“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you calling me a liar again about being a college grad? You and Guest have both flat out said I am lying about that. I repeat, I graduated from Michigan State University.. ”
AN:
I don't doubt you graduated in something …
QW:
It was a degree in Finance from the Michigan State University college of Accounting and Financial Administration.
AN:
but I do not think you could pass a 1st year university physics exam, as you claimed you could/can.
QW: This as a flame. The type of flame is a lie and a twisting of words. A straw man.
I took the College Prep course in high school for honor roll students. That curriculum included Physics, Chemistry, and Advanced Biology. I passed them all with good grades. They all included exams. I passed all of the exams. I received a full books and tuition scholarship to MSU.
MSU has a series of science courses for first year students, all first years no matter what their major. The courses are a joke and many of us from the high school college prep courses, (at a Lansing, MI high School) ended up going to MSU, and were told that we would have no trouble taking the final exams, i.e. comping the courses. At first we enrolled in the courses and skipped the classes, crammed for the exams and we all passed first term. We did the same in the second term and then someone told us we didn’t even have to sign up for the courses if we applied to Comp the course. Based on our first and second term exam grades we were allowed to take the comprehensive exam for the final term and I passed with a good grade.
I referred to those courses as basic science not physics and math. They were primarily natural science basic freshman courses.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
If you don’t accept that as the truth then what do you say is the truth about my education? ”
AN:
If you went to university I do not think you did physics or mathematics or could pass such exams. If memory serves you said you were an accountant? I know a few and none of them covered anything related to the stuff 1st year physicists do. If I'm wrong in this please say precisely what relevant courses you did do.
QW: That is right, first year courses do not qualify as physics courses in the colleges of physics or math.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I also claimed to have spent thousands of hours over time in self directed study of topics related to cosmology. You flat out call me a liar twice about that. Seems to me you can’t detect the truth or you don’t want to acknowledge that I am being truthful. ”
AN:
I don't doubt you have spent considerable time doing something related to cosmology, like reading pop science magazines or websites but you haven't been reading textbooks, published papers, journals or lecture notes. So while you might have a better than layman knowledge of pop science cosmology you couldn't pass exams on the stuff.
QW:
This is flaming. Based on your intuition you mean? You have shown little comprehension of my course work, give me little credit for anything. That amounts to flaming because you don’t know those things but say them anyway.
AN:
A lecture course in cosmology in my 3rd year was 24 1 hour lectures and 4 1 hour supervisions. Each problem sheet involved 4~10 hours of work, depending on person or motivation. So you claim you have done easily more hours of work than most people do when studying at university.
QW:
Yes, but does that surprise you. I was a bright student, perhaps you were too. To me, studying in college was handled on the fly, just before class, casual prep for exams. College was not a challenge for me. I have spent many more hours in the past eight years than I did as a college student.
AN:
Can you do any of theses? Thousands of hours would be more than enough time to learn the required calculus, read half a dozen text books cover to cover and work through all the problems in them. So if you have invested your time wisely, those questions are easy to you.
QW: This is a flame. I’m not going to the link but you are making this into a straw man. I know a little calculus and have promptly forgotten most of it.
I know about slopes (up and sideways), tangents to the slopes of a curve, a curve being a the plot of an equation, and the f(x) being on the y axis at the tangent point. The very simple ideas, limits, slope of a tangent, blah blah. I didn’t claim to know calculus, you don’t take it in the finance curriculum, and I did invest my time wisely. It is a flame and a straw man to claim that I didn’t if I didn’t invest it in the same things as you did.
AN:
But you and I both know that you didn't do that and you can't do the questions. You wasted your time.
QW: That is a flame. I invested my free time in retirement in the way I saw fit and still do. To call that a waste of time is a flame and to suggest that there was a better way to spend my time is a personification of your self-image, not mine.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
This was a response to your post. Please address it. ”
AN:
Nice hypocrisy. I repeatedly ask you direct questions and you ignore me but when I don't reply to something you don't feel any hypocrisy in repeating your request?
QW: More flame. You didn’t respond when I posted it the first time, and this response shows you don’t intend to respond, yet you flame me for asking you to address it.
AN:
Tell you what, I'll address what you said when you respond to the following direct question :
Do you think that you falsely accusing me on two separate occasions of having wish you dead, the second time after you'd admitted to lying about the first time, is 'professional' on your part?
QW:
If you didn’t say that you wouldn’t care if I dropped dead, then I will acknowledge that I misinterpreted what you meant.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I repeat, you pretend that I am claiming something about my knowledge and ability which I am not. If I am not making those claims and you are continually putting out your foolish claims that I am, then you are a liar. ”
AN:
You claim knowledge in physics capable of passing the 1st year courses at university. You provide no evidence to justify such a claim and your posts imply quite the opposite. Where am I lying in saying that?
QW: I addressed that above. Do you see the distinction between my claim and your characterization of my claim? You are lying in saying that because I didn’t refer to the science exams in my first year as physics exams, I referred to them as basic science and I clarified that above.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
and your repeated evidence of your ability is one sign of someone who has self worth issues ”
AN:
I'm not the one starting thread after thread about his work, trying to get people to listen to his fairy tales.
QW:
This is flaming. I have said that I am continually updating QWC. I update the Google.doc from time to time, and I start new threads to discuss the updates or to focus an a particular aspect of QWC. The fact that you flame me all the way through all of my threads is not the reason I start new threads. History shows that you will flame all of my threads. You also flame me on other peoples threads. I think that shows disrespect and try to divert your criticism of me off of their threads.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
that it somehow helps you deal with the fact that no matter what your ability is it is zilch to me and a dead end for you? Address that. ”
AN:
Yeah, I'm really cut up about the fact someone I don't know, haven't met and don't like much isn't bothered that I can do maths and physics better than him. Boo hoo. Why should I be bothered about what you think? To want your approval I'd have to respect your opinion and I very much don't.
QW: This is a flame. Not the part about you being bothered by what I think. We share a mutual disrespect. It is a flame because you say I am bothered that you can do math and physics better that “me” and you pretend I am crying. Then you flame me by belittling me by saying you don’t care what I think and then you say you have no respect for my opinion as if I was valueless.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Are you again calling me a liar about having graduated from MSU? ”
AN:
Oh look, a straw man.
QW: This is a flame. You repeatedly called me a liar, and I denied lying each time. It is not a straw man and that is a flame.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Crave? No, you just would like to believe that. ”
AN:
I'm simply calling it like I see it. When people don't reply to this thread for a while, you post a bunch of deliberately false comments about them (ie myself, Prom or Guest) and wait for the attention. If the thread dies you start a new one, make your claims more outlandish and wait for the attention. If you were interested in listening to criticism or about the merit of your work you'd not need to reboot a thread about your work every few months.
QW: Flame. It is a lie that I make false comments about “them” meaning you I suppose. You are always speaking up for Prom. He has proven perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I explained why I start new threads and it is a flame for you to say I do it because of criticism.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I laughed when I read that. Let’s see, you claim my ego that is bigger than yours? And then you say you don’t give a crap about me? And you wouldn’t miss me if I left you? But you like the entertainment? ”
AN:
I find The Simpsons entertaining but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it got cancelled tomorrow.
QW: That is irrelevant. The post was about your ego vs. mine. Then you flamed me saying you didn’t give a crap about me and wouldn’t miss me but you like the entertainment. Flames.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
. The truth is you never let a chance go by to boast about your dead end career ”
AN:
I'm not starting threads about my career/work. I'm not pushing my work in people's faces. You are. And your 'weasel words' of 'dead end' are just your fantasy world coming into view again. If you weren't envious someone has managed something in physics and you haven't you'd not use such words.
QW: This is flames. You equate my starting new threads (seems to be a repeating theme of yours) with your boasting. There is no similarity. You flame me by saying that I am pushing my work in people’s faces. First of all, you point out that very few people are left who even post on my threads. Second of all, and this applies to you too, no one has to come to my threads.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You need to face this and respond, not twist the words within a quote and pretend you are responding to me when it is a straw man, and a lowly reconstruction of what was actually said at that. ”
AN:
Okay, let's see. You said :
QW:
And I am accomplishing something. I am motivated to think about cosmology, study and learn and I am doing that all time, and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.
AN:
You claim that because you 'think about cosmology, study and learn' you are 'accomplishing something'. Well I spend all day (it literally is my day job) thinking about space-time, about general relativity, about quantum mechanics, about inflation (yes, inflation), all of that. I have read dozens of books, scores of papers, typed hundreds of pages of work, dozens of computer programs, 3 papers and one thesis. If 'thinking, studying and learning' counts for 'accomplishment' then I've accomplished things.
QW: Tit for tat so far. No flame there, just an interesting perspective of how you spend your time, just like my statement was (I’m sure less interesting) about how I spend my time.
AN:
And I have a hell of a lot more to show for it than you. By any measuring stick I've accomplished more than you.
QW: This is flames. We have different life paths, different values, different types of accomplishments. You intend that statement as a flame? I see it as a lack of respect for people in general. I don’t expect respect form you but I wouldn’t choose you to be the one to determine the value of what I would call the accomplishments of my life.
QW:
and I have a personal view of cosmology. You on the other hand have no view of cosmology. Please don’t tell me that you do.
AN:
I have 3 papers on space-time configurations. 2 of them specifically involve talking about AdS and dS space-times. One of them has an entire chapter on finding vacua which have properties which make them viable to cosmologists. I have written computer programs which describe inflation. I have it published in black and white that I consider cosmology in my work. So yes, I am telling you I do.
QW: OK, I stand corrected. You have not shared with me what you do for what ever reasons so I just found out a little. I don’t value those accomplishments like you do but you wouldn’t expect me to either.
QW:
FYI, there are no correct cosmologies to date that I know of. Mine is QWC
AN:
So your cosmology, which you admit is just you making stuff up is okay …
QW: This is a flame. I presume that you are referring to my discussion earlier in the thread with Guest about whether or not I claim to be doing science and his statement that then my speculation is storytelling. I have maintained that I am speculating, not story telling. I maintain that my speculation are connected to departure points in mainstream science, the consensus. I maintain the when there is no evidence and no current ability to observe at the micro and macro levels, that speculation is all that can be done.
AN:
…but when I publish work on using string theory to model inflation in de Sitter space-times, thus providing a quantitative model which matches some phenomenology, I'm in a 'dead end career' and 'have no view of cosmology'?
QW: It is my opinion that string theory has not fulfilled the expectations. Maybe you would say that it has or will. I won’t dispute that but I don’t see it happening and I am only going by people like Smolin and even Susskind himself.
QW:
You are a big big fool in the way you flaunt your ignorance of cosmology in general and in the way you attack me for having one and talking about it.
AN:
If I'm ignorant, how about you and I go over to the maths and physics forum and work through that cosmology question sheet I linked to. Standard homework stuff. What do you say? I've got nothing to hide.
QW: This is flame. Your challenges are a way of saying that I have claimed things that I have not claimed.
QW:
Your knowledge of math, physics, and ethics qualify you for exactly nothing that applies to QWC. QWC deals with realms that we cannot observe or quantify.
AN:
Did you really just try to insult me for the fact my knowledge of rational, justified science doesn't apply to your make believe story? Yeah, I'm gutted all my time and effort doesn't help me understand your unjustified nonsense.
QW: This is flame. I didn’t insult you. You have characterized yourself to me, up until you opened up a little on this post, as immersed in math and string theory. I have said that QWC is not about math and string theory and that means that as I understood what you did it had nothing to do with QWC and you always seem to flame me about how you were doing such important things that I was overlooking in QWC.
QW:
You are a fool to think that any cosmology can answer the questions that I address with speculation.
AN:
Neil Turok has managed to describe such things without random speculation but based on some quantitative model. So has Hawking.
QW: We went over this a long time ago. I linked you to where I discussed Turok and his model. At the time it centered on simulations of the collapse of our universe and a subsequent “bounce”. I was right not to buy into it. He proved that the computer program showed that the momentum of the in falling mass toward a center of gravity appeared to “bounce” off the center of gravity. When I read his synopsis he was hesitant to claim a final theory and referred to further work to be done.
QW:
Straw men to provide a false backdrop for you to brag about your dead end career, as if publishing a paper of writing a thesis somehow indicates you had the first clue about a complete cosmology.
AN:
Are you really that dopey?
QW: Flame?
AN:
I have tons of knowledge relevant to cosmology. I don't pretend to know it all or to have 'a complete cosmology' but I know relevant useful things.
QW: OK.
AN:
You make claims all over the place and you know much much less relevant material.
QW: Flames. I discuss ideas and speculation, not make claims. You are flaming me when you characterize it as such. It is flames to say that what I post is less relevant than what you do. I am speculating and covering a lot of territory in my Cosmology. That is what makes for a complete picture. You are focused on a smaller perspective IMHO.
AN:
You can't claim I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to correct you on something you know less than me about!
QW:
This is flames. You have never corrected me in any fashion that was on topic that I didn't acknowledge and mitigate in my document.
AN:
My papers and thesis include descriptions of space-times, their evolution, space-time curvature, inflation, AdS/dS space-times. All relevant to a good grasp of cosmology. I don't claim to know it all but its a fact I know more than you.
QW: I have compared QWC to spacetime. I pointed out that spacetime runs amuck in the spacetime foam. Are you saying that the uncertainty will be overcome by your work or that spacetime can even be applicable given the basic premises of QWC.
AN:
There, that address your comments enough?
QW: That was full of flames. I attempted to weed them out and respond to the appropriate comments.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
It was all about you and your accomplishments again ”
AN:
Its Catch 22. If I say nothing about my work, you claim "You on the other hand have no view of cosmology". When I explain my work and thesis includes construction of de Sitter or Ant de Sitter space-times and their dynamics I'm 'all about [me] and [my] accomplishments'. Or you claim you thinking about cosmology is 'accomplishing' something but my published work on stuff you claim to think about doesn't count?
QW: I don’t see how you have addressed how your work applies to QWC given the premises I have laid out as the basis of QWC.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I responded to that. ”
AN:
And yet no link. Says it all....
QW: This is flame in that though I have responded to you, you repeat idle challenges for me to prove something that I haven’t claimed.
Now quit straying off topic. Here is the current status of the discussion starter I offered:
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 wouldn’t play and 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, 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.
Fraggle Rocker said:
(From another thread) A handy phrase has been coined for the practical purpose of defining the portion of the universe/multiverse/cosmos/whatever that an observer can observe: a Hubble Volume. Our Hubble Volume is the practical limit for our speculation about the universe.
That I agree with. I am going to go further though and describe a QWC arena as an extended Hubble volume that encompasses an entire quantized energy environment that starts from the burst of a big crunch and expands into existing space until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a similar expanding Hubble volume arena.