QWC document comments and criticisms

[quantum_wave]

Again, if you answer my question I'll respond to the actual topic of the thread. If you don't and you simply repeat your unjustified and hypocritical claims I'm 'fixated' etc then I'll simply continue to point to evidence you're a liar and a hypocrite.

You are fixated, hypocritical and everything is said in post #57. I've already wasted a couple of minutes on you today. Repeat the question, use the quote feature to point to the statement I made on topic, and I'll take a look. Your best bet is to answer my questions in post #32. In the mean time, link and document.

 

[quantum_wave]

Again, if you answer my question I'll respond to the actual topic of the thread. If you don't and you simply repeat your unjustified and hypocritical claims I'm 'fixated' etc then I'll simply continue to point to evidence you're a liar and a hypocrite.

I acknowledge that Prometheus has manned up and I take back all of the rhetoric focused on him refusing to admit when he is wrong and that I was right.

I also acknowledge that Guest254 seems to be satisfied by my acknowledgement that QWC is not science. He calls it storytelling and can accept it as such. I don’t argue with the characterization of it as storytelling with the caveat that there are no scientific answers as yet for the questions that I discuss in QWC.

AlphaNumeric on the other hand refuses to end the flame throwing. I will return the flames and will not be restrained by ethics and professionalism that he ignores when I respond to his “the ends justifies the means” approach. He is pretending to discredit everyone who presents ideas for discussion by casting the calls for proofs of the as yet un-provable and quantification of the unobservable.

He probably has nothing in his work worth crowing about and refuses to tell us about whatever it is because he imagines his intelligence to be superior to the lowly science enthusiasts who frequent these domains. What he means is that he can’t say in English what he is doing. He has to resort the elitist attitude about what he calls the “mainstream” science of string theory and that it can’t be put into “pop” language :smirk:. Everyone else is doing it including Susskind and Smolin. He proudly touts the math of string theory as some elixir of the ills of standard theory and standard models instead of what more and more professionals would call the denial of a failed career before it even begins.

AN, Let’s hear again what you have to say about people like me who discuss the cause of expansion, the presence of mass, and the connection between mass and gravity. Tell us again we are cranks if we haven’t modeled our ideas. Reconfirm your endless mindless statements that we are idiots to think that the current consensus may be wrong and getting wronger (coined word) in pursuing string theory? Tell us all again what stupid fools we all are and how you are so smart. Good luck finding a failed career in your little dead end niche.

And about your fixation with QWC and me for talking about it, get over it by just not responding to me or my posts in the QWC threads unless your post is on topic.

You can look forward to me referring you and everyone else to this thread when you do your flame throwing.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I also acknowledge that Guest254 seems to be satisfied by my acknowledgement that QWC is not science. He calls it storytelling and can accept it as such. I don’t argue with the characterization of it as storytelling with the caveat that there are no scientific answers as yet for the questions that I discuss in QWC.

I seriously doubt that he has any positive views of you so referring to him is hardly a good character reference.

AlphaNumeric on the other hand refuses to end the flame throwing.

I have called you a liar and an idiot when you have made it clear you are such a person. I haven't needed to come up with unprovoked or baseless accusations, unlike yourself. When you stop lying about me I'll stop calling you a liar. The links I provided illustrate I'm hardly making baseless comments about you.

I will return the flames and will not be restrained by ethics and professionalism that he ignores when I respond to his “the ends justifies the means” approach.

You haven't been restrained by those anyway. Your repeated refusal to answer a direct question about your accusations I wished you dead illustrates you are a liar, a hypocrite and you can't take what you give.

He probably has nothing in his work worth crowing about and refuses to tell us about whatever it is because he imagines his intelligence to be superior to the lowly science enthusiasts who frequent these domains.

I haven't refused at all. Please provide a link where I say I refuse to talk about it at all. I choose not to start threads on it because I see no need to discuss it with people. I'd either be accused of trying to show off or being condescending for posting something most people don't understand.

And I have said nothing about the intelligence of 'the lowly science enthusiasts who frequent these domains'. It's just I work in a specialised area. I can't understand C or Perl, because I haven't spent the time learning them. I can't speak Japanese, because I haven't spent the time learning them. My work took me a degree, a masters and 3 years of work to accomplish. Saying it's outside most people's experience and in an area few have any knowledge of isn't bragging or egotistical or pretending to be 'superior', it's a statement of fact.

If you wish me to discuss my work, start a thread in the maths and physics forum and I'll talk about it. But I'm not going to start a thread myself because it will inevitably attract "Stop showing off you smug jerk" comments. It's Catch 22. If I don't talk about my work I'm just someone who criticises others. If I post my work I'm trying to be 'superior'.

What he means is that he can’t say in English what he is doing.

I can. It's just that I don't see the need to try and push my work into people's faces. Unlike you, who needs multiple threads.

He has to resort the elitist attitude about what he calls the “mainstream” science of string theory and that it can’t be put into “pop” language :smirk:.

This is another example of you inventing a narrative about me which is based on nothing but your bias and dislike for me. If I'm wrong about this you should be able to provide a post of mine where I state I cannot explain my work at all in normal language.

And about you fixation with QWC and me for talking about it, get over it by just not responding to me or my posts in the QWC threads unless your post is on topic.

I go several days ignoring you and you goad me into replying by telling numerous lies, which I feel I should respond to. This post isn't about my 'fixation' with QWC or you, I don't give a shit about you, its about the fact you have repeatedly said untruths about me. What's the matter, couldn't you get anyone else to reply to your thread so you have to resort to the 'Fox News' method of just being confrontational by lying?

Tell us all again what stupid fools we all are and how you are so smart

I don't think everyone is a 'stupid fool'. You just happen to be one. I don't call Prom or Rpenner or DH or Ben or Cpt or Guest or Temur or QH 'stupid fools', even when I correct them on something. I call you a stupid lying hypocritical fool because you've shown time and again, as you have in this thread, that you deserve such adjectives. It's not that I'm so smart, I'm just smarter than you

You can look forward to me referring you and everyone else to this thread when you do your flame throwing.

So you'll refer people to a thread where you make claims you don't back up and avoid responding to direct questions and ignore your hypocrisy?

Please provide a link to a post of mine where I said its impossible to explain my work to layman, on any level, and that I refuse to talk about it at all. You keep asking me to quote your posts when I claim you say something, try following your own advice. But then you're a hypocrite so you don't.

 

[quantum_wave]

I seriously doubt that he has any positive views of you so referring to him is hardly a good character reference.

I have called you a liar and an idiot when you have made it clear you are such a person. I haven't needed to come up with unprovoked or baseless accusations, unlike yourself. When you stop lying about me I'll stop calling you a liar. The links I provided illustrate I'm hardly making baseless comments about you.

You haven't been restrained by those anyway. Your repeated refusal to answer a direct question about your accusations I wished you dead illustrates you are a liar, a hypocrite and you can't take what you give.

I haven't refused at all. Please provide a link where I say I refuse to talk about it at all. I choose not to start threads on it because I see no need to discuss it with people. I'd either be accused of trying to show off or being condescending for posting something most people don't understand.

And I have said nothing about the intelligence of 'the lowly science enthusiasts who frequent these domains'. It's just I work in a specialised area. I can't understand C or Perl, because I haven't spent the time learning them. I can't speak Japanese, because I haven't spent the time learning them. My work took me a degree, a masters and 3 years of work to accomplish. Saying it's outside most people's experience and in an area few have any knowledge of isn't bragging or egotistical or pretending to be 'superior', it's a statement of fact.

If you wish me to discuss my work, start a thread in the maths and physics forum and I'll talk about it. But I'm not going to start a thread myself because it will inevitably attract "Stop showing off you smug jerk" comments. It's Catch 22. If I don't talk about my work I'm just someone who criticises others. If I post my work I'm trying to be 'superior'.

I can. It's just that I don't see the need to try and push my work into people's faces. Unlike you, who needs multiple threads.

This is another example of you inventing a narrative about me which is based on nothing but your bias and dislike for me. If I'm wrong about this you should be able to provide a post of mine where I state I cannot explain my work at all in normal language.

I go several days ignoring you and you goad me into replying by telling numerous lies, which I feel I should respond to. This post isn't about my 'fixation' with QWC or you, I don't give a shit about you, its about the fact you have repeatedly said untruths about me. What's the matter, couldn't you get anyone else to reply to your thread so you have to resort to the 'Fox News' method of just being confrontational by lying?

I don't think everyone is a 'stupid fool'. You just happen to be one. I don't call Prom or Rpenner or DH or Ben or Cpt or Guest or Temur or QH 'stupid fools', even when I correct them on something. I call you a stupid lying hypocritical fool because you've shown time and again, as you have in this thread, that you deserve such adjectives. It's not that I'm so smart, I'm just smarter than you

So you'll refer people to a thread where you make claims you don't back up and avoid responding to direct questions and ignore your hypocrisy?

Please provide a link to a post of mine where I said its impossible to explain my work to layman, on any level, and that I refuse to talk about it at all. You keep asking me to quote your posts when I claim you say something, try following your own advice. But then you're a hypocrite so you don't.

That is the AN we all know and his faulty judgment and false characterizations of me personally is how I know him to be the lowest class of the forum; a fixated, self-deluded, insignificant, immature, ineffectual, worthless slug going nowhere fast; fish bait would be a better use of your protoplasm.

Just tell me this, do you think you are working on something that is on the verge of answering the questions I discuss about the cause of expansion, the presence of mass, the connection between mass and gravity, and the physical description of the inertial connect between all mass? Yes or no?

Do you think you can actually point to anything that I discuss on topic about those questions that is inconsistent with reasonable and responsible speculation about answers to those questions. Even one thing? I'll answer that for you, no you can't. That is what it boils down to fish bait.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As expected, you couldn't back up your claims what me supposedly stating I can't explain my work in layman's terms or that I think myself superior to all and sundry.

I know him to be the lowest class of the forum; a fixated, self-deluded, insignificant, immature, ineffectual, worthless slug going nowhere fast; fish bait would be a better use of your protoplasm.

A few posts back I provide links to threads and posts by you which illustrate all I've said about you correct. When I ask you to back up your claims about what I've supposedly said, you can't provide. It would seem you are projecting your own faults onto me. If I'm going nowhere fast, what does it say about you? I've accomplished more in maths and physics than you ever will.

Just tell me this, do you think you are working on something that is on the verge of answering the questions I discuss about the cause of expansion, the presence of mass, the connection between mass and gravity, and the physical description of the inertial connect between all mass? Yes or no?

My work does relate to a mechanism for expansion going into an exponential inflation period before returning to a more usual pace, yes. And I do have a paper on how to give particles mass without using the Higgs boson, yes. But mostly my work isn't in the areas you like to ramble on about, I never said otherwise, so trying to attack me for perhaps not addressing those questions is a strawman.

Do you think you can actually point to anything that I discuss on topic about those questions that is inconsistent with reasonable and responsible speculation about answers to those questions. Even one thing? I'll answer that for you, no you can't. That is what it boils down to fish bait.

Simply borrowing other people's ideas, removing the details and repainting them in your own terminology doesn't mean what you're doing is worthwhile.

Every time you try to insult me for 'going nowhere fast' or a lack of accomplishment you really do shoot yourself in the foot. I don't post my work on forums because I submit it to journals. I have no need to try to convince layman of the validity of my work on forums, I have journal mediated peer review. You keep posting thread after thread on your work and other than people saying you're a hack you get no replies.

You really should look at yourself before you try to insult me with such things.

 

[quantum_wave]

As expected, you couldn't back up your claims what me supposedly stating I can't explain my work in layman's terms or that I think myself superior to all and sundry.

Your tactics are well known so no links are necessary. Just click on your profile, statistics, posts by Fish Bait and you have all of the evidence you need. And need I remind you that in post #57, before you wasted fifteen minutes digging up all those links, I predicted that you wouldn’t link us to your unethical, unprofessional, fixated trolling posts, full of lies, half truths, sick twisted rhetoric and incorrect characterizations of me to which I was merely responding to in kind.

And you say I shoot myself in the foot :smirk: by pointing out your dead end nowhere career. I am trying to help. I know that you must be regretting your career choice. Perhaps it isn’t too late. I hope you didn’t borrow any money to fund your folly.

When you pretend that QWC is my “work” you are childishly ignoring my presentation characterizing it as an interest in cosmology by a financially independent business executive, retired early happily. And you or anyone calling me a hack must be evaluated in the light of your or their accomplishments and intelligence, which in your case amounts to two bits and puff of smoke.

You insult yourself by the way you brainlessly pretend I and others are deluded into thinking we have done meaningful “work” that science just hasn’t recognized. I do no such thing but you have no case if you don’t characterize my discussions that way. By falsely characterizing my threads you create a venue for bragging and lying. You are wrongly belittling sincere, educated, intelligent people calling them stupid idiots that deserve to be wronged for what you claim to be inflated attempts to cram something down your throat. It is your own lack of self worth that is behind your ridicule.

Many like me are simply trying to be aware of and discuss the progress and/or acknowledged problems facing science and especially cosmology. Expansion, mass, gravity and inertia are the fundamental questions and if you are working to advance science in those areas we are regretfully interested in the same things. That goes a long ways toward explaining your fixation with me and my ideas.

My work does relate to a mechanism for expansion going into an exponential inflation period before returning to a more usual pace, yes. And I do have a paper on how to give particles mass without using the Higgs boson, yes.

I already accept inflation and the changes in the expansion profile, and if you have anything worth half a toot about what causes the presence of mass spit it out. You don’t, you have zero progress, your field is at a dead end, and all I will say is that you are covering you arse for when and if the LHC fails to find data evidence of the Higgs mechanism. At least that is smart, even though there is no future in work aimed at giving particles mass until you acknowledge that the fundamental particles are composed of energy in quantum increments .

But mostly my work isn't in the areas you like to ramble on about, I never said otherwise, so trying to attack me for perhaps not addressing those questions is a strawman.

My rambling is about just that, the cause and profile of expansion, the cause of the presence of mass, the connection between mass and gravity, and the inertial connection between all mass. To wave off my discussion threads with a statement that we are talking about different phenomena is just as insincere as your lying twisted characterizations of me and QWC.


link and document.

Oops, make that: link and document.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your tactics are well known so no links are necessary.

Yet more hypocrisy. You request I quote posts when I claim you say something but you don't need to do likewise?

You lied, you have been caught out and now you're making excuses.

And you say I shoot myself in the foot :smirk: by pointing out your dead end nowhere career. I am trying to help. I know that you must be regretting your career choice. Perhaps it isn’t too late. I hope you didn’t borrow any money to fund your folly.

There's a lack of scientifically or technically educated people in the labour market of the UK and the US. Last month my father was talking with a regional head of Eon, one of the largest energy companies in the world, and was told that they struggle to find people with sufficient science backgrounds. Few people who do PhDs end up being academics, the majority go on to other areas of work, some of which make use of the skills learnt and used during a PhD. Being able to do original research in groups or solo in a highly technical area is a very good thing to have on a CV. People who have done PhDs in the same theoretical physics department as me have gone on to work in various banks, BAE systems (military aerospace research), Qinetiq (used to be part of BAE), Boeing, Airbus, GCHQ (crytoanalysis for the UK intelligence services), accounting, patent officer, teachers, as well as things unrelated to their science backgrounds. I'm highly skilled in mathematics, computational methods, able to do original work and I'm keen to learn new things. Those open a lot of doors compared to a GED.

I don't regret my choices for a second. If I get a postdoc place, great. If not I'll end up doing something I don't enjoy as much but I'll earn more money as a result. Tough choice!

And you or anyone calling me a hack must be evaluated in the light of your or their accomplishments and intelligence, which in your case amounts to two bits and puff of smoke.

I'm 26 and I have a degree in mathematics from possibly the best university for maths in the world, followed by a masters from the same place, 3 papers to my name and in less than a month a completed PhD thesis. I'd say that's a pretty good set of accomplishments and a sign of intelligence. In terms of academic and physics achievements I'm pretty sure I've got you beat. And we are in a physics forum so those are the kind of things relevant.

You are wrongly belittling sincere, educated, intelligent people calling them stupid idiots

I doubt you're sincere. And while some people I'm curt with a educated its not in physics.

That goes a long was toward explaining your fixation with me and my ideas.

I barely even talk about your ideas, other than to point out flaws in your logic. That's why you keep posting the same link, I refuse to talk about your nonsense unless you address my criticism. Your work is nothing like mine and has no contribution or influence on mine. You want me to be fixated but its quite clear I couldn't give two whoots about your ideas. In the last month I've spent more time cutting my toe nails than reading your work. Face it, no one cares about it. No one but you.

and if you have anything worth half a toot about what causes the presence of mass spit it out.

I've done work in relation to technicolour. Before I go into the details I'll give you a chance to go Google it.

You don’t, you have zero progress, your field is at a dead end,

And we're back to you inventing narrative about things you have no knowledge of. A sign of desperation.

and all I will say is that you are covering you arse for when and if the LHC fails to find data evidence of the Higgs mechanism

Technicolour is a way of acheiving the Higgs mechanism without the Higgs boson. I did say boson, not mechanism. See, that's the problem with you just making up your own little worlds based on nothing, you keep getting it wrong.

At least that is smart, even though there is no future in work aimed at giving particles mass until you acknowledge that the fundamental particles are composed of energy in quantum increments

The electroweak model says otherwise.

If you wish to talk to me about my work, start a new thread in the maths and physics forum so that we don't pollute your thread with material which might actually contribute to the physics community. I am happy to talk about it, just not in this thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yet more hypocrisy. You request I quote posts when I claim you say something but you don't need to do likewise?

You lied, you have been caught out and now you're making excuses.

...

I’m not hypocritical about lying. You didn’t catch me ‘cause I wasn’t hiding it like you are, and I’m not making excuses unless you say responding in kind needs any other excuse, Fish Bait (same as your equivalent terms “idiot” and “stupid”).

As for your degrees and a meaningful PhD (you hope), assuming you can’t document an IQ anywhere near the top where the few geniuses in your field would have to be, we won’t be impressed by grand claims about your accomplishments and thesis. You will be out brained and brained out.

I have addressed your criticism, repeatedly, and you blindly stick by your tired rhetoric that started the first day I posted and which has never risen out of the gutter. You deny being fixated and yet several posts ago you bragged or admitted to hundreds and hundreds of (lying twisted) posts on my threads.

And you clearly describe your work in areas that I discuss on my threads. You pretend there is something wrong with my logic or methodology but I have responded by acknowledging your criticisms and editing and modifying the QWC Google.doc. That is what I say I have been doing for years and yet you pretend I am chanting unchanging dogma.

There's a lack of scientifically or technically educated people in the labour market of the UK and the US. Last month my father was talking with a regional head of Eon, one of the largest energy companies in the world, and was told that they struggle to find people with sufficient science backgrounds. Few people who do PhDs end up being academics, the majority go on to other areas of work, some of which make use of the skills learnt and used during a PhD. Being able to do original research in groups or solo in a highly technical area is a very good thing to have on a CV. People who have done PhDs in the same theoretical physics department as me have gone on to work in various banks, BAE systems (military aerospace research), Qinetiq (used to be part of BAE), Boeing, Airbus, GCHQ (crytoanalysis for the UK intelligence services), accounting, patent officer, teachers, as well as things unrelated to their science backgrounds. I'm highly skilled in mathematics, computational methods, able
to do original work and I'm keen to learn new things. Those open a lot of doors compared to a GED.

I don't regret my choices for a second. If I get a postdoc place, great. If not I'll end up doing something I don't enjoy as much but I'll earn more money as a result. Tough choice!

True, and if you don’t go full bore into exotic math realms that are meaningless anyway, you will be better off. There is a silver lining in addition to making a lot more money. You never have to give up your hen scratching into the mechanisms of expansion and mass.

Technicolour is a way of achieving the Higgs mechanism without the Higgs boson. I did say boson, not mechanism. See, that's the problem with you just making up your own little worlds based on nothing, you keep getting it wrong.

Read that carefully fish bait.

And what if I start a thread about , “Technicolour as a way of achieving the Higgs mechanism without the Higgs boson”. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in Pseudoscience than in Physics and Math? I know you well enough to know not to start a thread and ask questions in Physics and Math about something you already brag about at the drop of a hat anyway. While the unlikely hood of you posting to a thread about that in Pseudoscience, especially one started by me, without your participation it would be useless. Who would be interested in either that or in QWC except for you and me?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I’m not hypocritical about lying. You didn’t catch me ‘cause I wasn’t hiding it like you are, and I’m not making excuses unless you say responding in kind needs any other excuse, Fish Bait (same as your equivalent terms “idiot” and “stupid”).

Lying and then admitting it doesn't absolve you of lying.

As for your degrees and a meaningful PhD (you hope), assuming you can’t document an IQ anywhere near the top where the few geniuses in your field would have to be, we won’t be impressed by grand claims about your accomplishments and thesis. You will be out brained and brained out.

I don't claim to be anywhere near the top of my area. But that doesn't mean I haven't accomplished something. I did ask you what you've done in the area of maths and physics, your silence speaks volumes.

I have addressed your criticism, repeatedly,

Shame you can't point to it, despite requests.

You deny being fixated and yet several posts ago you bragged or admitted to hundreds and hundreds of (lying twisted) posts on my threads.

Obviously my point was lost on you. You don't make up the majority of my posts, even in Pseudoscience. If I were fixated with you, you'd take up most of my attention. Being a prolific poster in general doesn't mean I'm fixated with any one topic.

And you clearly describe your work in areas that I discuss on my threads.

I haven't given any specific details of my work other than to give you the vaguest of areas the papers I've written are in. So unless you take 'clearly' to mean 'barely' you're incorrect.

You never have to give up your hen scratching into the mechanisms of expansion and mass.

Remember, attacking my accomplishments only serves to denigrate your work. You're a hack on a forum who can't even get the Pseudoscience nuts to believe you. Your total work is a Google document no one reads. My work gets published and cited by other researchers. If I'm 'hen scratching' you're even worse!

And what if I start a thread about , “Technicolour as a way of achieving the Higgs mechanism without the Higgs boson”. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in Pseudoscience than in Physics and Math?

Alternatives to the Higgs boson are c very much mainstream. Plenty of physicists don't like the idea of a fundamental scalar, they consider such things as top quark condensates or glueballs to be more viable. ArXiv has plenty of papers on technicolour or Higgs mechanisms without the Higgs boson. Simply because an area of research in the mainstream community hasn't come up in your Googling doesn't mean it isn't mainstream.

I know you well enough to know not to start a thread and ask questions in Physics and Math about something you already brag about at the drop of a hat anyway.

Yes, you'll know I'll mop the floor with you.

Who would be interested in either that or in QWC except for you and me?

Prometheus does research in a similar area to the work I did in relation to technicolour. I was even invited to give a talk at his university to his theory group on the paper I coauthored on it. And the other area I research, which makes up my thesis, is an area Ben works in.

Besides, the fact few layperson's would know much about my work is not a point against it. The areas I work in are active areas of research, done by people all around the world. I don't post my work here because most people wouldn't follow it or wish to put in the effort to follow it so unless I know someone specifically wants information its not worth the time. Your work is done by no one by you, has no impact on the physics community, has no basis in science and even the Pseudo crowd don't care. My work has few followers here because I don't advertise it and its quite technical. Your work, which you advertise all the time, has no followers despite it being aimed at laypersons. At each turn your accomplishments in maths and physics fall a long long way short of mine. Hence why you make up your little narratives and desperately try to convince yourself I'm 'fixated'. Your 'accomplishments' have lead you to that. Your inability to accept that failure explains a lot....

 

[quantum_wave]

Lying and then admitting it doesn't absolve you of lying.

To sum up your criticism, which hasn’t changed much for almost two years, I am a feckless hack with no accomplishments accept phony scenarios and a Google.doc which no one reads but through which I am deluding myself into thinking that I am busily at work doing meaningful science, oblivious to any reality and certainly far from addressing anything related to science. You on the other hand have false hopes of contributing twisted logic to a community that thrives on elegant equations that are so far removed from reality that even the father of String Theory acknowledges might lead to a potentially infinite number of different solutions in a dead end science that precludes you from even putting into English what you are working on while almost no one understands it and still fewer consider it to have merit, resulting in your delusion that you are anything but feckless in your fixation on a feckless phony deluded hack like me.

I am honestly and sincerely referring to you as fish bait, a characterization that is too apropos for you to walk away from without getting in the final stream of lying rhetoric. So let’s hear it. You’ll probably out live me unless you drink yourself to death at some suicide binge after exam week. Have one on me.

BTW, I just enjoyed Googling fundamental scalar, “top quark”, condensates or glueballs, and fish bait. Guess which was the only one to have a picture of you?

I did find this particularly disconcerting. Not in what it implies, but in the fact that there exists people who see the implications: Several proposals for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking and fermion mass generation involve strong gauge interactions with a characteristic scale of a few hundred GeV. The detection of the glueballs which should occur in such models would be a indication of the non-Abelian nature of the gauge theories operating at this scale. We discuss signatures for these particles.
M. V. Ramana.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To sum up your criticism, which hasn’t changed much for almost two years, I am a feckless hack with no accomplishments accept phony scenarios and a Google.doc which no one reads but through which I am deluding myself into thinking that I am busily at work doing meaningful science, oblivious to any reality and certainly far from addressing anything related to science.

Yep.

You on the other hand have false hopes of contributing twisted logic to a community that thrives on elegant equations that are so far removed from reality that even the father of String Theory acknowledges might lead to a potentially infinite number of different solutions in a dead end science

I see you've changed tactic. You've realised you can't win on the grounds of intelligence and accomplishment in science so rather than trying to say you've accomplished more than me you are now trying to give excuses about why to ignore my accomplishments.

hat precludes you from even putting into English what you are working on while almost no one understands it

Why do you bother with such transparent lies? I just said I am more than happy to explain my work to you in a seperate thread, you refused to take me up on the offer. You're doing what Kaneda used to do, complain I don't talk about my work and then refuse to accept my offer to discuss it!

and still fewer consider it to have merit, resulting in your delusion that you are anything but feckless in your fixation on a feckless phony deluded hack like me.

Let me know when you get cited in a published paper.

So let’s hear it. You’ll probably out live me unless you drink yourself to death at some suicide binge after exam week. Have one on me.

I don't have exams and I don't drink very much. Yet more of your unjustified ignorant narrative you invent to make yourself feel better.

BTW, I just enjoyed Googling fundamental scalar, “top quark”, condensates or glueballs, and fish bait. Guess which was the only one to have a picture of you?

Wow, what imaginative insults.

BTW, I just enjoyed Googling fundamental scalar, “top quark”, condensates or glueballs, and fish bait. Guess which was the only one to have a picture of you?]I did find this particularly disconcerting. Not in what it implies, but in the fact that there exists people who see the implications: Several proposals for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking and fermion mass generation involve strong gauge interactions with a characteristic scale of a few hundred GeV. The detection of the glueballs which should occur in such models would be a indication of the non-Abelian nature of the gauge theories operating at this scale. We discuss signatures for these particles.
M. V. Ramana.

Oh well done, a copy and paste of someone else's comments you don't understand.

 

[quantum_wave]

And so goes the meaningless confrontation fueled by the fixated ego of the feckless wonder, Fish Bait.

On the other hand, QWC remains a series of reasonable and responsible speculations starting from the departure points where science has no answers and presenting possibilities for discussion; and of course there is the QWC Google.doc.

AN's obvious frustration with me and QWC is that he can't find anything wrong with it in its currently evolved status (to which he as contributed). I have given him every opportunity to actually address the topic, even opened this thread for comments and criticism of QWC, and he fails to rise to the challenge of pointing to any errors. He has posted here right along, 17 posts so far, and hasn't addressed the content of QWC once. That tells us all we need to know about the subject of fixation and vendetta.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

He has posted here right along, 17 posts so far, and hasn't addressed the content of QWC once. That tells us all we need to know about the subject of fixation and vendetta.

17 posts and not addressed your work once. Yes, that really is fixation with it! You don't even realise you contradict yourself sentence by sentence!

AN's obvious frustration with me and QWC is that he can't find anything wrong with it in its currently evolved status (to which he as contributed). I have given him every opportunity to actually address the topic, even opened this thread for comments and criticism of QWC, and he fails to rise to the challenge of pointing to any errors.

There's no science in it and it 'resolves' none of the problems in physics you claim it does. Nothing more needs to be said, its worthless.

And I'm not frustrated with your 'work', its clear its a farce to everyone. I'm frustrated with the continual stream of lies you say about me. You have repeatedly invented narratives about me or made claims about me which are utterly false. You have said I'm incapable of talking about my work in plain English but its you who refuses to discuss it with me, I've offered repeatedly.

And so goes the meaningless confrontation fueled by the fixated ego of the feckless wonder, Fish Bait.

Which one of us is trying to advertise his 'work' all the time, starting thread after thread? You. Which one of us invents lies about the other? You. Which one of us hasn't accomplished anything in maths or science? You.

Yes, there is a fixated ego of a feckless idiot here but its yours. You stopped talking about accomplishments I see, realised you'd put your foot in it by challenging me on something you so completely fail on!

 

[quantum_wave]

17 posts and not addressed your work once. Yes, that really is fixation with it! You don't even realise you contradict yourself sentence by sentence!

There's no science in it and it 'resolves' none of the problems in physics you claim it does. Nothing more needs to be said, its worthless.

And I'm not frustrated with your 'work', its clear its a farce to everyone. I'm frustrated with the continual stream of lies you say about me. You have repeatedly invented narratives about me or made claims about me which are utterly false. You have said I'm incapable of talking about my work in plain English but its you who refuses to discuss it with me, I've offered repeatedly.

Which one of us is trying to advertise his 'work' all the time, starting thread after thread? You. Which one of us invents lies about the other? You. Which one of us hasn't accomplished anything in maths or science? You.

Yes, there is a fixated ego of a feckless idiot here but its yours. You stopped talking about accomplishments I see, realised you'd put your foot in it by challenging me on something you so completely fail on!

And Fish Bait responds.

QWC is based on some basic premises. I say so in the document and in my threads. If you don't believe that the universe has always existed you have no reason to be fixated by QWC, unless of course you wish to prove it has not. I would be open to that discussion.

If you don't believe in infinities you have no reason to be fixated by QWC because one premise is that space is infinite, could simply be empty but isn't; it is filled with energy leaving no empty space.

If you don't believe that energy could occupy all space, and if space is infinite then energy is infinite, then there is no reason to be fixated by QWC.

If you believe that energy and space haven't always existed in infinite proportions then you have no reason to be fixated by QWC which is based on the premise that space and energy have always existed.

If you believe that something can come from nothing then you have no reason to be fixated by QWC which is based on the premise that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If you can visualize our expanding universe, recognize the accelerating expansion, and believe it all came into existence from nothing 13.7 billion years ago you have no reason to be fixated by QWC.

If you believe that there was space and energy before the Big Bang then QWC might be of interest to you to the extent that it includes the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.

QWC discusses ideas about what could cause big crunches to form and what could cause them to result in "Big Bangs". But if you don't believe in "before" the Big Bang there is no reason to be fixated by QWC.

And then there are the scenarios, there are the levels of quantization, there are the limits and thresholds of energy density, none of which should cause fixation. They are offered for discussion, there is no product being offered or advertised, nothing like what Fish Bait claims and is fixated to combat.

It is discussion offered in a discussion forum.

 

[prometheus]

On the other hand, QWC remains a series of reasonable and responsible speculations starting from the departure points where science has no answers and presenting possibilities for discussion.

Translation into normal English: "QWC is a lot of made up, self inconsistent gibberish designed for nothing more than to feed the sense of self importance of the author."

Science is not a set of answers as such, it's a method. In the words of Dara O'Briain, "They say 'well science doesn’t know everything.' Well science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it would stop, but as well as that, just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale appeals to you."

 

[quantum_wave]

Translation into normal English: "QWC is a lot of made up, self inconsistent gibberish designed for nothing more than to feed the sense of self importance of the author."

You call it made up, Quest calls is story telling, I call it speculation for discussion.

First of all, is it OK to speculate on a discussion forum?

Science is not a set of answers as such, it's a method. In the words of Dara O'Briain, "They say 'well science doesn’t know everything.' Well science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it would stop, but as well as that, just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale appeals to you."

OK, then if you would like to go back to calling my speculations fairytales then you should first educate your self between what distinguishes speculation from fair tales.

Take the basic premise of a fairytale. Fantasy.

Take the basic premise of QWC. The universe has always existed and did not come from nothing and was not created by God. You dispute any part of that?

 

[prometheus]

You call it made up, Quest calls is story telling, I call it speculation for discussion.

You can call it what you like, but it doesn't alter what you are doing - being entirely creative and not scientific at all.

First of all, is it OK to speculate on a discussion forum?

I would point out in response to this, that this is a science forum and what you are discussing can in no sense be called science. I've made this point to you before, but speculation to a scientist means a very different thing to plucking "facts" out of the air. What may happen is a calculation will produce some result and then people will speculate on the interpretation.

A well known example of this is Hawking radiation. Hawking showed that black holes emit thermal radiation and speculated that it was caused by virtual pairs produces close to the horizon. Later, another paper by Wiczek and Parikh showed that a shell of particles can tunnel out of a black hole quantum mechanically, meaning Hawking's speculation was almost right but not quite. Calling what you do speculation does a disservice to real scientific speculation.

OK, then if you would like to go back to calling my speculations fairytales then you should first educate your self between what distinguishes speculation from fair tales.

Take the basic premise of a fairytale. Fantasy.

Take the basic premise of QWC. The universe has always existed and did not come from nothing and was not created by God. You dispute any part of that?

What you have is nothing more than a fairy story created by you. The point of it is different, yes, but what you have done is say "something causes the universe to expand," without explaining what that something is or what it does. You happen to have created a jargon phrase for the something (arena action) but you could just as easily replace that phrase with something more whimsical like a fulmar crossed with a duck for example, and the whole plot loses nothing. People use jargon because it means something. You are using jargon to make people think QWC means something, when really it means nothing.

 

[quantum_wave]

You can call it what you like, but it doesn't alter what you are doing - being entirely creative and not scientific at all.



I would point out in response to this, that this is a science forum and what you are discussing can in no sense be called science. I've made this point to you before, but speculation to a scientist means a very different thing to plucking "facts" out of the air. What may happen is a calculation will produce some result and then people will speculate on the interpretation.

A well known example of this is Hawking radiation. Hawking showed that black holes emit thermal radiation and speculated that it was caused by virtual pairs produces close to the horizon. Later, another paper by Wiczek and Parikh showed that a shell of particles can tunnel out of a black hole quantum mechanically, meaning Hawking's speculation was almost right but not quite. Calling what you do speculation does a disservice to real scientific speculation.



What you have is nothing more than a fairy story created by you. The point of it is different, yes, but what you have done is say "something causes the universe to expand," without explaining what that something is or what it does. You happen to have created a jargon phrase for the something (arena action) but you could just as easily replace that phrase with something more whimsical like a fulmar crossed with a duck for example, and the whole plot loses nothing. People use jargon because it means something. You are using jargon to make people think QWC means something, when really it means nothing.

So when I speculate, it isn't science as science would refer to speculation, and what I say as I speculate is made up jargon and could be replaced with words recognized as fantasy without changing the non-scientific nature of my speculations.

Now having said that, I'm sure that you will not be interested in discussing my specific speculations which are fantasy to you.

My basic premise is that the universe has always existed. I refer to that as a basic speculation upon which the rest of my speculations depend. Are you saying that I could just as well be saying that the universe could be called a toad stool, and the idea of it having always existed could be accommodated by saying that it was a magic toad stool? The universe is a magic toad stool and the thing that makes it magic is that it has always existed. That is your position on the subject?

If I prefer to call the toad stool the universe and I prefer to call its magic simply that it has always existed, can I expect you to troll with your claim that a statement like, "I speculate that the universe has always existed" is fantasy? If that is the extent of your objection, I be seeing your trolling for a long time because nothing you can say makes my statement fantasy instead of speculation. There is a difference between the two which I recognize and you do not.

 

[prometheus]

You'll notice that in the example I gave above, there was always evidence for the speculation. Hawking had evidence that the black hole had a temperature, meaning there must be a source for the thermal radiation. Currently, our knowledge is that the universe began some finite time in the past. What it the evidence with which you speculate that the universe has always existed?

 

[quantum_wave]

You'll notice that in the example I gave above, there was always evidence for the speculation. Hawking had evidence that the black hole had a temperature, meaning there must be a source for the thermal radiation. Currently, our knowledge is that the universe began some finite time in the past. What it the evidence with which you speculate that the universe has always existed?

I will be glad to go there with you but first, are you saying that it came from nothing about 13.7 billion years ago?