QWC document comments and criticisms

[quantum_wave]

Because, unlike you, professional have to develop their models from justifiable premises and, heaven forbid, be able to make predictions. Unlike your work they have to take heed of how the universe actually is.

Ideas are not synonymous with 'emerging science'. I have the idea the Moon is populated by invisible pink unicorns who speak Japanese. Is this 'emerging science'? Is fiction, deliberately fabricated stories, 'emerging science'?

Collaborative with no one? And your work is not 'well thought out', you can't even decide what your assumptions (ie axioms) are. And it is easily refuted, we've done it.

How can you consider consistency when you can't make your work logical and rigorous? You just claim it is.

You've spent all this time and yet you couldn't pass the entrance exams required to get onto any decent physics degree. Clearly you spent your time well.

Your comments are noted. Have you read the document?

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

Perhaps you would like to respond to what I said to Quest because your criticisms represent a difference of opinion and I have said that QWC is my opinion and speculation:

I don't claim to be doing science; I am discussing ideas about cosmology, and those ideas start with questions identified in the document that science cannot answer.

Perhaps you are criticizing QWC on that basis? Do you mean to say that science has the answers for the questions I ask? Or perhaps you are criticizing QWC for attempting to discuss those questions?

Here are three basic questions that I am saying that science cannot answer:
What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What are the mechanics of gravity?

In QWC I'm just discussing ideas about answers to these questions.

Why not have a go at answering those questions with your own ideas?

I must have missed where you address my asumptions and have refuted them after you collaborated with me on the axioms. My point is that the items I list as the basis of QWC were listed after we discussed the axioms. I inserted the basic ideas into the document and removed references to axioms as a result of our discussion. You collaborated and didn't acknowledge that the changes were made as a result of your collaboration. I linked you to the updated document. You didn't address the list of basics since then, but I did say that if you don't agree then QWC is not for you because QWC is based on them.

 

[Guest254]

I don't claim to be doing science...

Ahhh - in that case, I have no issue with what you're doing. I've nothing against people making up stories!

 

[quantum_wave]

Ahhh - in that case, I have no issue with what you're doing. I've nothing against people making up stories!

Characterize QWC any way you want but you took that quote out of context:

I don't claim to be doing science; I am discussing ideas about cosmology, and those ideas start with questions identified in the document that science cannot answer.

Perhaps you are criticizing QWC on that basis? Do you mean to say that science has the answers for the questions I ask? Or perhaps you are criticizing QWC for attempting to discuss those questions?

Here are three basic questions that I am saying that science cannot answer:
What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What are the mechanics of gravity?

In QWC I'm just discussing ideas about answers to these questions.

Context is everything.

Any thoughts about answers to the questions. That would be in context.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Perhaps you are criticizing QWC on that basis? Do you mean to say that science has the answers for the questions I ask? Or perhaps you are criticizing QWC for attempting to discuss those questions?

Or perhaps I'm criticising it because you make claims it's accomplished things it hasn't. You know, lying.

Here are three basic questions that I am saying that science cannot answer:
What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What are the mechanics of gravity?

In QWC I'm just discussing ideas about answers to these questions.

Well given you don't have any intention of constructing an actual model of gravity or inflation or some process by which mass is given to massless systems you have absolutely no intention of come up with testable ideas, so your guesses are simply that, guesses. And given you're ignorant of all science your guesses are not even informed guesses, making them completely random. Putting time and effort into a random guess doesn't make it less random.

Why not have a go at answering those questions with your own ideas?

I must have missed where you address my asumptions and have refuted them after you collaborated with me on the axioms.

Firstly, 'collaboration' is a bit of a stretch. Pointing out your grasp of logic was so terrible you couldn't work out if 3 statements were independent is hardly 'collaboration'. Collaboration would imply there was effort and work on my part, which there wasn't.

My point is that the items I list as the basis of QWC were listed after we discussed the axioms. I inserted the basic ideas into the document and removed references to axioms as a result of our discussion.

The problems are you haven't developed any formal theory, you've haven't used your axioms properly. Saying "But I've got axioms!" is only worthwhile if you then use those axioms and rigorous logic to construct their implications. You didn't. You don't. You just guess what you want the implications to be and proclaim they are. If you used the axioms properly then you could hand your axioms to someone well versed in logic and they'd construct an exact copy of QWC. But they wouldn't, because its all just guesses and bullshit. So your axioms are irrelevant.

You collaborated and didn't acknowledge that the changes were made as a result of your collaboration. I linked you to the updated document. You didn't address the list of basics since then, but I did say that if you don't agree then QWC is not for you because QWC is based on them.

As I just explained, QWC isn't constructed from the axioms in a rigorous way, you just have some superficial link between claims. That isn't how axiomatic logic works. Having 1+1=2 as axiomatic and then saying "Well 2+2 is kinda like 5 so I say that 1+1=2 implies 2+2=5" is obviously nonsense. You're just doing the pseudoscience version of that.

And I can't help but notice no one else wading into this discussion. Clearly another thread wasn't needed, you have absolutely zero supporters.

 

[quantum_wave]

Or perhaps I'm criticizing it because you make claims it's accomplished things it hasn't. You know, lying.

Well given you don't have any intention of constructing an actual model of gravity or inflation or some process by which mass is given to massless systems you have absolutely no intention of come up with testable ideas, so your guesses are simply that, guesses. And given you're ignorant of all science your guesses are not even informed guesses, making them completely random. Putting time and effort into a random guess doesn't make it less random.

Why not have a go at answering those questions with your own ideas?

Firstly, 'collaboration' is a bit of a stretch. Pointing out your grasp of logic was so terrible you couldn't work out if 3 statements were independent is hardly 'collaboration'. Collaboration would imply there was effort and work on my part, which there wasn't.

The problems are you haven't developed any formal theory, you've haven't used your axioms properly. Saying "But I've got axioms!" is only worthwhile if you then use those axioms and rigorous logic to construct their implications. You didn't. You don't. You just guess what you want the implications to be and proclaim they are. If you used the axioms properly then you could hand your axioms to someone well versed in logic and they'd construct an exact copy of QWC. But they wouldn't, because its all just guesses and bullshit. So your axioms are irrelevant.

As I just explained, QWC isn't constructed from the axioms in a rigorous way, you just have some superficial link between claims. That isn't how axiomatic logic works. Having 1+1=2 as axiomatic and then saying "Well 2+2 is kinda like 5 so I say that 1+1=2 implies 2+2=5" is obviously nonsense. You're just doing the pseudoscience version of that.

And I can't help but notice no one else wading into this discussion. Clearly another thread wasn't needed, you have absolutely zero supporters.

The context of QWC is in the document and you aren't displaying any recognition of the context or the document. Did you even read the document?

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

You mention me lying about claims and I linked you to the document. You didn't read it or you would know that criticism is without merit.

You say I didn't come up with a model or testable ideas and that I am too ignorant to have even informed guesses. To the contrary QWC is not a model or theory and suggests no tests. That is made clear in the document. And I am far from ignorant.

You collaborated. I thought you made good points about the axioms and about theory vs discussion of ideas and I removed references to axioms and theory, and emphasized that QWC was intended to be a discussion of ideas about answers to questions that science cannot yet answer. Discussion is simply discussion and the intelligence of those who enter into it isn't a qualifier.

The ideas I offer for discussion are far from random and you would know that if you paid any attention to the comments I have made. QWC uses a methodology that is discussed in the document. QWC is also a step by step process where the steps are clearly identified and the steps laid out for discussion. It is not a random arrangement as you claim.

You mentioned axioms and criticized them twice in this post and I said that I had agreed with you about the axioms and removed all reference to axioms and theory.

You mentioned that no one else is jumping into the discussion and criticize the fact that I started a thread that wasn't needed. To the contrary, much is being gained by me listening to Guest and you about the criticisms. I am acknowledging them and responding. I am linking you to the document each time you post so that you can read it. Your comments come across as if you think you know QWC and yet nothing you say makes any sense from the perspective of what I say QWC is.

You say that no one is supporting me as if that was a criticism. I agree that there is little interest in QWC but there have been many posters on the various threads and I have answered most of their questions satisfactorily, and have responded to most criticisms satisfactorily. But the fact that several people, you and Guest in particular are not satisfied, this thread is important. It gives you a chance to air you criticisms and me a chance to respond. I trust that if there were others who were not satisfied they would speak up. If they do I will answer their comments and criticisms. That is what this thread is for.

There is one part of what QWC is about that makes it worthwhile to me and that is that it allows me to contemplate answers to the questions that you can't answer and that infact there is no consensus answer too. If you do have ideas you have not shared any of them with me except in regard to axioms and theories. I share my ideas freely and the value of those ideas to you and others will naturally vary by individual.

 

[Guest254]

Characterize QWC any way you want but you took that quote out of context

Well, either you do claim to be doing science, or you don't. As long as you don't claim you're doing science, I have no problem with any stories you choose to tell.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, either you do claim to be doing science, or you don't. As long as you don't claim you're doing science, I have no problem with any stories you choose to tell.

I’m sort of disappointed because I liked answering your questions and think I showed a willingness to consider your approach. The problem is that it was your approach and not mine and if I was structured like you are I would probably have gone the way you tried to lead me. But you are a science professional and I am a retired professional accountant. You have a scientific method and I have a personal cosmology. No common ground and no reason for either of us to cut the other any slack beyond reasonable professional conduct. Thanks for your attention. If you are satisfied to leave things here, I accept your decision and comments.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I’m sort of disappointed because I liked answering your questions and think I showed a willingness to consider your approach.

The problem is you utterly failed to grasp the point of his approach. For instance, what is energy? I see cranks talk about it all the time as if its definition is obvious and trivial but what is it? Measuring the energy of a bunch of balls bouncing around a box is fine, their energy is kinetic. How do you define kinetic? What precisely is the amount of KE a ball has? The results of Newton are not obvious nor are they actually correct so saying "It's obviously $$\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$$!" isn't enough and clearly wrong. And then something as abstract as the energy in an electromagnetic field or a space-time region is even harder to pin down.

Guest's approach is to be able to rigorously state what it is. The energy of a system is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. If the Hamiltonian is time independent then energy is conserved.

You can't talk about energy if you can't state what it is. If someone gives you a system can you define and quantify the energy? If not then you're guessing about its behaviour.

 

[quantum_wave]

The problem is you utterly failed to grasp the point of his approach. For instance, what is energy? I see cranks talk about it all the time as if its definition is obvious and trivial but what is it? Measuring the energy of a bunch of balls bouncing around a box is fine, their energy is kinetic. How do you define kinetic? What precisely is the amount of KE a ball has? The results of Newton are not obvious nor are they actually correct so saying "It's obviously $$\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$$!" isn't enough and clearly wrong. And then something as abstract as the energy in an electromagnetic field or a space-time region is even harder to pin down.

Guest's approach is to be able to rigorously state what it is. The energy of a system is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. If the Hamiltonian is time independent then energy is conserved.

You can't talk about energy if you can't state what it is. If someone gives you a system can you define and quantify the energy? If not then you're guessing about its behaviour.

You are wrong about me utterly failing to grasp his approach. You quite missed my long standing point. Context; context is everything. For example in this post I will refer to text in the document and link you to the Google.doc where I make it clear what I mean by energy. If you read it with your comprehension hat on you will pick up on the distinction between existing theory (your understanding of energy) and the ideas I discuss in QWC.

The energy that you are explaining is not the energy that I describe in QWC. I am aware of what you were explaining and you are unaware that QWC deals with energy at a different level of order from what you have learned and discuss in your field. That matters when you discuss it with me because you may mistakenly think that I have used the definition of energy that you have learned and work with.

The Hamiltonian is nomenclature of Quantum Field Theory and suggests you are working with quantum mechanical models and relativistic quantum field theory. I don’t consider QFT to be the final answer and you probably know as much (OK, a lot more) than I do about QFT and the relationship between quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and relativity. QFT does not meet the requirement of working with energy in QWC. But as you might have surmised, though I accept much of BBT, i.e. much of GR, in QWC I identify departure points and go beyond them using no one’s existing theory. That is where I apply the bottom up approach and the methodology of “reasonable and responsible step by step speculation”, and that is why QWC is so alien to you, having never grasped the details of it. To discuss it intelligently you have to grasp the bigger picture of QWC and you haven’t shown any proclivity in that respect. Don’t feel alone, but don’t go off thinking you understand energy in QWC half as well as I understand what might be called the standard model energy consensus.

Refer to where I explain the level of order in regards to quantization where the quantum level in QWC is characterized by tiny energy increments that could number billions of increments relative to a single proton. Obviously it is not solely your granddaddy’s QFT at work in QWC. And you should be aware of the description of energy that I open the document with. If you were you would note that in QWC energy fills all space. Can you say that in the description of energy in the universe that you have learned about and work with or not? If not, then you have to reject QWC or try to grasp why energy has to be different in QWC. The reason why energy has to be different may be an interesting story as Guest would say, but not if you have no interest in discussing anything at all in the QWC context. It is a simple explanation but I am getting far afield from your post. Instead of me cutting and pasting large uninteresting sections of the Google.doc, here is the link to the document that I promised:

link

 

[AlphaNumeric]

where I make it clear what I mean by energy.

A wordy and vague definition based on your experience and your 'intuition'.

I am aware of what you were explaining and you are unaware that QWC deals with energy at a different level of order from what you have learned and discuss in your field. That matters when you discuss it with me because you may mistakenly think that I have used the definition of energy that you have learned and work with.

No, my entire point is that you don't have a decent definition of energy, it's all vague and wish-washy so you aren't working on the same meaning as mainstream physics because you aren't working with a precise and rigorous definition in any way.

The Hamiltonian is nomenclature of Quantum Field Theory and suggests you are working with quantum mechanical models and relativistic quantum field theory. I don’t consider QFT to be the final answer and you probably know as much (OK, a lot more) than I do about QFT and the relationship between quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and relativity.

The Hamiltonian is named as Hamilton, who died in 1865. Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are used in quantum field theory but they were originally developed by Lagrange and Hamilton for classical mechanics. Its much easier to use Lagrangian methods to work out the motion of a spinning top than to use Newton's Laws. Quantum fields or pressurised gases or simply throwing a ball in the air. All of them can be (and are) modelled by Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. The definition of energy is common to them all. The conservation of energy is any given system is derived in the same way. The definition of energy for a ball rolling down a hill in Newtonian mechanics follows in precisely the same manner as the definition of energy for strongly coupled gauge fields in quantum field theory.

But well done on showing your extensive reading is a lot less extensive than you would like to believe it is.

QFT does not meet the requirement of working with energy in QWC.

Which is your way of saying "I don't understand it" since QWC is you tryign to rewrite physics to be your personal interpretation.

But as you might have surmised, though I accept much of BBT, i.e. much of GR, in QWC I identify departure points and go beyond them using no one’s existing theory.

You can't accept GR because its definition of energy follows the same manner as QFT. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods are used there too and you just said you don't use the QFT energy definition. Further more, you have none of the framework of GR in your work. None of your 'steps' lead to GR so you can't just say "I accept some of it". Further more you can't just pick and choose what you like from GR, because they are all implications of the founding postulates of GR. It's like saying "I accept special relativity's postulates but not its prediction of time dilation". The postulates DEMAND time dilation, if you don't accept the implications then you must disagree with one or more of the postulates. In GR you can't accept light bending but not the precession of Mercury. It's ways to consistently alter GR while retaining most of its predictions are very very constrained. It's something a huge amount of literature has been done on. Not that you'd know.

That is where I apply the bottom up approach and the methodology of “reasonable and responsible step by step speculation”, and that is why QWC is so alien to you, having never grasped the details of it.

Guest just tried to go through a step by step bottom up approach and you failed almost immediately. It isn't alien to me, I'm more than a little familiar with axiomatic constructions, its the foundations of mathematics. The fact both Guest and I think you're talking crap isn't because we're not familiar with 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation', what the fuck do you think physics research is? It's the fact you're just making shit up and claiming you have 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation' .

Refer to where I explain the level of order in regards to quantization where the quantum level in QWC is characterized by tiny energy increments that could number billions of increments relative to a single proton. Obviously it is not solely your granddaddy’s QFT at work in QWC.

If its not quantisation then don't call it quantisation. Quantisation implies the kind of things Guest mentioned, rigged Hilbert spaces and non-commuting operators. You have no formal structure so you aren't 'quantising'. You're just saying "Energy comes in chunks". And given you have no experimental justification for the claims you're talking about other than reading wordy explainations of the history of QM on Wikipedia you're not basing your work on experiments.

And the reason "it is not solely your granddaddy’s QFT at work in QWC." is because you don't know QFT. At all. Hell, given you think Hamiltonians are the exclusive domain of QFT you don't even know classical mechanics. Excellent foundation to rewrite physics!

The reason why energy has to be different may be an interesting story

No, it wouldn't. The story is short and simple; if it were the same definition as mainstream physics you'd instantly have all your work falsified because its inconsistent with mainstream work and experiments. So you have to rely on "I use different definitions to you" to try to delude yourself you're not just talking shit.

 

[quantum_wave]

A wordy and vague definition based on your experience and your 'intuition'.

No, my entire point is that you don't have a decent definition of energy, it's all vague and wish-washy so you aren't working on the same meaning as mainstream physics because you aren't working with a precise and rigorous definition in any way.

The Hamiltonian is named as Hamilton, who died in 1865. Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are used in quantum field theory but they were originally developed by Lagrange and Hamilton for classical mechanics. Its much easier to use Lagrangian methods to work out the motion of a spinning top than to use Newton's Laws. Quantum fields or pressurised gases or simply throwing a ball in the air. All of them can be (and are) modelled by Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. The definition of energy is common to them all. The conservation of energy is any given system is derived in the same way. The definition of energy for a ball rolling down a hill in Newtonian mechanics follows in precisely the same manner as the definition of energy for strongly coupled gauge fields in quantum field theory.

But well done on showing your extensive reading is a lot less extensive than you would like to believe it is.

Which is your way of saying "I don't understand it" since QWC is you tryign to rewrite physics to be your personal interpretation.

You can't accept GR because its definition of energy follows the same manner as QFT. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods are used there too and you just said you don't use the QFT energy definition. Further more, you have none of the framework of GR in your work. None of your 'steps' lead to GR so you can't just say "I accept some of it". Further more you can't just pick and choose what you like from GR, because they are all implications of the founding postulates of GR. It's like saying "I accept special relativity's postulates but not its prediction of time dilation". The postulates DEMAND time dilation, if you don't accept the implications then you must disagree with one or more of the postulates. In GR you can't accept light bending but not the precession of Mercury. It's ways to consistently alter GR while retaining most of its predictions are very very constrained. It's something a huge amount of literature has been done on. Not that you'd know.

Guest just tried to go through a step by step bottom up approach and you failed almost immediately. It isn't alien to me, I'm more than a little familiar with axiomatic constructions, its the foundations of mathematics. The fact both Guest and I think you're talking crap isn't because we're not familiar with 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation', what the fuck do you think physics research is? It's the fact you're just making shit up and claiming you have 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation' .

If its not quantisation then don't call it quantisation. Quantisation implies the kind of things Guest mentioned, rigged Hilbert spaces and non-commuting operators. You have no formal structure so you aren't 'quantising'. You're just saying "Energy comes in chunks". And given you have no experimental justification for the claims you're talking about other than reading wordy explainations of the history of QM on Wikipedia you're not basing your work on experiments.

And the reason "it is not solely your granddaddy’s QFT at work in QWC." is because you don't know QFT. At all. Hell, given you think Hamiltonians are the exclusive domain of QFT you don't even know classical mechanics. Excellent foundation to rewrite physics!

No, it wouldn't. The story is short and simple; if it were the same definition as mainstream physics you'd instantly have all your work falsified because its inconsistent with mainstream work and experiments. So you have to rely on "I use different definitions to you" to try to delude yourself you're not just talking shit.

You almost seem to be intentionally antagonistic and yet you are insistent that I am too ignorant to bother with. You are repeating the same criticisms and they are as much about me as about QWC.

 

[quantum_wave]

A wordy and vague definition based on your experience and your 'intuition'.

No, my entire point is that you don't have a decent definition of energy, it's all vague and wish-washy so you aren't working on the same meaning as mainstream physics because you aren't working with a precise and rigorous definition in any way.

The Hamiltonian is named as Hamilton, who died in 1865. Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are used in quantum field theory but they were originally developed by Lagrange and Hamilton for classical mechanics. Its much easier to use Lagrangian methods to work out the motion of a spinning top than to use Newton's Laws. Quantum fields or pressurised gases or simply throwing a ball in the air. All of them can be (and are) modelled by Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. The definition of energy is common to them all. The conservation of energy is any given system is derived in the same way. The definition of energy for a ball rolling down a hill in Newtonian mechanics follows in precisely the same manner as the definition of energy for strongly coupled gauge fields in quantum field theory.

But well done on showing your extensive reading is a lot less extensive than you would like to believe it is.

Which is your way of saying "I don't understand it" since QWC is you tryign to rewrite physics to be your personal interpretation.

You can't accept GR because its definition of energy follows the same manner as QFT. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods are used there too and you just said you don't use the QFT energy definition. Further more, you have none of the framework of GR in your work. None of your 'steps' lead to GR so you can't just say "I accept some of it". Further more you can't just pick and choose what you like from GR, because they are all implications of the founding postulates of GR. It's like saying "I accept special relativity's postulates but not its prediction of time dilation". The postulates DEMAND time dilation, if you don't accept the implications then you must disagree with one or more of the postulates. In GR you can't accept light bending but not the precession of Mercury. It's ways to consistently alter GR while retaining most of its predictions are very very constrained. It's something a huge amount of literature has been done on. Not that you'd know.

Guest just tried to go through a step by step bottom up approach and you failed almost immediately. It isn't alien to me, I'm more than a little familiar with axiomatic constructions, its the foundations of mathematics. The fact both Guest and I think you're talking crap isn't because we're not familiar with 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation', what the fuck do you think physics research is? It's the fact you're just making shit up and claiming you have 'reasonable and responsible step by step speculation' .

If its not quantisation then don't call it quantisation. Quantisation implies the kind of things Guest mentioned, rigged Hilbert spaces and non-commuting operators. You have no formal structure so you aren't 'quantising'. You're just saying "Energy comes in chunks". And given you have no experimental justification for the claims you're talking about other than reading wordy explainations of the history of QM on Wikipedia you're not basing your work on experiments.

And the reason "it is not solely your granddaddy’s QFT at work in QWC." is because you don't know QFT. At all. Hell, given you think Hamiltonians are the exclusive domain of QFT you don't even know classical mechanics. Excellent foundation to rewrite physics!

No, it wouldn't. The story is short and simple; if it were the same definition as mainstream physics you'd instantly have all your work falsified because its inconsistent with mainstream work and experiments. So you have to rely on "I use different definitions to you" to try to delude yourself you're not just talking shit.

I didn’t adequately respond to your last post since yesterday was my birthday and last night my wife had planned dinner and a movie.

This is the last paragraph in the Preface to QWC in the Google.doc:

“QWC is for those non-professionals who get excited when they think about what the universe might turn out to be like when the professionals get around to figuring it out. Study and contemplate QWC and you could come to appreciate how, in my view of the universe, all of the pieces would be connected and work together without the incompleteness and incompatibilities that characterize the current consensus on Cosmology . Think it, feel it, love it.”

(End of quote)

So QWC is not for professionals but it is presented as my personal view of cosmology for any interested non-professional until the professionals arrive at a consensus on answers to the basic questions asked by QWC. Then I am with them.

So if you as a professional get so interested in QWC or in me for discussing QWC then do you have the answers? There are only two reasons a professional would be as interested as you are. One would be to point out where my speculations are inconsistent with observations and data, and the other would be to answer the questions that QWC is all about.

What I am using this thread for is to let you air your comments and criticism of QWC. I have responded with text from the document that was meant to mitigate you criticism. All of the criticisms from you about QWC have been addressed. I removed the axioms. I removed the reference to theory. I clarified that I didn’t consider my speculations as “doing” science. I mentioned that QWC was intended for us non-professional scientists. I explained that I am offering ideas and speculation that are mine and that have been gathered from various sources including collaboration from others. I have said what QWC is, its methodology, the questions that science can’t yet answer, and step by step bottom up collaborative speculation about possible answers to those questions for discussion purposes.

You are pointing out what QWC does not do and sprinkling in why think it does not do it. The biggest criticism of why it doesn’t do what you insist it should do is that I am not qualified to answer the questions. That is a non-sequitur from what I say QWC is about. Your hesitation to address what QWC is instead of what it is not is another big non-sequitur. Your insistence that it is worth nothing unless it does what you say it should is also a non-sequitur. I say why I discuss it and you are not satisfied with the “why”.


If you are a professional scientist and don’t want to discuss what QWC is then to be in context you must address QWC from the perspective that you think you have the universe figured out and want to show me and others the great truths that we have missed. My test of your credibility as a professional addressing QWC is to expect you to answer the questions that you say I don’t answer to your satisfaction.

If as a professional you can answer these questions I will stop discussing QWC and will spend my time appreciating you and those professionals who answered the questions.

The questions:

What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What causes gravity?

If you as a professional continue to show unusual interest in me posting and discussing QWC, but yet will not answer those questions, then I will suspect that you intend to be antagonistic. For a professional being antagonistic is not reasonable or responsible behavior. A professional who repeatedly demonstrates unprofessional behavior should not be enabled. I would be guilty of enabling your unbecoming unprofessional behavior by responding to your antagonism. A link to this thread would seem to me to be the appropriate response to such an individual.

I wish anyone who disagrees with the logic behind me taking that stance would comment with your opinion about why you feel I am not being logical if I simply ignore such a professional and post a link to this thread and to my Googl.doc to explain my behavior.

Like this:

link and document

So AlphaNumeric, you can read and comprehend this post and see that I expect you to answer the questions, discuss the ideas in the document, or stop that antagonism. If you don’t, then beyond this thread my response to any of your posts on my threads will be link and document.

How do you answer.

 

[quantum_wave]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2440696&postcount=134

No, you'll find there's plenty of people who expect grand claims to be backed up with grand evidence. It's just you tend to avoid them because you don't like it when they point out your flaws and mistakes.

No, I have linked you to this thread from other threads because you refer to having pointed out flaws and mistakes in QWC. To the limited extent that your statement is true I have made the changes that we have discussed in the past, but all of the flaws and mistakes that you have so kindly pointed out have been corrected. Please respond to post #32, or go to the document, find a flaw or mistake so that I can continue the process. That is how QWC has evolved and will continue to evolve. Of course that would again make you a collaborator for which I am always thankful.

I am quite certain that I have addressed all comments from everyone who has commented and have made changes to the document many times as a result. See the updated document to verify that statement.

 

[prometheus]

I am quite certain that I have addressed all comments from everyone who has commented and have made changes to the document many times as a result. See the updated document to verify that statement.

It still looks like the same old dross to me.

 

[quantum_wave]

It still looks like the same old dross to me.

I have pointed out that QWC is based on my personal view that the universe has always existed. I go into my speculations in the document, step by step. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have commented that you don't believe that it is possible for the universe to have always existed because you say we couldn't get now if it had. See this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95074

Do you still think that? Because instead of trolling, why not make your case?

 

[prometheus]

You keep touting the same tired lies and I keep replying with the same thing - I have made my case and you have not provided any logical argument to refute it. If you look here you'll see that we've been over this before and your "argument" was to stamp your feet and say "you can't have 2 events separated by an infinite period of time," expecting people simply to take your word for it. Well that's not going to happen, because 1) I wouldn't accept that from a staff member in the university where I work and 2) because you are a good deal less blessed in the brain department than the people I work with, so I trust your opinion even less.

My case has been made - time always existing implies events can be infinitely far apart. Why not explain why this view is deficient, if you can.

 

[quantum_wave]

You keep touting the same tired lies and I keep replying with the same thing - I have made my case and you have not provided any logical argument to refute it. If you look here you'll see that we've been over this before and your "argument" was to stamp your feet and say "you can't have 2 events separated by an infinite period of time," expecting people simply to take your word for it. Well that's not going to happen, because 1) I wouldn't accept that from a staff member in the university where I work and 2) because you are a good deal less blessed in the brain department than the people I work with, so I trust your opinion even less.

My case has been made - time always existing implies events can be infinitely far apart. Why not explain why this view is deficient, if you can.

First of all, you made my day. Getting up, pouring a cup of coffee, turn on the computer, read through my emails and there is this post from you. And of course, getting a post from you is not particularly exciting most of the time but that post makes my day.

You ask why I don’t explain why your view is deficient if I can. I can and will again in this post but you don't grasp it. If you did you would never persist in your brainless pursuit to show you are right about this.

You say you have made your case and link us here. That is just silly. That is part of what made my day . Thank you.

But it also makes my day that you lead off your post with the name calling that is your hallmark. I usually respond in kind just to keep from being a wimp, but in this case the accusation of me posting tired lies while you on the other hand have made your case, well that is too rich to get mad about.

You say we have been over this before and I stamp my feet and repeat that you can’t have two events separated by an infinite period of time. And then you seem to say I am deluding myself into thinking that I expect people to simply take my word for it. That is what you say I am doing with my view in QWC as well. That is silly, false, and wrongheaded on your part. I am not expecting any such thing.

You lead off your post saying I am lying, then you say I expect others to just except my lies, then you link us to a post that makes my logical point that refutes you, and you cap it off saying:

Well that's not going to happen, because 1) I wouldn't accept that from a staff member in the university where I work and 2) because you are a good deal less blessed in the brain department than the people I work with, so I trust your opinion even less.

You say you wouldn’t accept that from a staff member in the university where you work? Funny, LOL. Have you asked any staff members to evaluate your position on this? I wouldn’t if I were you. And then you make the statement that I am a good deal less blessed in the brain department than the people you work with. If this issue is the example that you are basing that statement on, I bet I’m not.

My case has been made - time always existing implies events can be infinitely far apart.

I am going to present a logical argument to refute that.

An event occurs at a point in time. Do you consider that acceptable or is it one of my lies that I just expect everyone to believe because I say so?

Two events that occur at two different points in time are therefore separated by a period of time. I know you agree with that because you say:

My case has been made - time always existing implies events can be infinitely far apart.

I say that you cannot have two events separated by an infinite period of time. That is the exact statement I made that you referred to as stomping my feet and expecting everyone to just accept it because I say so, isn’t it? I’m saying it again. Not stomping my feet, not expecting people to believe it just because I say so, but because it is true.

Here is the proof: Identify two points in time; any two separate points in time by date. If you say that one or both of the points don’t have dates because we didn’t start dating events until 13.7 billion years ago then that itself makes my point. But if you say one event occurred a trillion years in the past, and the other date is a trillion years in the future, then both events have been attributed to separate points in time. Choose any two events and locate their points in time if you want to use other events and times. This works with any two events that are marked by separate points in time.

The length of time between the two events that I chose for you would be two trillion years. That is a finite length of time. You cannot name two events that occur at two separate points in time that can be infinitely far apart. Try it.

 

[prometheus]

I'm going to remove the rhetoric and vacuous crap in your post:

Here is the proof: Identify two points in time; any two separate points in time by date. If you say that one or both of the points don’t have dates because we didn’t start dating events until 13.7 billion years ago then that itself makes my point. But if you say one event occurred a trillion years in the past, and the other date is a trillion years in the future, then both events have been attributed to separate points in time. Choose any two events and locate their points in time if you want to use other events and times. This works with any two events that are marked by separate points in time.

The length of time between the two events that I chose for you would be two trillion years. That is a finite length of time. You cannot name two events that occur at two separate points in time that can be infinitely far apart. Try it.

Firstly, I should point out that I have been having I conversation about this with someone via PM (thanks - you know who you are) who has convinced me that I was wrong to say that you can have events separated by an infinite period of time. You haven't convinced me and what you provide is no proof at all - please explain why it is not possible to have events separated by an infinite period of time. At the moment what you have done is define a system of finite intervals. Doing that does not rule out infinite intervals.

So like the proverbial horde of monkeys you've managed you type out a sentence - congratulations. Remember though, that you are still a monkey - you don't understand it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm going to remove the rhetoric and vacuous crap in your post:



Firstly, I should point out that I have been having I conversation about this with someone via PM (thanks - you know who you are) who has convinced me that I was wrong to say that you can have events separated by an infinite period of time. You haven't convinced me and what you provide is no proof at all - please explain why it is not possible to have events separated by an infinite period of time. At the moment what you have done is define a system of finite intervals. Doing that does not rule out infinite intervals.

So like the proverbial horde of monkeys you've managed you type out a sentence - congratulations. Remember though, that you are still a monkey - you don't understand it.

Have it your way.

You said you were going to remove the rhetoric and vacuous crap from my post but what you removed were the parts where I quoted you.

Then you mention some nameless and perhaps imaginary guru who has come to you in a private message or was it a vision or something and has set you straight.

And you say the guru said you were wrong but I wasn’t right.

And the accusation that I don’t understand hinges on the use of the word proof. Perhaps you got that from your guru? Proof can always be refuted. Proof for one is never irrefutable by or transferable to another. Do you want to dispute that next?

But my proof is the challenge to you to “try it”. Apparently you tried it, discovered I was right, and can’t man up.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
So like the proverbial horde of monkeys you've managed you type out a sentence - congratulations. Remember though, that you are still a monkey - you don't understand it.

I was hoping you would man up about the fact that I was right and you were wrong. But instead, someone you respect says you are wrong and you thank them for getting you to understand, and then you turn around and prove that you don’t yet understand.

You haven't convinced me and what you provide is no proof at all - please explain why it is not possible to have events separated by an infinite period of time. At the moment what you have done is define a system of finite intervals. Doing that does not rule out infinite intervals.

Do you stick by this?

And to top it off you say:

Remember though, that you are still a monkey - you don't understand it.

I do understand it. You don’t.

Please tell me if you see the oxymoron in your phrase, “infinite intervals”. Do I need to start a thread so you can get your gurus and respected friends to support this mathematical concept of initinite intervals or will you just admit you still don't understand that you cannot have an infinite amount of time between two events. Or maybe you can difine an interval that doesn't start and stop?