Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

In reply to the annimation comment I have a meager beginning:

$$\frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1} = \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi R^3}$$

If you have two intersecting arenas, each with an "arena quantum" of energy, then the above equation gives the percentage of an "arena quantum" that has been accumulated in the overlap.

When the equation yeilds a result of 100%, the intersection has advanced to the point where enough energy is included in the overlap to form a new big crunch.

This equation applies to the overlap through step 2.6 in the list of speculations.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92428

Spherical Cap http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCap.html

Sphere Sphere Intersection http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html

Circle Circle Intersection http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle-CircleIntersection.html

Without LaTex \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1} = \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi R^3}
 
Last edited:
picture.php


$$\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R – H)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R – H)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3}$$

\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R – H)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R – H)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3}

I post with $$ and without $$ because later after the edit period has passed I can still copy the equation.

You can see the "overlap" space in dark blue. The equation gives me the amount of energy in the overlap relative to the "arena quantum" of energy. Remember, the idea is that arenas are quantized. They are quantized because the finite amount of energy required for the collapse to produce sufficient heat and preasure to raise the energy density in the crunch to the maximum possilbe energy density allowed by nature is always the same.

When that maximum possible energy density is acieived the burst of the crunch is assured according to the idea I have offered for discussion.$$$$
 
Last edited:
You seem to be having problems with the latex object. The reason is that you are using the wrong sort of dash for the minus sign. You should just use the short dash - it's below the underscore to the right of the number zero and on the numeric keypad at the top right corner on my (UK) keyboard.

$$\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R - H)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r - h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R - H)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r - h)}{4/3 \pi R^3}$$

without tags:

frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R - H)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r - h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi H^2 (3 R - H)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 r - h)}{4/3 \pi R^3}

While we're at it, there are a few cancellations and simplifications that you can make:

$$\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \left( H^2 (3 R - H) + h^2 (3 r - h)\right)\left(\frac{1}{4 R^3}+ \frac{ 1}{4 r^3}\right)$$

Without tags:

\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capR}}{V_r} + \frac{V_{capr}}{V_R} = \left( H^2 (3 R - H) + h^2 (3 r - h)\right)\left(\frac{1}{4 R^3}+ \frac{ 1}{4 r^3}\right)

Much better, not that I really see the point.
 
Last edited:
...
You can see the "overlap" space in dark blue. The equation gives me the amount of energy in the overlap relative to the "arena quantum" of energy. Remember, the idea is that arenas are quantized. They are quantized because the finite amount of energy required for the collapse to produce sufficient heat and preasure to raise the energy density in the crunch to the maximum possilbe energy density allowed by nature is always the same.

When that maximum possible energy density is acieived the burst of the crunch is assured according to the idea I have offered for discussion.
The ideas for discussion are that at the arena level, there is a force and for every force there is a corresponding particle. The force is “arena action” and the particle is the “core” of the big crunch. The process of quantum action compresses the matter and energy until the mass is negated into one huge massless “energy particle”. That “energy particle” expands out of the burst of the big crunch to provide the dense state energy from which all of the particles that make up our expanding universe are produced.

This point in the process marks the trough of the arena wave (highest negative energy of the arena wave form) that is produced by arena action.
picture.php

The graphic could also be named ,"Arena Wave Form”.

The idea that this "particle" has no mass has to do with the property that gives matter weight when it is accelerated in a gravitational field. In the “core particle” there is no functioning matter and no gravity is exerted because gravity is a function of matter. There is no gravitational field acting on the core particle because it doesn’t feel gravity.
 
Last edited:
I have made some updates to the list of speculative steps that make up the arena process called “step two” in QWC. I reworded a few steps and added text after the groups of steps to better convey the speculative ideas of QWC for discussion purposes:

2.13 The negated core of the crunch exerts no gravity but the compression that maintains the crunch is still being fed by the accretion disk formed from the matter in the overlap space as it swirls into the crunch. The expansion potential energy is building up in the core of dense state energy and the size of the core is increasing.

2.14 These two processes, accretion and negation maintain control of the crunch because as the core grows, the gravity exerted by the crunch declines, and as the accretion continues the gravity remains sufficient to maintain the stability of the core until a breaking point is reached.

2.15 Equilibrium does not result because the ability of the crunch to increase the heat and pressure on the core is declining toward the threshold where it no longer is capable of negating matter into dense state energy. During this decline negation is taking place across a larger and large core surface at all times meaning that the negated core grows geometrically.

2.16 The growing core will decrease gravity faster than accretion can maintain it and at the same time the expansion potential of the dense state energy at the core grows at an increasing rate.

2.17 The crunch fails when the expansion potential of the core exceeds the compression of the surrounding un-negated matter in the big crunch.

Steps 2.13 – 2.17 represent the third phase of “arena action”. The big crunch has reached the bursting point.

The ideas for discussion are that at the arena level, there is a force and for every force there is a corresponding particle. The force is “arena action” and the particle is the “core” of the big crunch. The process of quantum action compresses the matter and energy until the mass is negated into one huge massless “energy particle”. That “energy particle” expands out of the burst of the big crunch to provide the dense state energy from which all of the particles that make up our expanding arena are produced. The production of known particles is the result of decay of the “core energy particle”. Decay of the core particle occurs as the energy density of the expanding arena declines due to expansion.

Step 2.17 above is the point in the process that marks end of the formation of the trough of the arena wave that is produced by arena action. The crest of the wave occurs starting with the steps below related to the burst and the expansion of the arena.

The idea that this "particle" has no mass has to do with the property that gives matter weight when it is accelerated in a gravitational field. In the “core particle” there is no functioning matter and no gravity is exerted because gravity is a function of matter. There is no gravitational field acting on the core particle except for the heat and pressure exerted at the surface of the growing core because the core doesn’t feel gravity. On that basis it has no mass.

Functionally the idea is that the crunch fails because gravity ceases when matter is negated which then leads to the big burst. If the core has mass then the cause of the burst is wrong.

The idea that the core has no mass also avoids the final outcome in some cosmologies where all of the matter in the universe collapses into a single final big crunch. The failure of gravity when the core reaches critical capacity stops the accretion and saves the rest of the universe from falling into a final big crunch. Aside from the arena process in the local overlap space, the collapse and burst of a big crunch does little more that jostle the rest of the universe as the wave expands spherically.

2.18 The burst occurs. The rapid expansion the extremely dense energy at the core rips through the remaining matter surrounding the core and that action creates enough acceleration and heat to negate much of the surrounding matter.

2.19 As the expanding ball of dark energy expands plasma is formed made up of the un-negated particles in the un-negated portion of the outer crunch and the accretion disk surrounding the crunch, and in the surrounding background matter and energy that fills all space.

2.20 As the burst of dense state energy rips through this environment it will cause tiny temperature perturbations in the form of pre-matter plasma in the expanding ball of dense dark energy.

Two concepts are introduced in the previous step:

The concept of dark energy has been introduced: Dark energy is expanding energy that emerges from the core of a big crunch when the burst in phase three of arena action occurs. The nature of dark energy is described throughout the steps that make up the remaining phases of arena action but it is essentially the cause of expansion momentum. Expansion momentum is imparted to matter as it forms and is transferred to particles and eventually to stars and galaxies as they form. Dark energy translates into the observation that galaxies are all moving away from each other because the tiniest particles that make up the stars and galaxies all had expansion momentum imparted to them as they formed .

The concept of pre-matter plasma is meant to distinguish between plasma that forms when matter is energized and the pre-matter plasma that forms from dark energy. Pre-matter plasma forms as acceleration and heat and pressure are declining from dense state of energy, a form of energy that contains no particles. It is the first “matter” that forms from the decay of the core energy particle. It is relatively cold when it forms because the temperature of the core particle is very low after all particles surrounding it have been negated by the force of potential expansion energy that has been released into expansion.

Steps 2.18 and 2.19 are the “burst” which is the fourth phase of “arena action”.

2.20 The dark energy at this point is too dense for matter to form but is expanding, supposedly at the speed of light.

2.21 Everything it encompasses as it expands has expansion energy imparted to it creating expanding plasma in the surrounding space as the dark energy expands and encompasses the matter and energy surrounding the crunch.

2.22 That plasma now exists within the expanding ball of dark energy and is the source of matter formation as the arena expands and the plasma cools.

2.23 There is an energy density reached in this expanding energy environment that is ideal for matter formation and matter forms almost simultaneously across the expanding plasma.

2.23 As matter forms in the expanding arena it has momentum as it forms. The momentum is imparted to it by the expansion of the dark energy and plasma within which it forms.

2.24 At the instant of abundant matter formation all matter is dark matter.

The concept of dark matter is introduced in that last step: Dark matter is initially connected in the form of the plasma that forms in the space surrounding the burst. It takes the form of dark matter at the point that the expansion has brought the arena to an energy density that accommodates abundant matter formation. That is when dark matter begins to display its most important characteristic; it exerts gravity.

These ideas combine to paint a physical picture of our expanding “universe” as an expanding arena wave that emerged from the burst of a big crunch. The early expansion of the dense dark energy would negate much of the matter in the accretion disk and the wave would take up that dense state energy from the negation of the surrounding matter into its expanding ball of dark energy. That would bring the arena to the first instants of the expansion profile. As the expanding ball of dense dark energy expands the energy density would go down exponentially. Soon the energy density would reach the threshold where matter formation can occur and where matter can function as mentioned in step 2.23.

End of Step Update

The following are comments that I added near the end of the list of steps:

The idea is that matter formation would significantly slow the rate of expansion. Thus matter formation would mark the end of a period of where expansion was proceeding supposedly at the speed of light. This is a major event in the expansion profile of an arena. Energy was expanding at supposedly the speed of light until the matter formation threshold was reached, matter formed converting the dark energy to matter, and gravity began within the newly expanding arena.

That dark matter is not expanding at the speed of light according to the ideas I am trying to discuss here. Mass in QWC equals energy in the core particle divided by the speed of light squared and the conversion from energy to matter occurs almost simultaneously across the entire expanding arena.

How efficient is the conversion of dense dark energy into matter? Not 100% because the pre-particles of dark matter would have to be moving away from each other to play the role that I see them playing in the eventual formation of galaxies and the galactic coordinate system that I mentioned in step 2.34.

I submit this post to you for discussion of the ideas that make up this group of speculations about the arena process and arena action. I “published” a Google web page of all of the speculations in “step two” of QWC. That page automatically updates as I change the Google Document for as long as it remains published.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt
 
Moderator remarks

To all posters in this thread: No more ad hominem or derogatory remarks. We are (or should be) past the third grade by now.

To Quantum wave:
Give me a short reason why I should leave this thread here in this forum rather than moving it to Philosophy or Pseudoscience. Either convince me that this is science or that non-scientific ideas have there place in this sub forum (also see this thread). Make your response short please. You have a tendency to be a bit wordy.
 
Moderator remarks

To all posters in this thread: No more ad hominem or derogatory remarks. We are (or should be) past the third grade by now.

To Quantum wave:
Give me a short reason why I should leave this thread here in this forum rather than moving it to Philosophy or Pseudoscience. Either convince me that this is science or that non-scientific ideas have there place in this sub forum (also see this thread). Make your response short please. You have a tendency to be a bit wordy.
Welcome to your new role as moderator of the Cosmology Forum. I read the post that you linked me to and you are taking your role seriously. Would it be alright if I defer my response to this post until there is some input about the linked post? I will be glad to participate in that dialog and of course my point of view is that my threads about QWC do not qualify as non-science (pseudoscience), but are instead pre-science (protoscience). There are differing views on what those terms mean and what qualifies in each case and so the ultimate decision is yours.

As I said I would when a moderator is appointed to this forum to address the issues, I am taking Prometheus and Alphanumeric off ignore.
 
Last edited:
my point of view is that my threads about QWC do not qualify as non-science (pseudoscience), but are instead pre-science (protoscience). There are differing views on what those terms mean and what qualifies in each case and so the ultimate decision is yours.

I'm not sure if there is really any difference between the two. Certainly in this case QWC is not in any sense science, it's not even pre science. As I've tried to explain to you before (and I am a scientist remember, so you think I'd know) science works be making an observation, like the constancy of the speed of light for example, then working through all the mathematical consequences of this and only then interpreting the results. Einstein at no point thought "hey, I bet I can show time slows down the faster you go," or "I bet a ladder that's too long to fit in a barn will fit if it's moving." These are emergent predictions of the theory of relativity, not waffle that someone made up. What marks out QWC as pseudoscience is that there is no cogent path from postulate to prediction. That's also where people that try to call string theory pseudoscience fall down, because string theory has the postulates, but not the predictions as yet. Pseudoscience has neither.
 
I'm not sure if there is really any difference between the two. Certainly in this case QWC is not in any sense science, it's not even pre science. As I've tried to explain to you before (and I am a scientist remember, so you think I'd know) science works be making an observation, like the constancy of the speed of light for example, then working through all the mathematical consequences of this and only then interpreting the results. Einstein at no point thought "hey, I bet I can show time slows down the faster you go," or "I bet a ladder that's too long to fit in a barn will fit if it's moving." These are emergent predictions of the theory of relativity, not waffle that someone made up. What marks out QWC as pseudoscience is that there is no cogent path from postulate to prediction. That's also where people that try to call string theory pseudoscience fall down, because string theory has the postulates, but not the predictions as yet. Pseudoscience has neither.
Can we settle what is and is not topic for discussion in the Cosmology Forum in D H's thread here and then come back here? If it turns out that you and AlphaNumeric are successful in getting this thread moved because it isn't up to you definition of what is protoscience (pre-science) then the discussion is moot. Otherwise, if the new guidelines require you and AN to show where the ideas here contradict data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.
 
From your posting on the other thread. I don't want to hijack a general thread with something this specific.

Does QWC adhere to CONPTT? (Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative)

Consistent: There is no mathematical framework, therefore it cannot be considered consistent.
Observable: Mostly deals with extra universal phenomenon, therefore cannot be observable.
Natural: Many of the phenomenon occur from the supernatural. For example, the initial cause of the expansion is never addressed.
Predictable: No predictions are made
Testable: No predictions are made, therefore no tests can be carried out.
Tentative: Author regards his ideas as valuable and does not accept criticism from physicists. (I don't really see the relevance of this one.)

Therefore, None of the CONPTT criteria are met, hence QWC is non science, and also false science.
 
prometheus said:
Does QWC adhere to CONPTT? (Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative)

Consistent: There is no mathematical framework, therefore it cannot be considered consistent.
Observable: Mostly deals with extra universal phenomenon, therefore cannot be observable.
Natural: Many of the phenomenon occur from the supernatural. For example, the initial cause of the expansion is never addressed.
Predictable: No predictions are made
Testable: No predictions are made, therefore no tests can be carried out.
Tentative: Author regards his ideas as valuable and does not accept criticism from physicists. (I don't really see the relevance of this one.)

Therefore, None of the CONPTT criteria are met, hence QWC is non science, and also false science.
Prometheus, is this response an example of how you do science? You just said that you were a scientist and so you should know science when you see it. This response speaks otherwise so let me say you have missed a few things about QWC even though I have mentioned them in response to your repeated content-less posts.
For anyone who cares, this link describes how CONPTT approach is applied: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html

CONPTT says:
1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.
prometheus said:
Consistent: There is no mathematical framework, therefore it cannot be considered consistent.
To be consistent, the question would be, “Would the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang be consistent with the observation that the universe is expanding?”
The basis for QWC is the observation that our universe is expanding. That observation is the stimulus for the question, “what caused the initial expansion?” My hypothesis is that there was a big crunch that preceded the big bang. My ideas follow from that initial observation. Consistency in the CONPTT approach means, “is my hypothesis consistent with the observation that the universe is expanding.” It is, and therefore the idea meets the consistency guideline.

Furthermore: What the C does not say or mean is that the hypothesis has to be supported by a mathematical framework, and it certainly does not say that if there is no mathematical framework then the hypothesis cannot be considered consistent.
prometheus said:
Observable: Mostly deals with extra universal phenomenon, therefore cannot be observable.
The “O” in CONPTT stands for observable.
2. Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.

An idea connected to the big crunch idea is that the formation of a big crunch might occur from the overlap of two intersecting arenas, each of which is similar to our observable expanding universe. There would be whole galaxies from the “parent” arenas that would pass by and through each other resulting in an inevitable increase in collisions between stars and even black holes. The prediction is that if two arenas exist and overlap there would be a significant increase in detected high energy collisions from a particular region of our expanding universe. Such collisions would be natural evidence of the intersection of arenas. They would be observable but are not yet observable. The “Observability” of the prediction does not require that it has already happened, only that the prediction that is made would be observable when it happens.
prometheus said:
Natural: Many of the phenomenon occur from the supernatural. For example, the initial cause of the expansion is never addressed.
3. Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.

There is nothing Supernatural about the phenomenon of QWC. You offered no example. I did address the cause of the expansion. How could you have missed that? The idea is that a big crunch preceded the big bang and the big crunch reached a natural limit of energy density and burst into expansion. I went into a series of speculations about ideas of how that could occur and asked for discussion of those ideas on my thread.
prometheus said:
Predictable: No predictions are made
4. Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.


I stated predictions and referred to them throughout the thread. The next CONPTT step asks about tests and that is where the ideas and speculations do not meet that particular requirement because they are not testable.

As the tools of science and future observations occur, tests may be described that can be carried out but not yet.
prometheus said:
Testable: No predictions are made, therefore no tests can be carried out.
5. Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.

I stated predictions, one of which is the increased frequency of high energy collisions between stars in the region of space where the overlap of two expanding arenas occurs. QWC fails this criterion but does have predictions that await evidence of the overlap of arenas.
Prometheus said:
Tentative: Author regards his ideas as valuable and does not accept criticism from physicists. (I don't really see the relevance of this one.)
6. Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.

You say you don’t see the relevance of this one? A scientist would understand that all science, even your favorite theories are tentative, meaning that they can be can be replaced by better science.
 
So you think before the big bang there was a big crunch. Ok, no problem there. So where's the model to back up this idea? I've read reams and reams of your long, flowery but essentially empty posts. What I, as a scientist, would like to see is:

1. A predictive model that agrees with current observation.
2. A clear and concise derivation of how this model then agrees with your idea of the big Crunch preceding the big bang.

On a related note, I would like to ask if you believe the following constitutes valid science:

1. I have an idea - there was a big crunch before the big bang.
2. Before the big crunch, the universe was filled with elves and pixies.
3. Anti-particles and particles are the post-big-bang remnants of bubbles of happiness and sadness, respectively, that were formed when an elf and a pixie had pre-marital relations.
4. SUSY is necessary, because this reflects the pixie-elf symmetry of the previous universe.
5. I predict that, in the future, there will be another big crunch, and we will all return as elves and pixies.
6. The observation of particles and anti-particles is evidence for the elf-pixie pre big bang existence.

This theory seems to tick the boxes in the same manner you've attempted to argue that yours should.
 
1. I have an idea - there was a big crunch before the big bang.
2. Before the big crunch, the universe was filled with elves and pixies.
3. Anti-particles and particles are the post-big-bang remnants of bubbles of happiness and sadness, respectively, that were formed when an elf and a pixie had pre-marital relations.
4. SUSY is necessary, because this reflects the pixie-elf symmetry of the previous universe.
5. I predict that, in the future, there will be another big crunch, and we will all return as elves and pixies.
6. The observation of particles and anti-particles is evidence for the elf-pixie pre big bang existence.
Hmmm, your ideas intriege me and I wish to subscribe to your news letter.
 
I hoped everyone had noticed that the thread has gone into a holding pattern while the moderator addresses some issues that I have pointed out and that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric have pointed out.

My issues and the reason I put Prometheus and AlphaNumeric on “ignore” awhile back are that they never addressed anything that I specifically said, but repeated used ad homs, mischaracterizations of the content to create straw men, and continually hijacked my thread to promote their own agenda which can loosely be stated, “to save the world from my ideas”. I have mentioned that the world should not fear my ideas but should fear those who use these tactics to suppress discussion of a simple question, “what was the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe”. I call those repeated posts made without reference to any content that I posted by the term “trolling”; trolling for an argument.

I’m looking for any content in your post:
So you think before the big bang there was a big crunch. Ok, no problem there. So where's the model to back up this idea? I've read reams and reams of your long, flowery but essentially empty posts. What I, as a scientist, would like to see is:

1. A predictive model that agrees with current observation.
2. A clear and concise derivation of how this model then agrees with your idea of the big Crunch preceding the big bang.

On a related note, I would like to ask if you believe the following constitutes valid science:

1. I have an idea - there was a big crunch before the big bang.
2. Before the big crunch, the universe was filled with elves and pixies.
3. Anti-particles and particles are the post-big-bang remnants of bubbles of happiness and sadness, respectively, that were formed when an elf and a pixie had pre-marital relations.
4. SUSY is necessary, because this reflects the pixie-elf symmetry of the previous universe.
5. I predict that, in the future, there will be another big crunch, and we will all return as elves and pixies.
6. The observation of particles and anti-particles is evidence for the elf-pixie pre big bang existence.

This theory seems to tick the boxes in the same manner you've attempted to argue that yours should.
Congratulations. Your statement:
Guest254 said:
So you think before the big bang there was a big crunch. Ok, no problem there.
That was the only reference to actual content.

Then you go on to say that you, as a scientist, would like to see:
Guest254 said:
1. A predictive model that agrees with current observation.
2. A clear and concise derivation of how this model then agrees with your idea of the big Crunch preceding the big bang.
If you followed the thread enough to make your comments, then you noticed that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric also wanted more in the way of math and modeling and pointed out that if I didn’t have that then I have nothing. That was the reason that back around post #73 and #75 I tried to convey the basis for the thread. I mentioned ideas from several years ago about the very beginning of the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology and stated the key ideas in step one and step two.

After neither of them picked up on the content that served as the basis of QWC, I went further and described the methodology I was using and actually posted the ideas from the very simple step one through what I refer to as step two. That list is a step by step bottom up reasonable and responsible sequence of speculations that I offered for discussion.

Either one of them and now you could go to that list (here it is in the form of a Google Document) and refer to any of my points through step two by “speculation #” since each speculation in the list is numbered.

Instead you post this:
On a related note, I would like to ask if you believe the following constitutes valid science:

1. I have an idea - there was a big crunch before the big bang.
2. Before the big crunch, the universe was filled with elves and pixies.
3. Anti-particles and particles are the post-big-bang remnants of bubbles of happiness and sadness, respectively, that were formed when an elf and a pixie had pre-marital relations.
4. SUSY is necessary, because this reflects the pixie-elf symmetry of the previous universe.
5. I predict that, in the future, there will be another big crunch, and we will all return as elves and pixies.
6. The observation of particles and anti-particles is evidence for the elf-pixie pre big bang existence.

This theory seems to tick the boxes in the same manner you've attempted to argue that yours should.
As a self proclaimed scientist are you proud of that?

Perhaps you didn’t read this link, http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html which I offered to D H as one view of the distinction between pseudoscience and emerging protoscience. Look at the section about how you can tell science from non-science.

When you ask if a person believes in elves, pixies, and fairies you are implying that the content on my thread contains references to ideas that are equivalent to the fantasy that you mention. This is one of the tactics that Promehteus and AlphaNumeric use to imply an ad hom about me to take attention away from the fact that they actually didn’t refer to my content.

How about an example from my list of steps of speculation that you would equate the fantasy? Obviously I know that fantasy is not science and a scientist like you should be able to identify fantasy. Which is the first step that invokes “fantasy” in the Google document that I prepared for Promtheus and AlphaNumeric? By answering that with an example you will actually be participating in the intent of the thread.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with any of it? So I haven't used fancy words like "quantum" and "cosmology". That doesn't make my theory any less possible. The google document you provided is on par with my attempt - you've just extrapolated a lot more. I can do that too. Name any area of physics and I'll explain its relevance to the pre-big-bang elf/pixie universe.

I've ticked all the "scientific boxes", in the same manner you've attempted to. Why is your stuff better than mine? Could you try to answer this time please.
 
What's wrong with any of it? So I haven't used fancy words like "quantum" and "cosmology". That doesn't make my theory any less possible. The google document you provided is on par with my attempt - you've just extrapolated a lot more. I can do that too. Name any area of physics and I'll explain its relevance to the pre-big-bang elf/pixie universe.

I've ticked all the "scientific boxes", in the same manner you've attempted to. Why is your stuff better than mine? Could you try to answer this time please.
I answered it last time. You are invoking fantasy which is not science.

I went on to ask you to show which steps you equate with fantasy. No response. Hmm. Trolling?????
 
I answered it last time. You are invoking fantasy which is not science.
Why is it fantasy? As I said, just because I didn't use scientific words doesn't make any difference. Why is yours better than mine? My proposed model beats yours in every way I think.

Name something yours does, and mine can't.
 
Back
Top