Copy and paste will get you nowhere. You haven't answered the question - as I previously said, science is already doing this. What are you doing that science isn't doing better already?
QWC document comments and criticisms
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Copy and paste will get you nowhere. You haven't answered the question - as I previously said, science is already doing this. What are you doing that science isn't doing better already?
I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread, understandable though I have offered several discussion starters.
I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN and Prom wouldn’t play and they would disrupt. It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but that way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in before I start adding step by step speculations.
I repeat for the benefit of anyone who wants to participate in the on topic discussion of QWC: 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.
That is ample discussion starter. Any objections so far?
You haven't answered the question - as I previously said, science is already doing this. What are you doing that science isn't doing better already?
Looks like he can't admit he's wasted his time Prom.
Oops, reposted to correct bad link.
I’ll address your question but will you please acknowledge and respond to my answer before leaving or posting the same question worded differently?
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. You say science is working on that and doing it better. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to AN and Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
If there are no objections to the content so far except for AN’s and Prom’s disruptions that I predicted when I first offered the discussion starter to them, I will proceed by adding the next step in the speculations.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to our currently expanding universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I will discuss those steps, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I have no proof or evidence. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch.
Any objection to that speculation?
I’ll address your question but will you please acknowledge and respond to my answer before leaving or posting the same question worded differently?
What I am doing is speculating. Are you saying that science is speculating about the steps following the premises that the universe has always existed? I thought that the best we can do as a scientific consensus doesn’t even address the event the caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, let alone speculate that anything at all preceded the Big Bang, and certainly science has not addressed the premise that the universe has always existed. (That is my answer.)Prometheus said:
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. You say science is working on that and doing it better. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to AN and Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
If there are no objections to the content so far except for AN’s and Prom’s disruptions that I predicted when I first offered the discussion starter to them, I will proceed by adding the next step in the speculations.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to our currently expanding universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I will discuss those steps, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I have no proof or evidence. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch.
Any objection to that speculation?
The vortex is strong today
.
Last edited:
Such a shame the only people it ever attracts point out flaws in your claims and your knowledge, eh?The vortex is strong today
You still haven't answered his question, just as you never respond to any direct questions I ask you, irrespective of the links and quotes I provide. It's a shame you don't realise such behaviour is the reason you're a failure at physics.
Edit and repost to correct the value of the cosmological constant:
In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.
The big crunch that I speculate about forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding universes intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.
The big crunch that I speculate about forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding universes intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
There is no explanation for the fixation of fish bait unless it is some strange vortex that compels them. I am noticing that when Prometheus starts to look like he is acting civil to some degree, AN posts some disruption as if to warn Prometheus not to enter into an "on topic" discussion. For example, I think I answered Prometheus' question and I asked prometheus to acknowledge my answer. Before Prometheus can respond, AN jumps in with:
And the truth is I answered AN's complaint twice by pointing out that the first liar always loses and advised him to look at the first few post he made on my threads. I told him I would respond in kind. He lied, has twisted and lied his way to today, and represents the worst of those professionals who frequent sites like this.
Last edited:
But none-the-less I am a professional and have succeeding in contributing to the sum of knowledge in science. No such thing from you.
And yet I provide a set of links to your posts where you do precisely what you accuse me of. You retorted none of them.
I can do that too. How about..... "The poster called quantum_wave is always a serial killer". See, its easy to come up with completely vacuous claims. I provided links where you lie, are hypocritical and invent claims. You retort none of them and provide none about me. Says it all.
Whine to the moderator.
I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread even though I have offered several discussion starters.
I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN and Prom wouldn’t play and they would disrupt. It almost looks like Prom is sort of discussing “on topic” but all in all you are seeing that I was right.
It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but I am updating it to include the responses to “on topic” comments from Prometheus. That way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in from a post that contains the current status of the discussion starter.
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I replied and confirmed what I have always said, “I am speculating”. Science is not into speculation and I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to our currently expanding universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I begin to discuss those steps below, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I have no proof or evidence. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch.
In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.
I am talking about a big crunch that I speculate forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding universes intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
All of a sudden, the universe I am talking about has more than one expanding Big Bang type of event that is capable of expanding. They expand until they ultimately intersect and overlap. To avoid the lame phrase “multiple universes” I refer to expanding Big Bang type events as arenas. In QWC, the big crunch forms when two arenas intersect and overlap.
Sooooo, you know that I am lying because I claim to have passed college level basic science exams and claim to have graduated from a Big Ten university and you say I couldn't pass a high school science test, the same or similar claim that AlphaNumeric made about me without cause and to which I defended myself? I deny your accusations and attribute your claims to your low character and lack of ethical standards, plus you are a water carrier for AN, popping up to support his attacks when needed.quest254 said:
And you claim to work at a “big 10" university, and to have taught students, blah blah and you know from their competency that I am a liar?
Let’s assume first of all that you are not just a sock puppet because there are indications in your posting pattern that you are. If you teach students from four Big Ten universities you are clearly exaggerating. Which four? No one who blatantly and intentionally singles out someone without cause and flatly calls them a liar could hold a job in a meat packing factory for long, let alone at a Big Ten university. We Big Ten graduates are proud of our schools and you are clearly not one of us. You are the liar.
So let’s find out. Prove you are not a sock puppet and then tell us what university, what do you teach, and how does the level of competency of students at any college show that I couldn’t pass a high school science exam which is a spurious and unprovoked attack.
I can determine from my viewing of your posts that you live, eat and breed in the gutter and crawl out to back up the liar AlphaNumeric who is proven to be better fish bait than whatever his present configuration of protoplasm makes him.
To demonstrate that fact, I have posted a QWC discussion starter and challenged AN, Prometheus, and now you to raise and back up an objection you have to the speculations that form the premises and steps as I identify them. This is an exercise to allow you all to point out where I show idiocy so that we can explore your claims. AlphaNumeric called me an idiot in the first of my threads that he posted to. He was wrong then and has never characterized me correctly since then. I return his insults and flames but I have the high ground from the start. I also have the high ground when it comes to the sock puppets and water carriers who obediently support ANs lies and twisted logic. If you don’t say what it is about QWC that you find wrong, then all of your criticisms are hollow. Step up to the plate fish bait.
Here is the current status of the QWC discussion starter and we can add Guest254 to the fish bait:
12/30/2009
I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread even though I have offered several discussion starters.
I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN and Prom wouldn’t play and they would disrupt. It almost looks like Prom is sort of discussing “on topic” but all in all you are seeing that I was right.
It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but I am updating it to include the responses to “on topic” comments from Prometheus. That way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in from a post that contains the current status of the discussion starter.
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I replied and confirmed what I have always said, “I am speculating”. Science is not into speculation and I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to our currently expanding universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I begin to discuss those steps below, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I have no proof or evidence. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch.
In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.
I am talking about a big crunch that I speculate forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding universes intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
All of a sudden, the universe I am talking about has more than one expanding Big Bang type of event that is capable of expanding. They expand until they ultimately intersect and overlap. To avoid the lame phrase “multiple universes” I refer to expanding Big Bang type events as arenas. In QWC, the big crunch forms when two arenas intersect and overlap.
Last edited:
I have taught students from Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick and Imperial. I am currently a research fellow at one of these institutions.
I teach pure and applied mathematics, and some mathematical physics.
It is my professional opinion that you would not pass a high school science exam. I am willing to provide a question (on physics, for example) which is accessible to high school students. I am more than confident that you will not be able to answer it.
With regards your story-telling, I've made my position very clear. As long as you realise you're not doing science, I'm more than happy for you to tell stories on the internet.
I have plenty of cause to make such a claim, you have not made a single post which shows you have the level of understanding and ability expected of such a person.
So when I ask you to prove it you don't need to prove yourself, so you say, but you demand it of others? You have lied. You have never before eluded to having done science at a top university and suddenly now you're ardently defending your claims and are 'proud of your school'.
So which one did you go to? Please provide a link to a post of yours where you mention this fact before this week.
I'm sure if you ask a moderator to check IPs you'll find Prom, myself, Guest etc are not the same person. I know Prom in real life and I know a bit about Guest from PMs.
I originally made the claim you've not got that knowledge. I have taught 'Electricity and Magnetism', 'Quantum Physics', 'Relativity and Motion' and 2 mathematical methods courses which cover vector calculus, matrices, differential equations and integrals. Students require A Level grades of AAB to get into the university department I work at.
And we're back to q_w's desperate need to convince himself he's not wrong by inventing narratives about the lives of people who don't agree with him.
Well perhaps if you provided a link to one post of yours where you display a working understanding of undergraduate level physics we could discuss your level of competency but you can't provide such a link so you have no evidence to justify your whining about my comment.
I provided links to your lies. You couldn't retort them. I provided a link to a thread where Guest and I display graduate level knowledge. You couldn't provide a similar one for yourself. I offered to discuss my work in as much detail as you wish, you refused. You make a claim about competency and you can't provide a shred of evidence.
Just because you don't like the fact people think so little of you doesn't make them 'liars' or 'flamers'. And how do you have the high ground? You accused me of wishing you dead, then admitted you lied and then made the accusation again.
As well as a physics education I think you need a dictionary.
q_w, I am happy to discuss a few questions from some of the 1st year question sheets here with you and I imagine Guest wouldn't have a problem chipping in either. The vector calc stuff is basic required knowledge to do any kind of physics, every university physics department covers it in their first year so you should know it, if you aren't lying. If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any problem discussing some of them and I'm happy to do the same, since I have nothing to hide as I am not lying about my level of education and knowledge and neither is Guest.
You keep demanding we back up what we say and we have. I keep asking you direct questions and you avoid them like the plague. So much for 'the high ground'.
So you lied about teaching at a Big Ten university. Big Ten is an NCAA college conference in the Midwest. I attended and graduated from Michigan State University, E. Lansing Michigan. One of the requirements for college in the US is that candidates be able to graduate from high school. I did.
As far as you spurious attacks, they are denied and unfounded. As far as you providing questions for me to answer, you are a fool. That would prove nothing and your claims that you graduated and teach are probably lies anyway. You are fish bait if I have ever seen it.
Step up to the plate with examples from the discussion starter post about QWC that indicate that your low class unethical claims against me are well founded. Fish bait acts like you do, sock puppets act like you do, liars act like you do. Get some ethics.
You are an ignorant insufferable fool. Nothing you say can be depended on since you lie, twist statements, and show no professional ethics. I consider you the lowest of all the three of you in professionalism, ehtics, and intuition. Now what was it you wanted to say about the QWC discussion starter post that you object to and why? Maybe I need to refresh you memory:
Here is the current status of the QWC discussion starter and we can add Guest254 to the fish bait:
12/30/2009
I continue to maintain that as far as I know, AN and Prom are the only ones following this thread even though I have offered several discussion starters.
I also said that it didn’t matter if I offered discussion starters, AN and Prom wouldn’t play and they would disrupt. It almost looks like Prom is sort of discussing “on topic” but all in all you are seeing that I was right.
It may seem redundant to keep repeating the discussion starter post, but I am updating it to include the responses to “on topic” comments from Prometheus. That way if someone wants to actually discuss the topic, they can jump in from a post that contains the current status of the discussion starter.
QWC is based on the premise that the universe, that is space, time and energy has always existed. I said that in QWC I start with the premise that space, time and energy are potentially infinite, always have been, and always will be. Prometheus says that science is working on this and asks what I can do better than what science is doing. I replied and confirmed what I have always said, “I am speculating”. Science is not into speculation and I discuss below the consensus cosmology, BBT and what we all know about the limitations of science. What does science say caused the Big Bang?
I start QWC in the current situation which is that I accept the observations and evidence that the universe is expanding and the separation between the galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. I accept the “look back” that traces the expansion of the observable universe back to an instant after a major event that has become known as the Big Bang. I accept the 13.7 billion year time frame but I don’t care if it is 14 billion or twenty billion years. I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory does not specifically address any such event because the theory picks up an instant after the event.
I consider Big Bang Theory to consist of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR of just GR), Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.
As I mentioned in response to Prom, QWC is about the question of first cause. I say there was none. If there was no first cause then b caused a, and c caused b doesn’t lead back to a first cause, it depicts a perpetual universe, “A” causes “B” causes “A”. If the universe is perpetual then the sequence would or at least could eventually lead back to “A” and become a perpetual process. My discussions offer step by step speculation about one version of such a perpetual process.
As I mentioned when I was defending the thread against being closed and moved to the Cesspool at the request of Prometheus, I stated that given the above, there are various possibilities to explain the universe as we now observe it to be, i.e. accelerating expansion. Of the various possibilities, some identified here, I speculate about the nature of the “event” that occurred an instant before Big Bang Theory commences.
I call the event the burst of a big crunch. “Big crunch” is not the same crunch that is discussed as one of the outcomes of Big Bang Theory. My big crunch would be a similar gravity caused accumulation of the energy and matter equivalent to our currently expanding universe but the method of accumulation of that matter and energy into the crunch differs significantly from the big crunch that is well known as an alternative outcome of BBT. I begin to discuss those steps below, but regardless of how the crunch formed, QWC is based on speculation that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch.
I have no proof or evidence. I simply have selected that possibility as a premise upon which I base QWC. I continue to speculate about QWC from the speculation that there was a big crunch before the big bang, and I speculate that the “event” that occurred the instant before the “Big Bang” was the burst of a big crunch.
In my last response to Prometheus I added a step in the speculations. I speculated that the Big Bang was a real event that was preceded by a big crunch and I explained that this is not the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of GR, but a crunch that formed in a significantly different way than the GR crunch that occurs when the cosmological constant is less than 0.
I am talking about a big crunch that I speculate forms when two similar Big Bang type expanding universes intersect and overlap in space. Do you see the difference between what initiates the GR big crunch and the QWC big crunch?
All of a sudden, the universe I am talking about has more than one expanding Big Bang type of event that is capable of expanding. They expand until they ultimately intersect and overlap. To avoid the lame phrase “multiple universes” I refer to expanding Big Bang type events as arenas. In QWC, the big crunch forms when two arenas intersect and overlap.
Well that's a little silly. In the UK, the term "big ten", or more commonly, "big four", refer to institutions considered to be at the top of their respective disciplines. To call an alternative use of language a lie, because it differs from your own, is more than a little misguided.
And low and behold, when given the opportunity to prove you could pass a high school exam in science, you refuse. This is all a little predictable...
Very funny. The issue on the table is the discussion starter post that is provided for you to justify your claims about me and QWC. Please step up to the plate and address that issue by telling us what you find to be wrong with the speculations that I have laid out step by step. If you find nothing wrong yet, I will add the next step. Are you ready for me to do that, because if so, that means you have no objections to the story telling so far. Is that right fish bait?
Nice overly literal interpretation. I previously commented that I went to a top 10 university, like Guest, and I said I was in the UK. You said nothing. Now that Guest has specifically said he's in the UK you jump out with "Oh you said Big Ten, that's not 'Big Ten'!".
Imperial, Warwick, Cambridge and Oxford are in the top 10 of UK universities. Cambridge and Oxford at in the top 10 of the world so your semantics are pointless.
So you saying Guest lives and breeds in the gutter are okay but him saying you lack the education expected of a university student is unfounded.
I honestly wonder if you are making such hypocritical comments deliberately. I find it hard to believe even you can be so stupid you miss the hypocrisy you spew.
For being able to put his maths where his mouth is?
Oh look, spurious attacks which are unfounded!
But you weren't taught qwc at university. You claim to have learn mainstream physics so you 'stepping up to the plate' and showing mainstream physics knowledge is entirely relevant to the discussion. You are, once again, avoiding showing any knowledge which you haven't simply made up yourself.
If I'm insufferable leave. And I've provided links to posts of yours illustrating my comments about you. You didn't retort them. I've offered to discuss my work or mainstream work with you, you refuse. I've illustrated I am not lying about my level of knowledge, which is more than can be said for you. You have repeatedly lied about me and been caught out. Please provide a link to a post of mine where I act 'unethically'. I am not here in a professional capacity but I am more than willing to discuss my professional work.
Like I said in my last post, I have nothing to hide so I'm happy to discuss mainstream physics with you. If you have nothing to hide about your education then you should have no problem with such a discussion. But you continually refuse. Each and every offer is turned down and you only want to discuss your 'work', which is simply you making things up.
And yet my professionalism and intuition have resulted in me succeeding in physics, something you so desperately want to do yourself but utterly fail to.
I hand in my thesis some time in the next fortnight. Once that's done I'm happy to type up a post explaining my work in layman's terms, if you're willing to discuss it rationally. The main maths and physics forum has 'alpha rules', preventing you posting your BS if I start such a thread. Unlike you, I can discuss my work in detail, answer direct questions and people from the physics community actually read my work.
I see nothing in that post that takes exception to the topic on the table, i.e. the QWC discussion starter post. Can I assume that your rhetoric is hollow because there is nothing in the QWC post I just repeated for you that you find objectionable? Are you ready for me to post the next step? Because if you don't point to what you object to as I go along, then you are encouraging me to continue. You are fish bait.Nice overly literal interpretation. I previously commented that I went to a top 10 university, like Guest, and I said I was in the UK. You said nothing. Now that Guest has specifically said he's in the UK you jump out with "Oh you said Big Ten, that's not 'Big Ten'!".
Imperial, Warwick, Cambridge and Oxford are in the top 10 of UK universities. Cambridge and Oxford at in the top 10 of the world so your semantics are pointless.
So you saying Guest lives and breeds in the gutter are okay but him saying you lack the education expected of a university student is unfounded.
I honestly wonder if you are making such hypocritical comments deliberately. I find it hard to believe even you can be so stupid you miss the hypocrisy you spew.
For being able to put his maths where his mouth is?
Oh look, spurious attacks which are unfounded!
But you weren't taught qwc at university. You claim to have learn mainstream physics so you 'stepping up to the plate' and showing mainstream physics knowledge is entirely relevant to the discussion. You are, once again, avoiding showing any knowledge which you haven't simply made up yourself.
If I'm insufferable leave. And I've provided links to posts of yours illustrating my comments about you. You didn't retort them. I've offered to discuss my work or mainstream work with you, you refuse. I've illustrated I am not lying about my level of knowledge, which is more than can be said for you. You have repeatedly lied about me and been caught out. Please provide a link to a post of mine where I act 'unethically'. I am not here in a professional capacity but I am more than willing to discuss my professional work.
Like I said in my last post, I have nothing to hide so I'm happy to discuss mainstream physics with you. If you have nothing to hide about your education then you should have no problem with such a discussion. But you continually refuse. Each and every offer is turned down and you only want to discuss your 'work', which is simply you making things up.
And yet my professionalism and intuition have resulted in me succeeding in physics, something you so desperately want to do yourself but utterly fail to.
I hand in my thesis some time in the next fortnight. Once that's done I'm happy to type up a post explaining my work in layman's terms, if you're willing to discuss it rationally. The main maths and physics forum has 'alpha rules', preventing you posting your BS if I start such a thread. Unlike you, I can discuss my work in detail, answer direct questions and people from the physics community actually read my work.