I'm having trouble getting to grips with this, I'm afraid. There are six immediate questions in the first two paragraphs alone, and possibly a fatal flaw.
It seems that initially you propose to setup this theory in something you call space. This seems to be an axiom, so let us state it clearly:
- Axiom 1: Space is a set $$X$$.
OK, let's start with space is a set and you call it $$X$$. And you call that set an axiom. QWC is not a theory and though axioms were discussed previously in the QWC document, I have removed the references to theory and axioms. QWC is my personal view of cosmology. In the document there are some pertinent statements:
From the Google.doc, section titled "Introduction to Quantum Wave Cosmology", at the end of subsection #1:
Since this is my personal cosmology, I begin with concepts that are incorporated into my cosmology from the start:
I consider the following to be falsifiable but to my knowledge none of them have been falsified. To me personally they are basic logic and they form the basis of QWC:
1.1 Nothing yields nothing
1.2 Everything is composed of energy
1.3 Energy cannot be created or destroyed
1.4 The universe is composed of energy
1.4 The universe was not created
1.6 There was no beginning
1.7 The universe has always existed
Then from the same section, subsection 4.2:
4.2 I start with no one’s theory, i.e. this is a bottom up approach that starts with speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. This is an important point because to grasp QWC you have to leave existing and alternative theory behind.
QWC is not a theory. I start from what I personally consider to be the departure points where science leaves off on the Cosmology of the universe, i.e. Big Bang Theory with Inflation, General Relativity, the Cosmological Principle, all of which I refer to as the Standard Cosmology, and in particle physics the Standard Particle Model of Particle Physics. They leave off by falling short in three respects when compared to the basis of QWC. ...
And about the lexicon of QWC:
4.4 All of the words I use are part of the lexicon of QWC. They mean what I say they mean and not what any other usage of them says they mean. If there are any questions about the usage of words in QWC those questions should be brought to my attention and my decision as to the meaning of words is final as far as their usage goes in QWC. The fact that the same words are used to explain existing theory is not intended to imply that all of the science associated with those words in existing theory applies to QWC. It is your responsibility to understand my usage of those terms if you are going to understand QWC, and it is not my intention to understand the theories where terms that I use appear.
And from that section:
6.6 When I refer to the infinites of QWC I am talking about space, time, and energy.
Based on the document, QWC is not what you claim it is and your approach to questioning is out of context. I mentioned that when you brought it up before and you backed down saying I was the one who didn't get it. You are the one that doesn't get it as you can see.
Do you have any questions that are in context? Read the document fully because all of your concerns about the description that I give of energy are addressed throughout the document.
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1
To address your concerns about the use of the word "space", in QWC space is infinite and has always existed. Any discussion about sets that include an axiom about what space is are yours and not mine. They are fine as long as the definition that I give for space in QWC is understood and properly conveyed.
Getting back to your questions, given the QWC definition of space, you can call it an axiom but I don't. Go ahead from there with your questions.