Using the “quote” function can be difficult for some disadvantaged people. I would think that self proclaimed scientists with published work, and who know what is and is not science could struggle over that hurdle but there are indications that I shouldn’t make such assumptions.
Using the quote function, AN and Guest were trying to link to a specific statement that I made that equated to pixie dust in any of my statements, and especially in this document which has become the focus of this thread.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt
In response to posts from Guest254 and AN I have restated each of the steps of reasonable and responsible bottom up step by step speculation from the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang through the formation of a big crunch that could result in a big bang type of event. These are steps through 2.6 on the above referenced Google document. No pixies dust has been pointed out by the self proclaimed best minds on the forum.
Frivolous claims by people who hijack threads and troll about all of my ideas being pixie dust have been proven fallacious, disingenuous, and devoid of intellectual integrity. Who are these malcontents anyway? Do the rest of you follow in lock step with people of such character? No way, I’m sure. But step up and join them in contempt, or jump in with comments and questions at any point.
After the formation of a big crunch, QWC has a series of speculations that follow in a step by step fashion from 2.6.
The steps that follow are ideas about how a big crunch could burst into expansion. Look closely for the pixie dust as I present these ideas in the next series of posts.
I have said from the start, if you can point out where QWC is inconsistent with known scientific data or observations I will replace the falsified ideas with ideas that are consistent. That process has been going on for a few years and the current version of QWC has been updated to reflect all valid comments; I proclaim it pixie dust free.