QW replied to my last post pretty quick but I didn't reply to him so he decided to prod me via a PM to tell me the ball is back in my court now. Obviously I wasn't giving him enough attention he wanted.
Flow of energy in multiverse cosmologies
Sorry, I don't see how that follows on from what you quoted me saying. I asked you to clarify your claim you were trying to help yet were deliberately fabricating claims about people.
If you would address the question I'd stop asking it, it's pretty simple.
I’ve been trying to be contemplative the universe and get away from the off-topic chat
Sorry but when someone deliberately and repeatedly lies, especially about someone's personal life they have no knowledge of, it's something which generally gets people's backs up.
Now if you'd just answer the question, admit to fabricating stories and apologise I'd let it go. You can't turn this around on me. You lied and I've called you on it. You're now trying to weasel out of it by saying "But it's off topic!!" as if it's my fault I think your lies deserve to be pointed out. Take a bit of responsibility for your actions.
and I did a post over on the QWC thread that mentioned where I was going with the energy density and flow of energy in the multiverse cosmologies:
I told you I didn't read much of that thread. The only recent post I've made was to Pincho, I didn't read anything else in the thread in the surrounding pages. Sorry but I just don't follow you around keeping notes of all your posts.
What do you say we discuss this topic?
Did you read the Mersini-Houghton paper? Do you understand the John Baez link about the cosmological constant?
No, I didn't read the paper and I haven't read the link but I'd wager I have a decent enough grasp of the cosmological constant concept and models to be able to talk about it.
It rubs people the wrong way and I assume it does that because they have a specialty or two in the mainstream of science and they think that I am being blasphemous by talking about what science does not know when they would bet a fortune that they know more math and science than I ever will.
Once again you invent narratives for people. I have no problem people thinking about stuff science can't explain or even conceptualise. The issue I have is the way
you,
you, go about it. You need to realise you are not representative of all people who think outside the box or don't agree with science. Some of them manage it in a very interesting and informative way but unfortunately the hacks on this forum site are not among them.
Some of the most interesting talks I've been to are on topics like "Is quantum field theory the best method for particle physics?". Right now in the news there's the "Was Einstein wrong?" thing about neutrino speeds. I find it very interesting and if it turns out he was then
WOW, I'd love to still be in particle physics because it'll be an amazing decade to be doing research. All the rules out the window, new ideas up for grabs. But the important thing is that it would be led by evidence, people don't throw the rules out the window for no reason and they are rational about the new ideas.
I disagree and I stand up for myself in the regard that I can understand the limits of science and what I say science does not know, science does not know.
I would wager Cpt's issue is that you understand the limits of science so far as someone else has explained to you. You aren't getting the information first hand or deducing it for yourself, you have to be told it. Once someone has sufficient mathematical understanding they are able to examine results for themselves, see first hand the limits
and the reason for the limits of current science. For example, why is there a CP problem in QCD but not QED? Why does supersymmetry solve the hierarchy problem but not automatically the dark matter problem? Sure, I could tell you but you wouldn't
understand why, you'd only be able to either accept it or reject it, there's no middle ground of understanding.
As for your second comment that what you say science doesn't know science doesn't know that's a little over the top don't you think?
With AlphaNumeric it is different.
...
But he went beyond that and made it about the individual and about himself. He never was able to prove that my speculations were wrong when it came to known science or math but I seemed to fit perfectly into the mold of those he was successfully attacking and started to attack me personally. That is why we didn’t become friends.
Wow, where to start.
Firstly it isn't my position to prove your claims false. As with anything following the scientific method it is up to the person making the claim to provide evidence for it. This is why I say things like "There's nothing for me to disprove" or "It's impossible to nail shit to the wall". My criticisms are not that I couldn't disprove your claims but that your claims are
incapable of being disproven as they are not scientific. They lack any structure, any derivation, they are nothing but your whims and flights of fancy about things outside of your experience and knowledge. I have said on more than one occasion that if you were hit by a bus tomorrow no one could continue your work because its nothing but your views. Lock two people in different rooms with the 2 postulates of special relativity and they'll both eventually derive $$E=mc^{2}$$. Lock two people in different rooms with your posts and they will come up with utterly different things. That's the reason why your work is nonsense and pointless.
Secondly the person who always makes things person is you. As I've been trying to get you to face up to in this thread you have repeatedly fabricated out of thin air narratives about people, both about their personalities and their personal lives. Others have commented on the level of low brow insults and vitriol you spew too, it's not just myself and Cpt. In fact in the very thing I'm replying to you make suppositions about me based on your own views, rather than what has actually transpired. You keep telling me my views of you, even when I correct you.
So I continue to speculate,
Unfortunately you speculate about things you have no information on, be it physics or be it people like myself.
I spend a huge amount of my idle time in science
Didn't you state qwc is not meant to be scientific? It was an attempt to get me off your back.
and I have a clue that the CptBorks and AlphaNumerics don’t give me credit for.
You have yet to show it. Honestly, please provide a link to a post or two of yours where you show a decent understanding of science you couldn't get from 30 minutes on Wikipedia.
I am within their stereotypes and they have their prepared statements that they believe must apply to me.
You keep saying that we just have 'prepared statements' and the like, as if we don't actually read what you say, we just have knee jerk reactions. I repeatedly make lengthy posts where I reply paragraph by paragraph to your posts, dissecting them and explaining my views. Typically your response is to mass quote and reply with 1 sentence.
If anything you are the one with prepared statements, I'm the one who actually responds with indepth posts.
I keep on with my speculations hoping someone can prove I have science wrong, because believe it or not, having a consistent internally compatible view of the natural laws of the universe is my big goal.
So you have this big goal but when I said you obviously want people to think your work is worthwhile you had a go at me. And you also said what you're doing isn't an attempt at science. Science is about understanding the universe and that's your goal so you are trying to either do science or compete with it. As such you should be willing to stand up to some scrutiny, which you are always unwilling to do.
Both Cpt and I are paid to help develop understanding of the universe, which we got as a result of proven track records.
Your post has demonstrated, again, you like to invent narratives about people. In fact you go further than that, you rewrite history to some degree by ignoring how you don't reply to direct questions or how I will go through your posts line by line and reply. Instead you have a rose tinted view where all Cpt and I do is give knee jerk reactions and just pigeon hole you. You accuse us, particularly me, of arrogance and being insulting but you spit more vitriol than us and your ability to engage in discussion is much poorer than ours. I admitted my mistake about the whole 'perfect cosmology' thing without needing to be told twice, yet you've refused to admit to lying for a great many posts now. You have often accused me of being obsessed with you but when I ignore your posts because you don't enter into my thoughts you send me a PM prodding me.
I think a good summary of your general behaviour is that you project a lot. Much of what you lay at other people's feet applies to yourself. This becomes clear when you make one of your particularly abrasive posts with lots of name calling and story fabrication, often in reply to posts of mine like this one where I explain myself in detail. It highlights the large gap between the truth and your version of it.
