science if you continue down the path you currently appear to be on, no matter how much time you have. That is most certainly a valid point.

Your theories are incomplete and incompatible and there needs to be people who come out and talk about alternative ideas to keep you zealots contained and to limit the harm that you do to young minds.

Physicists don't deny our understanding of the universe is incomplete, you seem to be implying falsehoods again. There's tons of alternative ideas put forth all the time, the fact you don't read journals and thus don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't there. You only get decent pop science books about things once they've been shown to be good models of the universe.

I find it strange you criticise the mainstream community for a lack of open mindedness when 1. you refuse to listen to anyone who corrects you, 2. you don't know any science and refuse to learn any, 3. you don't keep yourself abreast of new hypotheses in physics because of point 2.

Yes, quantum theory is incomplete but there are people working on it, whose work can, in principle, lead to new and greater understanding and description. Your 'work' won't. You don't have any intention of making it into something which allows an accurate description of the universe, you don't even know about the vast majority of phenomena related to cosmology or particle physics. Your 'work' will forever be incomplete because you have no plans to actually describe any phenomena.

you are zealots without a cause

It is better to be a zealot for careful empirical measurements and observations, followed by rigorous construction of hypotheses, which are then tested by careful empirical measurements and observations, than a zealot for "Avoid all mainstream science, refuse to come up with any methodical approach and avoid at all times making any quantitative predictions".

Answer me this, if you gave someone your Statements 1 and 2 and told them to go away and develop the implications would they end up with exactly the same results as you? If yes, why? If no, explain why this is not evidence that your work is simply arbitrary guesses and assumptions you have picked for personal reasons.

 

[quantum_wave]

The stuff you 'air in public' is no science. It cannot be made into science if you continue down the path you currently appear to be on, no matter how much time you have. That is most certainly a valid point.

That is a valid point and I don’t intend to ever make it science. But science will move forward and address the points where science has not yet gone and there will be movement in what is called the standard cosmology, the consensus. Neither of us knows where that will lead but you so far have been unable to see correlations between what I am saying and what you are working on. They are there and as the future unfolds and progress is made that moves the consensus it will do so in the areas of quantum mechanics and large scale structure. I have put my views about both out there for comparison with where science goes in the future.

Physicists don't deny our understanding of the universe is incomplete,

Agreed, no one says it is complete.

...you seem to be implying falsehoods again.

An unfounded statement.

There's tons of alternative ideas put forth all the time,

True.

... the fact you don't read journals and thus don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't there. You only get decent pop science books about things once they've been shown to be good models of the universe.

More unfounded statements.

I find it strange you criticise the mainstream community for a lack of open mindedness

Not true.

… when 1. you refuse to listen to anyone who corrects you,

Show me a correction that I haven’t listened to.

2. you don't know any science and refuse to learn any,

That statement makes you look ignorant.

3. you don't keep yourself abreast of new hypotheses in physics because of point 2.

Not true.

Yes, quantum theory is incomplete but there are people working on it, whose work can, in principle, lead to new and greater understanding and description. Your 'work' won't. You don't have any intention of making it into something which allows an accurate description of the universe, you don't even know about the vast majority of phenomena related to cosmology or particle physics. Your 'work' will forever be incomplete because you have no plans to actually describe any phenomena.

Half true.

It is better to be a zealot for careful empirical measurements and observations, followed by rigorous construction of hypotheses, which are then tested by careful empirical measurements and observations, than a zealot for "Avoid all mainstream science, refuse to come up with any methodical approach and avoid at all times making any quantitative predictions".

Part true and part completely false.

Answer me this, if you gave someone your Statements 1 and 2 and told them to go away and develop the implications would they end up with exactly the same results as you? If yes, why? If no, explain why this is not evidence that your work is simply arbitrary guesses and assumptions you have picked for personal reasons.

Some things are not within your ability to grasp and outside of what I have any interest in having you grasp. You just have to know why I do it and if you don’t, you won’t be able to figure it out.


You are not one of the zealots because you haven’t come out against anything I have said. If you took it that I was calling you a zealot you can’t read.

Now is there anything in this thread’s QWC content, and don’t deny that there is content, that you have any comment about because so far you have simply stuck you head in the sand.

Answer the simplest of questions: can energy exist on its own?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I don’t intend to ever make it science

So why do you try to give the impression you're using some kind of methodical approach?

but you so far have been unable to see correlations between what I am saying and what you are working on

There are minor relations between what I do and cosmology (cosmological constant, inflation) but there's no correlation between what you talk about and what I say other than you attempting to talk about cosmology. There's a systematic method to what I (and others) do, there is not to yours.

. I have put my views about both out there for comparison with where science goes in the future.

But you're doing more than giving opinion, you're trying to convince people there's method how you pick your opinion.

An unfounded statement.

Your comment "Your theories are incomplete and incompatible " can certainly be read in such a way that it appears you are taking the incompleteness of mainstream understanding as a point against the mainstream.

More unfounded statements.

So you're saying you do read journals? Which ones? Journals, reputable ones, are pitched at academics so they will be heavy in terms of quantitative work and given you are not well versed in such things (I think it's fair to say you don't have graduate level mathematics knowledge) I don't think you'd be able to extract much information from them anyway.

Show me a correction that I haven’t listened to.

You do remember putting Prom, myself, DH and Guest on ignore, right?

That statement makes you look ignorant.

So why don't you tell me why you think you're well informed about cosmology research and mainstream science. What was the last textbook you read?

Not true.

Again : So you're saying you do read journals? Which ones? Journals, reputable ones, are pitched at academics so they will be heavy in terms of quantitative work and given you are not well versed in such things (I think it's fair to say you don't have graduate level mathematics knowledge) I don't think you'd be able to extract much information from them anyway.

Half true.... Part true and part completely false.

Specific what I'm wrong about and why.

Some things are not within your ability to grasp and outside of what I have any interest in having you grasp. You just have to know why I do it and if you don’t, you won’t be able to figure it out.

That doesn't answer my question. Suppose a new poster, with graduate level mathematics and physics knowledge, said they think you're working on something amazing (and wasn't being sarcastic) and they'd love to help make your work more rigorous and detailed. If they started with the first 2 or 3 statements you make in your previous post would they end up deriving the rest of the statements you make? If not, why then would we view your work as anything more than arbitrary choices and guesses you've made based on personal preference?

You want to facilitate new ideas, new approaches, new concepts and I would assume you would like more than just yourself doing this else you wouldn't be posting on forums. But if your 'work' can only be done by you, since its impossible for anyone to go from your starting assumptions to the conclusions you reach in a clear and unique manner, then why is it worthwhile? What if I started AQWC, AlphaNumber's Quantum Wave Cosmlogy, which starts with the same 2 or 3 statements QWC does but comes to different conclusions? How would we decide who has the more correct conclusions?

If someone is given the 2 postulates of SR and has basic maths skills then it's impossible for them to derive anything other than the Lorentz transforms associated to SR, they cannot obtain Galilean transformations. The postulates uniquely define the predictions/conclusions. Can this be said for your work? If not why bother with trying to derive something statement by statement as you do in the post I just linked to, why not just guess conclusions seemingly at random?

You are not one of the zealots because you haven’t come out against anything I have said. If you took it that I was calling you a zealot you can’t read.

So I'm a 'fanatic' but I'm not a zealot?

You have constructed QWC such that the conclusions it has is aligned with concepts put forth in mainstream work but the issue is not your conclusions but the fact they do not follow in a rigorous manner from your assumptions. You're working backwards, seeing what other people put forth, picking the one you like and saying its a conclusion of QWC for some reason you also make up. The only non-apriori conclusions you make are in things we cannot test.

For instance, I claim my AQWC says that generally time dilation occurs for systems with components moving with relative velocity. I claim its due to aether vortexes back-reacting with chiral vector fields. Now a physicist can't deny my conclusions because I've borrowed that from SR, with the knowledge there's experimental evidence for it. A physicist would say "But how does that follow from aether vortexes and chiral vector fields?" If I can't demonstrate why then time dilation ni AQWC is not a prediction, it's an assumption and the model is worthless. This is how you've been doing QWC.

Now is there anything in this thread’s QWC content, and don’t deny that there is content, that you have any comment about because so far you have simply stuck you head in the sand.

Assumed content which cannot predict anything, all the conclusions are also assumptions. Suppose I have a theory which involves 3 statements, A, B and C. If statement A implies statement B then B is a prediction of A and so if I give someone statements A and C they will be able to derive the full theory. If statement C does not follow from statement A then if I give them A and B they cannot derive the full theory and so C is not a prediction, it's an assumption. When all of the statements are independent, it's impossible to remove any one of them and still reconstruct the full theory, then the theory is worthless, it predicts only what you put into it. This is fairly straightforward logic and its what makes your work nothing but guesses.

Answer the simplest of questions: can energy exist on its own?

Define energy. For instance, in a theory constructed from Lagrangians or Hamiltonians energy is the quantity conjugate to time, it is a quantity defined from the properties of the objects/entities making up the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian. It's like saying 'Can blue exist on its own?', you're asking if a property of objects can exist without any objects. So no, I'd say energy can't exist on its own because you're immediately led to "Energy of what?". A rock can have 10J of kinetic energy in a particular frame. A rock can have 10J of gravitational potential energy relative to the surface of the Earth. You can't just 'have' 10J. You can have the concept of 10J being exchanged between objects, a rock dropped from its 10J potential energy position will hit the ground with 10J of kinetic energy but in each case you quantify the notion of energy in terms of the properties of the rock. Remove the rock and you remove what those properties of the rock and thus you don't have the energy any more.

 

[quantum_wave]

So why do you try to give the impression you're using some kind of methodical approach?

I thought I answered that. I am speculating and there are different types of speculation. A methodology applied to the process of speculation helps differentiate between idle, wild, and fanciful speculation and reasonable, responsible, step by step, bottom up speculation where everything is connected to a departure point in science.

Do we need to go over that time and time again?

There are minor relations between what I do and cosmology (cosmological constant, inflation) but there's no correlation between what you talk about and what I say other than you attempting to talk about cosmology. There's a systematic method to what I (and others) do, there is not to yours.

You talk about the scientific method. It starts with ideas. The ideas are just speculation until the rest of the scientific method is applied and played out. There is a methodology for speculation as I mentioned above.

But you're doing more than giving opinion, you're trying to convince people there's method how you pick your opinion.

Yes. And what you call opinion can be called opinion based on speculation. And speculation employs a process of right reason, i.e. a simple methodology as described above.

Your comment "Your theories are incomplete and incompatible " can certainly be read in such a way that it appears you are taking the incompleteness of mainstream understanding as a point against the mainstream.

That is a figment of you psyche. You read into things based on your intuition and not right reasoning.

So you're saying you do read journals? Which ones? Journals, reputable ones, are pitched at academics so they will be heavy in terms of quantitative work and given you are not well versed in such things (I think it's fair to say you don't have graduate level mathematics knowledge) I don't think you'd be able to extract much information from them anyway.

Katie asking Sarah what news papers she reads. Sarah didn’t say. Would you rather be Sarah or Katie?

You do remember putting Prom, myself, DH and Guest on ignore, right?

I never put DH on ignore. You, Guest, and Prom were hijacking and trolling. In fact the first thing DH did when he stepped in to improve moderation in his forum was to warn against your tactics which are no longer tolerated. I guess I was right and if there had been proper moderation in Cosmology I would never have put you on ignore because your trolling wouldn’t have been tolerated.

So why don't you tell me why you think you're well informed about cosmology research and mainstream science. What was the last textbook you read?

Sure Katie, I’ll list my whole library for you. I have boxes of books that I use as reference and have no interest in bothering to respond to your request.

Again : So you're saying you do read journals? Which ones? Journals, reputable ones, are pitched at academics so they will be heavy in terms of quantitative work and given you are not well versed in such things (I think it's fair to say you don't have graduate level mathematics knowledge) I don't think you'd be able to extract much information from them anyway.

So why ask. Is it the Katie in you?

Specific what I'm wrong about and why.

If you have to ask you aren’t thinking.

That doesn't answer my question. Suppose a new poster, with graduate level mathematics and physics knowledge, said they think you're working on something amazing (and wasn't being sarcastic) and they'd love to help make your work more rigorous and detailed. If they started with the first 2 or 3 statements you make in your previous post would they end up deriving the rest of the statements you make? If not, why then would we view your work as anything more than arbitrary choices and guesses you've made based on personal preference?

I have described the methodology of speculation and have been over the steps. You have never addressed the steps because you deny there is a methodology that can be applied to speculation.

If your new poster, a professional, were to address my steps he/she would start with the methodology. After understanding the methodology and suggesting improvements to it, he/she would look at the steps, discuss the application of the methodology to establish the step, and discuss.

You want to facilitate new ideas, new approaches, new concepts and I would assume you would like more than just yourself doing this else you wouldn't be posting on forums. But if your 'work' can only be done by you, since its impossible for anyone to go from your starting assumptions to the conclusions you reach in a clear and unique manner, then why is it worthwhile? What if I started AQWC, AlphaNumber's Quantum Wave Cosmlogy, which starts with the same 2 or 3 statements QWC does but comes to different conclusions? How would we decide who has the more correct conclusions?

Mine would be, of course. Oh wait, humor is lost on enemies. Are you an enemy or are you trying to help because you want me to develop my ideas?

If someone is given the 2 postulates of SR and has basic maths skills then it's impossible for them to derive anything other than the Lorentz transforms associated to SR, they cannot obtain Galilean transformations. The postulates uniquely define the predictions/conclusions. Can this be said for your work? If not why bother with trying to derive something statement by statement as you do in the post I just linked to, why not just guess conclusions seemingly at random?

I’ll just cut and past the answer from above:

I have described the methodology of speculation and have been over the steps. You have never addressed the steps because you deny there is a methodology that can be applied to speculation.

If your new poster, a professional, were to address my steps he/she would start with the methodology. After understanding the methodology and suggesting improvements to it, he/she would look at the steps, discuss the application of the methodology to establish the step, and discuss.

So I'm a 'fanatic' but I'm not a zealot?

How do you get that out of what I said?

You have constructed QWC such that the conclusions it has is aligned with concepts put forth in mainstream work but the issue is not your conclusions but the fact they do not follow in a rigorous manner from your assumptions. You're working backwards, seeing what other people put forth, picking the one you like and saying its a conclusion of QWC for some reason you also make up. The only non-apriori conclusions you make are in things we cannot test.

For instance, I claim my AQWC says that generally time dilation occurs for systems with components moving with relative velocity. I claim its due to aether vortexes back-reacting with chiral vector fields. Now a physicist can't deny my conclusions because I've borrowed that from SR, with the knowledge there's experimental evidence for it. A physicist would say "But how does that follow from aether vortexes and chiral vector fields?" If I can't demonstrate why then time dilation ni AQWC is not a prediction, it's an assumption and the model is worthless. This is how you've been doing QWC.

Assumed content which cannot predict anything, all the conclusions are also assumptions. Suppose I have a theory which involves 3 statements, A, B and C. If statement A implies statement B then B is a prediction of A and so if I give someone statements A and C they will be able to derive the full theory. If statement C does not follow from statement A then if I give them A and B they cannot derive the full theory and so C is not a prediction, it's an assumption. When all of the statements are independent, it's impossible to remove any one of them and still reconstruct the full theory, then the theory is worthless, it predicts only what you put into it. This is fairly straightforward logic and its what makes your work nothing but guesses.

If you are saying that I am making relationships and forming my own conclusions, then add in the fact that I am speculating and have employed a methodology for reasonable and responsible speculation and you have it.

By using that approach, what I am saying involves right reason to the degree that speculation and methodology can do so. Are you saying that right reason is wrong because reality is not intuitive? You falsely equate right reason with intuition and they are not at all the same. Right reason is based on understanding relationships. Intuition does not require understanding. A lack of exposure to different views limits the ability of right reason. Hints and implications that I am not following a methodology seem based on your intuition. Would you agree that you would fail to establish yourself as a meaningful critic if you haven’t employed anything but rhetoric and innuendo? Try saying why you think you can be considered a meaningful participant without addressing the topic. Simply suggesting supposed shortcomings and failings on the part of others is a position you seem to have gained by intuition.

Define energy. For instance, in a theory constructed from Lagrangians or Hamiltonians energy is the quantity conjugate to time, it is a quantity defined from the properties of the objects/entities making up the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian. It's like saying 'Can blue exist on its own?', you're asking if a property of objects can exist without any objects. So no, I'd say energy can't exist on its own because you're immediately led to "Energy of what?". A rock can have 10J of kinetic energy in a particular frame. A rock can have 10J of gravitational potential energy relative to the surface of the Earth. You can't just 'have' 10J. You can have the concept of 10J being exchanged between objects, a rock dropped from its 10J potential energy position will hit the ground with 10J of kinetic energy but in each case you quantify the notion of energy in terms of the properties of the rock. Remove the rock and you remove what those properties of the rock and thus you don't have the energy any more.

You are talking about Quantum Field Theory and a body of knowledge about quantum mechanics and special relativity. Science. I am talking about where science leaves off. “I am speculating and there are different types of speculation. A methodology applied to the process of speculation helps differentiate between idle, wild, and fanciful speculation and reasonable, responsible, step by step, bottom up speculation where everything is connected to a departure point in science.”

Do you see the difference between the energies that are an integral part of QFT, whether converted to classical physics, or referred to in inertial terms, and speculation about how energy could exist in a “dense” state at the maximum limit of energy density? One is science though you agree it is incomplete, and the other is speculation though I agree it is incomplete. But you only get exposed to dense state energy if you talk about energy compressed beyond the point where matter can exist.

If I read Quantum Field Theory Demystified, which I have on my desk as reference, a layman’s introduction to QFT, I get a lot out of it. It is not a book you would read assuming you would go to college level texts. But I get a lot out of it and you don’t even know what is in it except by intuition. So your intuition tells you I know nothing and my opinion is that you don’t use right reason to arrive at your opinion.

So you don’t have an opinion other than the views expressed by QFT about whether energy can exist in a dense state when compressed beyond the threshold of the range where matter can function? What does QFT say about that?

 

[prometheus]

You talk about the scientific method. It starts with ideas.

No no no no no no no. No. The scientific method, as we have discussed before, starts with observation and postulates. Not dreaming.

 

[prometheus]

I never put DH on ignore. You, Guest, and Prom were hijacking and trolling. In fact the first thing DH did when he stepped in to improve moderation in his forum was to warn against your tactics which are no longer tolerated. I guess I was right and if there had been proper moderation in Cosmology I would never have put you on ignore because your trolling wouldn’t have been tolerated?

This is also being pretty economical with the truth. Had the moderation been better in A&C then you wouldn't have been permitted to post your threads there in the first place. Also, I believe the first thing DH did was to post a thread asking for member feedback which led to your active threads being moved to pseudo (which you complained about intensely at the time and then tried to laud as a good thing as you can discuss things more freely here if I remember correctly).