You claim you could pass undergraduate courses in physics. In all your thousands of posts and in all your work you can't provide a single example of you having such knowledge and using it in a discussion?
The fact you have never risen to a discussion on such things ever illustrates my point. Either you spent time and effort learning something which is relevant to your 'work' and have made a deliberate decision to utterly avoid using it at all or you never knew it in the first place.
Can you provide any evidence, any at all, you have such understanding? If you claim I'm 'flaming' by picking something you haven't claimed you have (a post showing such knowledge) so you pick the evidence. A post, a section from your Google document, an answer to one of the questions I linked you to. Anything. Because as yet you give no reason for anyone to believe you claims and a hell of a lot of reasons to not believe them.
In this post,
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2449939&postcount=168 I gave you all the details about my high school college prep courses in physics, chemistry, and advanced biology. Are you referring to my claim that those courses included exams and that I passed those exams as some claim of unsubstantiated expertise in physics. The substantiation is that I passed the courses.
In that same post I explained that I attended MSU on a full tuition and books scholarship received due to financial need and high school performance. I graduated with a degree in Finance, not Physics. Did you misunderstand that? The first year students at MSU all take the basic science courses. I gave details of how I passed the exams for those courses. Substantiation that I could pass the tests is that I passed the tests.
You are continuing to repeat the same flames. Why not address the topic:
The QWC discussion starter current status 1 5 2010
I have offered several discussion starter updates. It may at first appear that each time I restate the discussion starter it just repeats exactly what was said in the previous update but that is not true. Each update either addresses the latest on topic content if any, and usually includes additional discussion about previous content or adds new content.
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I replied and confirmed what I have always said, “I am speculating”. Science is not into speculation and I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
Prom says that BBT does include the event itself but he is wrong and I pointed that out in my response. 10^-30 is still after t=0. Could he be confused about time? No, not prom
.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified
here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to the energy of our currently expanding known universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative
outcome of BBT. I begin to discuss those steps below.
In a recent response to Prometheus I added the step that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the
cosmological constant is less than 0.
I am talking about a big crunch that I speculate forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding “universes” (Hubble volume arenas) intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
All of a sudden, the universe I am talking about has more than one expanding Big Bang type of event that is capable of expanding. They expand until they ultimately intersect and overlap. To avoid the lame phrase “multiple universes” I refer to expanding Big Bang type events as arenas. In QWC, the big crunch forms when two arenas intersect and overlap.
... And Fraggle Rocker in his role as Linguistics Moderator introduced the phrase, "Hubble volume" in reference to defining the portion of the universe/multiverse/cosmos/whatever that an observer can observe: a Hubble Volume. Our Hubble Volume is the practical limit for our speculation about the universe."
I left off with the arena concept and with the possibility of multiple “Big Bang” type of events, each one occupying an arena of space that can be referred to as the extended expansion potential of a finite Hubble volume?
Really all that means is that if there was one Big Bang, with only a few modifications in the theory, there could be a potentially infinite number of big bangs across the QWC landscape. One rather significant modification is that space and time are not coupled in the way that spacetime is characterized by General Relativity. Not being coupled in QWC means that space already existed, and the spacetime applicable to a single Big Bang is only valid within the individual arenas before the expansion of the arena is interrupted. Interruption occurs when an arena intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding arena due to the continual extending of the Hubble volume that makes up each arena.
I have no proof or evidence as repeated pointed out by AN. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch. I speculate that there is nothing to prevent multiple big crunches and bangs, and have adopted Fraggle Rocker’s use of the term “Hubble volume”. I have speculated that as Hubble volumes expand they will eventually intersect and interrupt the geometric expansion that is GR spacetime. This interruption results in the mixing and merging of the galactic material from multiple expanding Hubble volumes.
That mixing and merging results in the formation of new centers of gravity, and big crunches begin to form around new centers of gravity by accumulating the galactic material from the parent extended Hubble volumes that have intersected.