Does that mean you're actually going to partake in a discussion then?
QWC document comments and criticisms
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
You know that I have stated that you don’t show any intention to discuss QWC and that you have trolled my threads with repeated accusations of pure fantasy and outlandish claims that if the universe had always existed we could never get to now. You have lied about me claiming that there was any evidence for any particular explanation for the existence of the universe, and I have exposed that lie. And you pretend now, after reporting my thread and requesting that it be closed and moved to the cesspool, that I am the one who doesn’t want to discuss anything with you.
Because I know that the moderators don’t’ have time to go back and look at your trolling activity, your insincere and belittling responses, you endless requests for proof of things that can’t be observed, quantified or proven, and you six month long vendetta on many of my threads about me proving that there can’t be an infinite interval, I am offering this post.
You lied, you trolled, I called you on it, you denied it and kept it up, and I said that as far as I was concerned you had suspended the rules of decorum and I was no longer going to follow rules of decorum when responding to you. That is where the Fish Bait name came from that I now use for you and others who have practiced the same tactics.
Note to moderators, I am willing to discuss QWC on topic on this thread with anyone who has a comment or criticism. But after I deal with those comments and criticisms appropriately, if the same comments and criticisms are perpetuated by the same people I will not complain to moderators, I will consider the perpetrator of the perpetuation to be trolling and lying. Trolling and lying suspends the rules of how I treat and respond to them on my thread and they become Fish Bait or the like.
Myself and others have asked you many genuine questions and you call it trolling. You make claims without backing them up, get asked for evidence and call it lying.
You've made no effort to discuss anything in your last 2 threads at least, instead you prefer you make empty accusations and ineffectual insults. I don't know what the point of creating them is if you have no intention of discussion, it seems like a lot of effort to me.
Also, you claim I have a vendetta. I've been more actively partaking in this thread in the last few days and I reckon that it's taken about 15 - 20 minutes total. This is at a time where I'm on holiday from work so that amount of time is truly insignificant. On the other hand I dread to think of the amount of time you've spent on the blog, google doc and multiple long threads.
If you are willing to discuss it then lets discuss it. If you're just going to come back with the same tired accusations and insults then the thread should die.
You've made no effort to discuss anything in your last 2 threads at least, instead you prefer you make empty accusations and ineffectual insults. I don't know what the point of creating them is if you have no intention of discussion, it seems like a lot of effort to me.
Also, you claim I have a vendetta. I've been more actively partaking in this thread in the last few days and I reckon that it's taken about 15 - 20 minutes total. This is at a time where I'm on holiday from work so that amount of time is truly insignificant. On the other hand I dread to think of the amount of time you've spent on the blog, google doc and multiple long threads.
If you are willing to discuss it then lets discuss it. If you're just going to come back with the same tired accusations and insults then the thread should die.
That's the thing, cranks post their work on forums or type up a single document and constantly refer to it. All of their 'accomplishments' are on display for all to see. And it generally fails to impress anyone but other cranks. You, myself and various others actually in the maths or physics community don't talk about our work much on forums. As a result cranks think we have no work because the only way they ever interact with other people to discuss their work is to make forum posts on their 'theory of everything' or the like. More than once I've had a crank say to me "Oh yeah, well where's your work?" simply because I've commented on the work they post without posting my own work. Cranks too often see the sum of a person's forum post as the sum of all their physics or maths work, which is never the case for anyone in the physics community.
Q_w knows that you and I have published work and thus have accomplished much more than him so he's trying to denigrate that work, to try to convince people (ie himself) that his comments on us having failed to accomplish anything or working in a dead end area are not just vacuous and baseless insults he wants to be true but actually aren't.
More than once I've offered him to discuss my work with me, in as detailed or layman a discussion as needs be, but he's turned me down. He then complains I can't explain my work in laymans terms! I can, he's just said he doesn't want to discuss it so, unlike him, I see no reason to start a thread topic no one wishes to discuss. Kaneda used to do the same thing, claim I'm unwilling to discuss my work and then turn down all offers to discuss it. Given such deceptive behaviour is easy to see I really do wonder why either q_w or Kaneda tried such a tactic. :shrug:
You both in particular are fish bait. You are the ones coming to my threads, claiming to have asked questions that I have not answered; I have answered all questions.
You are coming to my threads and repeatedly saying that my intention is not discussion of ideas, but that I am claiming to have done science and can't show any evidence. I am discussing possibilities at levels where observation is not possible and quantification and evidence doesn’t exist. It is discussion of ideas about things that are topics of interest to me for those very reasons. We don’t know the answers and some people are capable of thinking and discussing abstract ideas. I have repeated that and you have continued your claims that I am saying I have proof or that I am claiming some scientific accomplishment. You both know that those accusations and demands constitute lies and trolling.
That makes you both fish bait. Everyone who cares knows about your obtuse tactics and that is why no one including you can support your claims aimed at me with any hard evidence from my posts or my documents.
You both suspended the rules of decorum with your tactics. You are both now Fish Bait. Come to my threads, lie and troll, and you get treated in kind.
Now, for the benefit of anyone who is not bored to death by your infantile behavior, here is a discussion opener:
As I have said in this thread, and have linked to where I have said it in this post, … “GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.” … i.e. the possibility that the universe has always existed?
If you go to that thread you will see that there is a poll listing several possible explanations for the existence of the universe:
God did it.
Something from nothing.
Always existed, no beginning.
Other possibilities.
I have said that QWC picks up with the choice that the universe has always existed and have pointed out that all of the speculations that I make go from there. I should also point out that if you don’t agree with me that the universe has always existed, then say so. Saying we don’t know simply confirms my premise which is, WE DON”T KNOW, but I like to discuss ideas about the possibility that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I also have said that even if you can discuss the possibility that the universe has always existed, there are still many possible explanations for what preceded the Big Bang. I have said that QWC is about one of those possibilities, i.e. the big crunch. If you don’t agree say so, and say what you think, but remember that the discussion in my threads about QWC is based on my personal selection of a big crunch preceding the big bang.
Since I have stated the premise that the universe has always existed, and my selection of the big crunch option preceding the Big Bang, then several areas of discussion unfold and I follow them in my threads and my Google.doc. The first issue I discuss is what conditions could cause a big crunch to form. The next is about what could cause a big crunch to lead to a Big Bang.
I maintain that if you are not interested in discussing QWC given those premises, then why visit my threads at all, let alone why claim that I am making claims about QWC being science or important discovery, or that I am saying there is evidence when clearly there is none.
Doing that makes you fish bait. And questions?
You are coming to my threads and repeatedly saying that my intention is not discussion of ideas, but that I am claiming to have done science and can't show any evidence. I am discussing possibilities at levels where observation is not possible and quantification and evidence doesn’t exist. It is discussion of ideas about things that are topics of interest to me for those very reasons. We don’t know the answers and some people are capable of thinking and discussing abstract ideas. I have repeated that and you have continued your claims that I am saying I have proof or that I am claiming some scientific accomplishment. You both know that those accusations and demands constitute lies and trolling.
That makes you both fish bait. Everyone who cares knows about your obtuse tactics and that is why no one including you can support your claims aimed at me with any hard evidence from my posts or my documents.
You both suspended the rules of decorum with your tactics. You are both now Fish Bait. Come to my threads, lie and troll, and you get treated in kind.
Now, for the benefit of anyone who is not bored to death by your infantile behavior, here is a discussion opener:
As I have said in this thread, and have linked to where I have said it in this post, … “GR can back track to the instant after the Big Bang. The evidence doesn't support any of the three or four explanations of the existence of the universe, so none of the choices can claim support. As Dy points out, it is speculation from there. That is the departure point from the best current consensus we have, i.e. do we invoke God right at the point of the Big Bang, do we play the regression game back infinitely to some unnamed first cause other than God like something from nothing, or do we go with the idea that there is no need for a beginning at all.” … i.e. the possibility that the universe has always existed?
If you go to that thread you will see that there is a poll listing several possible explanations for the existence of the universe:
God did it.
Something from nothing.
Always existed, no beginning.
Other possibilities.
I have said that QWC picks up with the choice that the universe has always existed and have pointed out that all of the speculations that I make go from there. I should also point out that if you don’t agree with me that the universe has always existed, then say so. Saying we don’t know simply confirms my premise which is, WE DON”T KNOW, but I like to discuss ideas about the possibility that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I also have said that even if you can discuss the possibility that the universe has always existed, there are still many possible explanations for what preceded the Big Bang. I have said that QWC is about one of those possibilities, i.e. the big crunch. If you don’t agree say so, and say what you think, but remember that the discussion in my threads about QWC is based on my personal selection of a big crunch preceding the big bang.
Since I have stated the premise that the universe has always existed, and my selection of the big crunch option preceding the Big Bang, then several areas of discussion unfold and I follow them in my threads and my Google.doc. The first issue I discuss is what conditions could cause a big crunch to form. The next is about what could cause a big crunch to lead to a Big Bang.
I maintain that if you are not interested in discussing QWC given those premises, then why visit my threads at all, let alone why claim that I am making claims about QWC being science or important discovery, or that I am saying there is evidence when clearly there is none.
Doing that makes you fish bait. And questions?
Last edited:
Other than the list of links I provided to posts where you said things I've claimed you said and which reflect the fact you'll willingly lie, repeatedly, and refuse to discuss anything.
So you believe its okay to become a lying hack if you perceive others to be such? Isn't that a little unprofessional?
Why did anyone go to freak shows in times past? To point and laugh at the freaks. You're entertainment. At the end of the day we've pointed and laughed and get on with our lives, our work is more than the sum of our forum posts, while you have nothing but your forum posts to claim as 'work' in regards to QWC and that, more than anything, illustrates the vacuous nature of your insults. You can call me 'fish bait', 'liar', 'unprofessional', 'unethical', 'lacking in accomplishment', 'in a dead end career' but at the end of the day Prom and I have accomplished more physics in our short careers than you ever will. A fact you are so desperate to avoid accepting but a fact none the less.
Watch bubbles come out when fish bait speaks. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446380&postcount=125 I think we all know what happens when his tires go completely off the road. It is an illness. Pretends I am doing work that is an important part of my life, then pretends that a wet behind the ears gold fish has accomplished anything that will mean anything, ever, and then says simple discussions of cosmology are freak shows, that everyone is laughing at me, and then again demonstrates the endless braggadocio that can only be hiding a seriously incompetent psyche. Lash out fish bait so all the wheels come off the road and everyone sees you for who you are, if that last post isn't enough proof.
And you see how insecure fish bait is. I give them every opportunity to make good on their criticism that I don’t discuss QWC with them, I offer them an olive branch as I always have and will, and yet it is all about them, their egos, off topic lies and trolling, but never on topic. As you can see, I linked bubble boy back to the post where I offered a discussion. Watch.
Last edited:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2445691&postcount=102
You see, this is how you get caught trolling. You criticize me, I respond, you ignore my response and troll back with the same criticism. Troll away, that is what fish bait is good for.
Last edited:
Prom tried to get you to discuss your work, you refused. I offered to discuss my work after you claimed I couldn't, you refused.
You really should stop projecting your failures onto other people. And the fact the only people you can get to reply to any of your threads are us shows just what a failure your work is. After all, if only 'fish bait' is willing to reply then you really have accomplished nothing
Everyone knows that I have not failed at anything in regard to QWC. And why call it work when it is what I enjoy doing? And why do you pretend that I refused to discuss my topics with Prom? Are you saying that you couldn't see the insincerity in his chants that I won't talk about evidence he claims I said I had when I didn't make any such claim? And did you not say that you wouldn't stoop so low as to discuss your work or my topic with the likes of me? Your entire post is full of insincerity. Everyone sees that. I just am interested in discussing QWC, I opened the topic again http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446380&postcount=125]here in this post and everyone has seen how you responded. Try a response to my offer that is on topic or continue to show why I call you fish bait.Prom tried to get you to discuss your work, you refused. I offered to discuss my work after you claimed I couldn't, you refused.
You really should stop projecting your failures onto other people. And the fact the only people you can get to reply to any of your threads are us shows just what a failure your work is. After all, if only 'fish bait' is willing to reply then you really have accomplished nothing
There is a little lul, and if AN and Prom actually stop posting then my threads won’t have anyone posting but me. (That won’t last because AN and Prom are actually stuck in some vortex that makes them come back and respond to my posts, but sometimes they can go days, or in Proms case weeks without posting. But if I go on posting about my ideas then that vortex they are in becomes so strong that they cannot ignore me. And when they step back in it is always pretending I am doing or saying something that I am not, misrepresenting what I have said, implying that I have said something that I have not, or inferring things that suggest they are basing it only on their intuition or intentional twists. Their criticisms are always accompanied with belittling calls of crank or idiot or stupid. Several of you used to chime in with agreement with them from time to time for good measure but almost everyone who has done that has given up on me or has accepted my responses to their claims. Only AN and Prom are in the vortex and can’t ignore me. They tell me I am wrong, and then say they told me I was wrong and so I must be a crank. Well going forward from here, this is to show the rest of you (which is exactly no one as far as I know) that AN and Prom don’t back up their claims legitimately.
To AN, Prom, and anyone who wants to chime in agreeing with them, I am going to make it simple for you. I’ll be posting the basics of QWC and then the steps slowly so you can call me an idiot at the exact point in QWC where the idiocy shows up. I know AN and Prom won’t play that way, and because of that strange vortex that they are in they will probably disrupt, but if so I will handle them as fish bait again. If they make legitimate statements I will respond appropriately. It is real idiocy I want you to point out, not the phony claims of idiocy that roll of ANs and Proms tongues so easily.
For them and the rest of you (and that is exactly no one as far as I know), jump in and point out something wrong with this:
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. In addition, space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I can’t prove it. But those are the premises on which I start QWC. I speculate about QWC from that starting point.
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory ala Alan Guth, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
I want to make it clear that I am not DOING science as I told Guest254. The topic is speculative, the premises are speculations that I start with as givens, and everything that I discuss step by step are speculations. Don’t expect anything but speculation, don’t pay any attention to me if you don’t like to speculate, and don’t even follow the thread from here if you don’t or can’t allow for the premises that I have stated. If you do follow the thread you are responsible to speak up when you object, and point to what you object in what I have speculated about.
Since to my knowledge the only members viewing this thread are AN and Prom and I know they think I am a crank and an idiot already, I want the exact point where I show idiocy to be pointed out as I lay out QWC for here. I don’t care who points it out (but unlike AN and Prom who have made those claims from their view in the strange vortex that seems to always bring them back) you should actually say what it is that I say that makes me an idiot, or wrong, or a crank, and do so when I say it, not days later when I have piled speculation upon speculation. Because that is what I am going to do if you don’t jump in to object to specifics as they unfold.
So I repeat, are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection?
To AN, Prom, and anyone who wants to chime in agreeing with them, I am going to make it simple for you. I’ll be posting the basics of QWC and then the steps slowly so you can call me an idiot at the exact point in QWC where the idiocy shows up. I know AN and Prom won’t play that way, and because of that strange vortex that they are in they will probably disrupt, but if so I will handle them as fish bait again. If they make legitimate statements I will respond appropriately. It is real idiocy I want you to point out, not the phony claims of idiocy that roll of ANs and Proms tongues so easily.
For them and the rest of you (and that is exactly no one as far as I know), jump in and point out something wrong with this:
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. In addition, space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I can’t prove it. But those are the premises on which I start QWC. I speculate about QWC from that starting point.
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory ala Alan Guth, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
I want to make it clear that I am not DOING science as I told Guest254. The topic is speculative, the premises are speculations that I start with as givens, and everything that I discuss step by step are speculations. Don’t expect anything but speculation, don’t pay any attention to me if you don’t like to speculate, and don’t even follow the thread from here if you don’t or can’t allow for the premises that I have stated. If you do follow the thread you are responsible to speak up when you object, and point to what you object in what I have speculated about.
Since to my knowledge the only members viewing this thread are AN and Prom and I know they think I am a crank and an idiot already, I want the exact point where I show idiocy to be pointed out as I lay out QWC for here. I don’t care who points it out (but unlike AN and Prom who have made those claims from their view in the strange vortex that seems to always bring them back) you should actually say what it is that I say that makes me an idiot, or wrong, or a crank, and do so when I say it, not days later when I have piled speculation upon speculation. Because that is what I am going to do if you don’t jump in to object to specifics as they unfold.
So I repeat, are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection?
So you admit we'll ignore you for days or weeks but then you complain we're 'fixated' when you post a bunch of lies about us which we feel we should defend ourselves from?
You come fishing for us.
Yes, but you don't want to listen, learn or understand. But that's why you're a failure
You can't deny the vortex
.
What do you think fish bait is for?
Are you fish bait of just pretending to be fish bait.Yes, but you don't want to listen, learn or understand. But that's why you're a failure
I doesn't matter. As long as you are here:
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. In addition, space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I can’t prove it. But those are the premises on which I start QWC. I speculate about QWC from that starting point.
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory ala Alan Guth, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
You haven't failed at QWC because you set your target at an incredibly low level. It's like aiming to get out of bed before 4pm every day. Hey, I succeeded!
Of course, no cosmologist worth their salt will deny the possibility that the universe has always existed. Currently we have a pretty good rigorous knowledge beck to about $$10^{-30}s$$ after the BB. Anything before that is speculation, some speculation is better than others of course.
If you have no evidence for what you're saying you're shooting in the dark. We're back to fairies. If you want to be slightly more scientific about it then what you're essentially doing is saying "b caused a." Well what caused b I ask? "c caused b," you say, and so on and on.
So what you're saying is you start with reality and make stuff up to fill in the gaps?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbY7GODI5Dw
I have two points here. Number 1 :- If you acknowledge that you aren't even attempting science, then surely this thread doesn't even belong in pseudoscience. Number 2 :- What exactly do you hope to accomplish with QWC? Let's just imagine that you take QWC as far as you can go with it. What is it exactly that you hope will come out of it, or what will be the end result?
I don't think anyone will object to this post because essentially all you've done is restated what the big bang theory consists of.
Of course, no cosmologist worth their salt will deny the possibility that the universe has always existed. Currently we have a pretty good rigorous knowledge beck to about $$10^{-30}s$$ after the BB. Anything before that is speculation, some speculation is better than others of course.
If you have no evidence for what you're saying you're shooting in the dark. We're back to fairies. If you want to be slightly more scientific about it then what you're essentially doing is saying "b caused a." Well what caused b I ask? "c caused b," you say, and so on and on.
So what you're saying is you start with reality and make stuff up to fill in the gaps?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbY7GODI5Dw
I have two points here. Number 1 :- If you acknowledge that you aren't even attempting science, then surely this thread doesn't even belong in pseudoscience. Number 2 :- What exactly do you hope to accomplish with QWC? Let's just imagine that you take QWC as far as you can go with it. What is it exactly that you hope will come out of it, or what will be the end result?
I don't think anyone will object to this post because essentially all you've done is restated what the big bang theory consists of.
This is what makes you fish bait. Why don’t you whine to the moderator again?Fish Bait said:
QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would eventually lead back to “a” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.Prometheus said:
My point is you have no reason whatsoever to think you are right. It's worthless.
“AN’s and Prometheus’ total knowledge”
Everyone has a certain knowledge base and we build on it continually. I’m going to refer to the current total knowledge base of science as “AN’s and Prom’s total knowledge”.
QWC accepts “AN’s and Prom’s total knowledge”, in fact it accepts the total knowledge base of all science.
Now there is a stipulation, and that is that somewhere short of “AN’s and Prom’s total knowledge” there is a subset I call the “consensus point”. QWC uses the consensus as the departure point and goes into speculation from the consensus point. QWC is speculation about things that are outside of “AN’s and Prom’s total knowledge”. To a discussion like that, what AN and Prom know is as insignificant to me as are my speculations about things they don’t know are to them. I think we agree on that. I draw a circle around “AN’s and Prom’s total knowledge” and discuss possibilities about what is outside the circle.
But personally, I speculate and they seem to be caught up in the vortex.
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. In addition, space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I can’t prove it. But those are the premises on which I start QWC. I speculate about QWC from that starting point.
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory ala Alan Guth, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would eventually lead back to “a” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
Last edited:
Don't call it that. There are plenty of things about science and physics that myself and AN don't know. You're just trying to bait us.
You keep restating the same thing over and over. What I want to know is what the point is, not what you are doing. Science is progressing and will answer the questions you're interested in eventually, whether it is soon or not. Very smart people are working at it. Case in point, what happens to black hole evaporation when the black hole becomes small was a thorny issue for many years - Hawking's calculation couldn't handle it. I heard a talk at BUSSTEPP when I was there by a PhD student who was working on an approach to the problem and had purportedly solved it, all without a full theory of quantum gravity and giving the eminently sensible prediction that the mass of the black hole becomes the energy of the thermal radiation. Very non trivial and very interesting.
What can you do that science can't and won't?
You keep restating the same thing over and over. What I want to know is what the point is, not what you are doing. Science is progressing and will answer the questions you're interested in eventually, whether it is soon or not. Very smart people are working at it. Case in point, what happens to black hole evaporation when the black hole becomes small was a thorny issue for many years - Hawking's calculation couldn't handle it. I heard a talk at BUSSTEPP when I was there by a PhD student who was working on an approach to the problem and had purportedly solved it, all without a full theory of quantum gravity and giving the eminently sensible prediction that the mass of the black hole becomes the energy of the thermal radiation. Very non trivial and very interesting.
What can you do that science can't and won't?
What is fish bait for?
Your are talking about "AN's and Prom's total knowledge". I am discussing things outside the circle around "AN's and Prom's total knowledge". I answered your question. You ignored the answer. You are in the vortex and can't get out. Get lost Fish Bait.
I repeat:
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. In addition, space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I can’t prove it. But those are the premises on which I start QWC. I speculate about QWC from that starting point.
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory ala Alan Guth, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
Answer I gave Prom was: As I mentioned, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would eventually lead back to “a” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
Are there any objections so far? May I proceed from this point without objection? Don’t worry; there will be plenty to object to as I go step by step into speculation.
It's for baiting fish. You try to bait us and its silly to try and bait bait. So if you're baiting us then you are the bait.
You tell lies and post nonsense trying to bait us. Thus your posts are 'bait'. So calling us 'fish bait' is illogical, unless you can explain what precisely the 'fish' you're referring to is. What are we baiting, if we're bait? You can't even come up with consistent insults!
And you saying all of science is our knowledge base just illustrates you aren't interested in anything other than being bait yourself. The fact Prom and I know more than you doesn't mean we know everything. Knowing more than you in physics is achievable by graduating high school. You just show you follow the standard crank behaviour of viewing anyone more intelligent and knowledgeable than you with contempt.
You show your jealousy, its that simple.