QWC revisited 2011

[quantum_wave]

To be added to QWC 2011 at SciForums from previous threads, modified and updated:


Discussion of arena time frames (reasonable and responsible speculation about quantification of time frames leading to the start of a new arena and through the maturation of that arena)

The Arena Clock and Time Frame of Preconditions

The following quote from Laure Mersini-Houghton (LMH) seems appropriate to introduce the concept of multiple arenas and their formation from events that occur on an on-going basis across the landscape of the greater universe:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2330
Scientists continue to wrestle with the enigma of time. Is time a dynamic or a fundamental property of spacetime? Why does it have an arrow pointing from past to future? Why are physical laws time-symmetric in a universe with broken time-reversal symmetry? These questions remain a mystery. The hope has been that an understanding of the selection of the initial state for our universe would solve such puzzles, especially that of time's arrow.
In this article, I discuss how the birth of the universe from the multiverse helps to unravel the nature of time and the reasons behind the time-reversal symmetry of our physical laws. I make the distinction between a local emerging arrow of time in the nucleating universe and the fundamental time with no arrow in the multiverse. The very event of nucleation of the universe from the multiverse breaks time-reversal symmetry, inducing a locally emergent arrow. But, the laws of physics imprinted on this bubble are not processed at birth. Time-reversal symmetry of laws in our universe is inherited from its birth in the multiverse, since these laws originate from the arrowless multiversal time.

LMH is an Assoc. Professor of Cosmology, Particle Astrophysics, String Cosmology, High Energy Physics, in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of North Carolina, and has interest in Early and Late Times Universe, Dark Energy, Observational Constraints on Theoretical Models in Cosmology, Phenomenological Implications of String Theory, Transplanckian Physics, Extra Dimensional Scenarios and Brane-Worlds in Cosmological Issues. I have adopted her as my personal physicist.

I became aware of her work by viewing the six episodes of, “What Happened before the Big Bang”, the BBC Horizon 2010 series on YouTube.

Of course in a multiple Big Bang universe like QWC, each new arena has preconditions. If events occurring at any given point in space were tracked back, an infinite length of time would have passed as endless events played out at that point in space. So if we could start a clock at the beginning of an arena and at a location in space that marks the center of gravity of the big crunch from which the arena emerges, we could quantify arena time for a particular arena originating at that point and expanding out from that point in space. For this discussion that point is fixed in QWC absolute space.

QWC absolute space is used for convenience in discussing a sequence of related events that occur that have a common origination point in space and in time. Over time multiple events will happen at that point in space. If star A passes that point and then star B passed that point, from the perspective of QWC absolute space, star A moved into and out of that space followed by star B moving into and out of that space. Did that space itself move relative to other space? In QWC that answer is no, space is infinite and has always existed and space is simply where things happen.

This series of posts is reasonable and responsible speculation about suppositions on what the time frames might be for the development and maturation of a specific arena. If a new arena starts at time zero (t=0) on that arena’s clock, and if we want to put a time frame on events starting with the primary preconditions, then the first major event is the intersection of two or more parent arenas back in time.

Each mature parent arena is like our own expanding observable Hubble volume of space filled with galaxies and galaxy groups all moving away from each other. When the intersection occurs between two parent arenas we can say that it marks a point in time that can be described as the start of the countdown to the formation and burst of a new big crunch. If the burst marks the t=0 point on the new arena’s clock, then the intersection that marks the start of the countdown occurs at t-n Arena Time, where “t” is the t=0 of the new arena, and where “n” is the number of years before t=0 when the intersection of the parent arenas occurs. For talking purposes let’s say that n=-10^12 or a trillion years before t=0.

In advanced QWC we speculate that “n” is dependent on the average spacing of arena “centers of gravity” throughout the greater universe. That would make the spacing dependent on the average energy density of the greater universe and so “n” is a function of the average energy density of the greater universe. More on that in advanced QWC for similarly deluded laymen.

I’m using -10^12 years as the average period from the intersection of parent arenas to the burst of the new arena, but of course I am speculating. Some evidence may come along someday; the observation called dark flow could be a candidate for such evidence when better data and proper review takes place.

All arenas have an individual t=0 Arena Time but unremarkably the individual t=0 Arena Time cannot be tracked back to any major common event in the heritage of multiple arenas, i.e. there is no beginning of time to which all motion can be backtracked. Each arena has its own individual heritage and each tracks back to that point in time when its parent arenas intersected. Given that however, there is an expectation of consistency in the arena process and the unknown variable length of time that passes from the intersection until the burst is expected to fall close enough to the average to support that idea of consistency overall.

… To be continued …

 

[AlphaNumeric]

but of course I am speculating.

Everything you've said is baseless speculation, churned out without logic or reason or coherent formalism or structure. You're just continuing to make stuff up without any structure to it other than "Because I say so".

How many years are you going to spend on this? You've got nothing to show for it, nothing worthwhile has come from it, no one else can work on it. Years ago I pointed out that its impossible for it to be anything close to science because there isn't an objective way of formalising it, everything is right or wrong based on your person opinion. It's impossible for someone else to develop QWC on their own and end up with the same as you because its all your opinion. Actual science doesn't depend on the author's opinions, it is external to that. Two people locked in different rooms and given the axioms of special relativity will both end up deriving $$E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}$$ or $$\gamma = (1-v^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$. Two people locked in different rooms and given everything you've ever written on QWC will come up with entirely different things, likely contradictory.

Hence what you're doing isn't science. This was pointed out to you years ago and yet you continue. Can't you find something more worthwhile to spend your time doing? Learn a language, play a musical instrument, read a physics textbook. Hell, picking fluff from your belly button would be as productive as spending time on QWC and at least it wouldn't cost Sciforums bandwidth!

 

[quantum_wave]

Everything you've said is baseless speculation, churned out without logic or reason or coherent formalism or structure. You're just continuing to make stuff up without any structure to it other than "Because I say so".

How many years are you going to spend on this? You've got nothing to show for it, nothing worthwhile has come from it, no one else can work on it. Years ago I pointed out that its impossible for it to be anything close to science because there isn't an objective way of formalising it, everything is right or wrong based on your person opinion. It's impossible for someone else to develop QWC on their own and end up with the same as you because its all your opinion. Actual science doesn't depend on the author's opinions, it is external to that. Two people locked in different rooms and given the axioms of special relativity will both end up deriving $$E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}$$ or $$\gamma = (1-v^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$. Two people locked in different rooms and given everything you've ever written on QWC will come up with entirely different things, likely contradictory.

Hence what you're doing isn't science. This was pointed out to you years ago and yet you continue. Can't you find something more worthwhile to spend your time doing? Learn a language, play a musical instrument, read a physics textbook. Hell, picking fluff from your belly button would be as productive as spending time on QWC and at least it wouldn't cost Sciforums bandwidth!

I knew you couldn’t stand it much longer before you had to post on my thread again. You are very predictable, you know nothing of value to me, and if you had actually read my thread you would know I have admitted to being a pea brain and not doing science but doing speculating upon speculation. Posting my thoughts about my interests in Pseudoscience shouldn’t invoke that kind of vitriolic response so what’s your real point?

You know that I spend my spare time contemplating the universe and putting together my personal views. Why I do that is my business though it keeps my mind active and keeps me busy following a topic that I find interesting.

Go pump some mathematical iron because your brain is good for nothing else, even though I haven’t seen you making many mathematical contributions for that matter. I find that your social skills are what make you a laughing stock at SciForums outside your small click of math-bound brainiacs, so if you stop wasting bandwidth with your tripe, I won’t have to start speculating about what a wasteland your pathetic life must be.

Welcome back BTW, and may I call you a pea brain?

 

[quantum_wave]

...

… To be continued …

I’ll venture on and disregard the statements made about me by non-cult members who cannot have anything to say of merit because they don’t think their pet science projects are tentative, lol.

I just speculated about the length of time it might take for an arena to form from the overlap of two preceding arenas.

The new arenas of course are the way the greater universe defeats entropy and can exist eternally without suffering one of the final outcomes predicted by the current consensus cosmology where entropy becomes complete and there is no useful energy left.

Remember that my axioms have lead to these speculations in a step by step fashion. Even if you object to me speculating, the speculations are not baseless. I use axioms and the speculations are based on the axioms. The way to attack my speculations is to address the axioms and falsify them. But that would be the scientific way and we know that the flamers who are avowed non-cult members do not adore or adhere to the strengths of the scientific method.

Introducing Critical Capacity

So we can follow the derived speculations to the point that parent arenas quite similar to our own arena (that occupies our expanding Hubble volume of space) can intersect and overlap and give rise to new big crunches. The crunches are composed of the galactic material that has entered the overlap space from the expanding parent arenas. When the parent arenas overlap, the gravity of the galactic materials converging from the expanding parent arenas takes hold and defeats the expansion momentum of the material and causes the big crunch to form. These crunches will grow and reach thresholds and limits that will cause them to collapse, bounce off the maximum density limit, and burst into expansion to give birth to new arenas.

I have put a speculative time frame to the gestation period from arena intersection to the burst of maybe on average ~10^12 years for talking purposes, i.e. intersection (I) occurs at t-n; I=t-n.

I use the intersection of two parent arenas to mark the start of the arena clock to speculatively quantify the time frame involved. The overlap begins at the point in time of the intersection of the parents and it is expansion of both arenas that drives the increase in the volume of space and the amount of galactic material in the overlap space; they expand into each other's space. That said, we then come to the next major event, the point where the overlap has encompassed enough galactic material and debris from the parent arenas to equal the Critical Capacity required for a Big Burst.

I have an equation for the critical capacity threshold but it is trivial.

The equation is based on this graphic and simply equates the overlap portion of the two parents to the content of the two parents divided by 2, and when the equation equals 1, there is enough matter and energy in the overlap to assure critical capacity has been reached. The speculation is that there is a minimum about of energy required for all new arenas and a new arena is assured when the big crunch reaches that capacity.

Critical Capacity equates to an energy threshold because any quantity of matter and energy below that threshold will not produce enough compression to enable a crunch to burst into a new arena and all arenas will start out with that critical amount of energy.

Reaching the Critical Capacity Threshold (CCT or T1) is the longest phase of the ~10^12 years; let’s say that it lasts x% of n. If n=~10^12 and ‘x%’ is say 90% of that for talking purposes, we are talking about 900 billion years for this baby to reach critical capacity.

... To be continued ...

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I have an equation for the critical capacity threshold but it is trivial.

The equation is based on this graphic and simply equates the overlap portion of the two parents to the content of the two parents divided by 2, and when the equation equals 1, there is enough matter and energy in the overlap to assure critical capacity has been reached. The speculation is that there is a minimum about of energy required for all new arenas and a new arena is assured when the big crunch reaches that capacity.

Critical Capacity equates to an energy threshold because any quantity of matter and energy below that threshold will not produce enough compression to enable a crunch to burst into a new arena and all arenas will start out with that critical amount of energy.

Reaching the Critical Capacity Threshold (CCT or T1) is the longest phase of the ~10^12 years; let’s say that it lasts x% of n. If n=~10^12 and ‘x%’ is say 90% of that for talking purposes, we are talking about 900 billion years for this baby to reach critical capacity.

... To be continued ...

Like I say, trivial. The intersection and overlap of two spheres produces volumes called caps and two caps form a lens.

I know the equation can be greatly simplified but I like to show it this way because my pea brain can see how the pieces in the graphic relate to the equation. The equation always yields the percentage of one "critical capacity" that is accumulated in the overlap space (the lens). When the equation yields a value of one, critical capacity has been reached and there is enough energy in the overlap to cause a big crunch to collapse and bounce into expansion according to the speculations of QWC.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If you had a valid retort to my criticism you'd have given it. Your silence speaks volumes.

 

[quantum_wave]

If you had a valid retort to my criticism you'd have given it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Both post #63 and #64, but whose reading this stuff.

For some reason the math-bound-brainiacs and science wannabes hate it when I refer to real physics and cosmology and then point out incompatibilities and inabilities to test theories beyond certain limits. I am simply starting my speculations from where science has had to leave off as I said in the OP. I do it because I like to do reasonable and responsible speculation about what cosmology would be if the incompatibilities were resolved. Do they troll and flame because they don’t want me to do that?

I say get a life of you own and you won’t be so critical of how I spend my free time. AN is a social misfit whose life is centered on forums where he can pretend to be important or at least can deny what must be a pretty unfulfilling life otherwise. He has one of those lives that have taken shelter inside their own heads and in his case math was the perfect game. He could play it alone, didn’t have to mingle with others outside a circle of math engrossed students and teachers, and has thus developed into an adult that has not learned how to interact decently. He is ignorant of what a real life is and thinks that he has accomplished something that makes him so special that he is perfectly in line boasting about his academic accomplishments and belittling anyone and everyone he comes across in the forums because they don’t chose to follow the same path that lead to his social debilitation. He will boast of how accomplished he is and of how fine his life is due to his knowing mathematics and having peers who review his work and is oblivious of how unimportant he is to people who have real lives where everything isn’t as simple as making equations that are the same on both sides. There is no consensus on an equation for what causes the presence of matter or gravity or the Big Bang and those are the things I speculate about. I speculate because there is no mathematics that even tells us how those things could work in reality. Reality in their minds is when the numbers say something could work as long as you can freely go outside known dimensions and create a mathematical world that has no correspondence to realty.

Sorry AN, but if you were a quality person you would ignore me or try to relate to what I’m doing. You are not and so you don’t. Feel free to flame and troll which is your motif, but you are not a cult member and so nothing you say could be of any merit or of any interest to me.

 

[scheherazade]

Hey Quantum.......how are things?

I see that the surf's up in the quantum wave pool, lol.....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Both post #63 and #64, but whose reading this stuff.

I saw them, they provided nothing to respond to my requests for derivations, logic, postulates, evidence, models or reasoning. They were just assertions and inventions of your mind. For instance :

I knew you couldn’t stand it much longer before you had to post on my thread again. You are very predictable

I post twice, separated by 2 months and somehow you take that to mean I couldn't stand it any longer?

Remember what I said about you wanting to believe I have some kind of obsession about you? You want to think people think about your work, as evidenced by :

For some reason the math-bound-brainiacs and science wannabes hate it when I refer to real physics and cosmology and then point out incompatibilities and inabilities to test theories beyond certain limits.

I like how you say I'm a 'science wannabe'. I hardly think you're in a position to call me that.

I do it because I like to do reasonable and responsible speculation about what cosmology would be if the incompatibilities were resolved.

Reasonable? Responsible? Hardly.

I say get a life of you own and you won’t be so critical of how I spend my free time. AN is a social misfit whose life is centered on forums where he can pretend to be important or at least can deny what must be a pretty unfulfilling life otherwise. He has one of those lives that have taken shelter inside their own heads and in his case math was the perfect game. He could play it alone, didn’t have to mingle with others outside a circle of math engrossed students and teachers, and has thus developed into an adult that has not learned how to interact decently. He is ignorant of what a real life is and thinks that he has accomplished something that makes him so special that he is perfectly in line boasting about his academic accomplishments and belittling anyone and everyone he comes across in the forums because they don’t chose to follow the same path that lead to his social debilitation. He will boast of how accomplished he is and of how fine his life is due to his knowing mathematics and having peers who review his work and is oblivious of how unimportant he is to people who have real lives where everything isn’t as simple as making equations that are the same on both sides.

My my, your imagination has gone into overdrive hasn't it. Rather than provide something resembling science you invent an entire back story for me.

I find it funny you say I shouldn't comment on how you spend your free time then you do precisely the same about me. And the time I spend on forums is less than it used to be and a small part of my free time. My free time I mostly split between playing sport three nights a week and volunteering for a charity one day a weekend. But hey, don't let the real world get in the way of your musings, just like the real world doesn't get in the way of you making stuff up about physics.

Sorry AN, but if you were a quality person you would ignore me or try to relate to what I’m doing.

2 posts in as many months and I'm not giving you enough space? As for relating to what you're doing I've given comments about how to go about developing your work more coherently and logically, you don't want to know.

You are not and so you don’t.

It would seem that unless I say nothing then you deem it to be a sign I'm itching to reply to you, no matter how large a gap between interactions we have. As I said, you want to think people are interested in your work, that it has importance.

but you are not a cult member and so nothing you say could be of any merit or of any interest to me.

Cult? And it would seem what I say has sufficient interest for you to invent an entire narrative for my life, despite you having no clue what I spend my time doing or what my interests outside of maths and physics are. You take the fact I don't talk about such things to mean I don't have such things. And all the while you try to insult me for not being an upstanding person? Nice.

Seeing as you think your posts 63/64 counted as providing reason, evidence, logic, derivation, models etc it is clear you haven't moved on at all since our last interaction. Perhaps I'll look in your 'QWC revisited 2012' thread which you'll inevitably start in 7 or 8 months time. No doubt if I reply then you'll accuse me of being desperate to pass comment, as you're desperate to think I'm desperate to pass comment. See you then.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hey Quantum.......how are things?

I see that the surf's up in the quantum wave pool, lol.....

Lol, yes. Things are good. TY.

 

[quantum_wave]

I saw them, they provided nothing to respond to my requests for derivations, logic, postulates, evidence, models or reasoning. They were just assertions and inventions of your mind. For instance :

I post twice, separated by 2 months and somehow you take that to mean I couldn't stand it any longer?

Remember what I said about you wanting to believe I have some kind of obsession about you? You want to think people think about your work, as evidenced by :

I like how you say I'm a 'science wannabe'. I hardly think you're in a position to call me that.

Reasonable? Responsible? Hardly.

My my, your imagination has gone into overdrive hasn't it. Rather than provide something resembling science you invent an entire back story for me.

I find it funny you say I shouldn't comment on how you spend your free time then you do precisely the same about me. And the time I spend on forums is less than it used to be and a small part of my free time. My free time I mostly split between playing sport three nights a week and volunteering for a charity one day a weekend. But hey, don't let the real world get in the way of your musings, just like the real world doesn't get in the way of you making stuff up about physics.

2 posts in as many months and I'm not giving you enough space? As for relating to what you're doing I've given comments about how to go about developing your work more coherently and logically, you don't want to know.

It would seem that unless I say nothing then you deem it to be a sign I'm itching to reply to you, no matter how large a gap between interactions we have. As I said, you want to think people are interested in your work, that it has importance.

Cult? And it would seem what I say has sufficient interest for you to invent an entire narrative for my life, despite you having no clue what I spend my time doing or what my interests outside of maths and physics are. You take the fact I don't talk about such things to mean I don't have such things. And all the while you try to insult me for not being an upstanding person? Nice.

Seeing as you think your posts 63/64 counted as providing reason, evidence, logic, derivation, models etc it is clear you haven't moved on at all since our last interaction. Perhaps I'll look in your 'QWC revisited 2012' thread which you'll inevitably start in 7 or 8 months time. No doubt if I reply then you'll accuse me of being desperate to pass comment, as you're desperate to think I'm desperate to pass comment. See you then.

You can say anything you like. No one pays any attention to you and you don't make any sense. You haven't read the thread and you are responding from you poor character and arrogance. And that is how I came to know you, that is how your have been since you were an undergrad, and that is how you will always be. My estimation of you can't possibly be far from the mark and you can say anything you want about your sport and charity activities and I will believe you are a social misfit while you play sport and do charity because I see how you act on-line.

And I'm sure I will do a QWC 2012 so drop by then. You'll know I'm dead when the QWC annual threads stop coming, may I rest in peace, lol.

 

[scheherazade]

Perhaps one of the most bizarre attributes of our species is our apparent need to engage in conflict over ideology and mere ideas, even when those concepts do not have any effect on the available resources or one's quality of life.

Then again, maybe such intellectual sparring is a means whereby we determine our status in our peer group, as determined by those who either accept/reject/tolerate our perspectives.

An interesting need that most have to accept one model over another, as it is discomfiting for many to hold more than one concept in mind at any given time. Either/or seems ever the dialogue, yet until a concept can be measured, why not enjoy the mental sampling of both, is ever my ponder.

Why are we such an intolerant species? What is gained or lost? Hmmmmm......

 

[quantum_wave]

Perhaps one of the most bizarre attributes of our species is our apparent need to engage in conflict over ideology and mere ideas, even when those concepts do not have any effect on the available resources or one's quality of life.

Then again, maybe such intellectual sparring is a means whereby we determine our status in our peer group, as determined by those who either accept/reject/tolerate our perspectives.

An interesting need that most have to accept one model over another, as it is discomfiting for many to hold more than one concept in mind at any given time. Either/or seems ever the dialogue, yet until a concept can be measured, why not enjoy the mental sampling of both, is ever my ponder.

Why are we such an intolerant species? What is gained or lost? Hmmmmm......

It may seem bizarre to see me engage in conflict, that is true, lol. But my participation is not based on a difference between ideology or ideas with Alphanumeric. I worked hard to bring my thread far enough along to get the trolls and flamers to come around. It isn't easy to do that with my dry topic. Very few people have any interest in the cosmology of the universe and SciForums is one place where a few of them hang out.

Given a few people who have the same interest that I have, we each have our own view as you point out. Why would anyone bother to read my speculative and wordy view when they could write their own? The answer is because mine has been able to draw the attention of Alphanumeric and one or two other trolls who have some otherwise useful skills supported by the rigor of lengthy education. If I spend a thousand hours a year over six or eight years paying close attention the all views of cosmology both past and present it gives me no credentials. But if I am attacked with baseless comments and clear disregard for the content of the thread, then there is a small chance that someone will actually read it in the spirit that it is developed and written.

Should that be the case, the troll would then have done my bidding by helping me get some interest from the cult. To be clear, the cult is a good thing and being a non-cult member is means the poster is unprofessional and unscientific when it comes to how they act and what level of strength they see in the precept of tentativeness of science. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/10/5609.ars

I now have the opportunity to go back and address Alphanumerics unfounded and uninformed criticism by referring to the original post and the development of the tread, and any new viewers I might have gained from the conflict might understand what QWC is and realize it is a broad view of cosmology based on a layman's view and compiled from years of following the topic, posting, incorporating the helpful input from my threads and many others, and all of that which is explained throughout my posts.

But your are right that the sparing is a means to establish ourselves among our peers and my peers are the laymen who come to forums to learn and share learning. We hold to the tentativeness precept and we hold to the expectation that the professionals will act as professionals. It is rare to root out the trolls from the professionals ranks, and a rare benefit to laymen with an interest in cosmology to be so blessed as to get someone like AN to flame us in such a misguided attack.

To AN, I know you better than you know yourself and you will not be happy with our conflict because I know you. You cannot take criticism. The instant I questioned if you were trolling on another thread you immediately made a trolling post here. TY BTW.

... To be continued ...

 

[prometheus]

You've still not learned the definition of an axiom I see QW.

 

[Guest254]

You've still not learned the definition of an axiom I see QW.

He knows you know he doesn't know the definition of an axiom. He knows you know he doesn't know better than you know he doesn't know, because he knows you better than you know yourself.

Now you know, and he knows it.

 

[quantum_wave]

You've still not learned the definition of an axiom I see QW.

Maybe not, but you never gave me a link to help me learn what an axiom is smart guy, you just take shots at me. So I use them as defined in the OP.

In QWC I deal with that lack of scientific answers by axioms and derived “truths” which fall into the category of reasonable and responsible speculation. The axioms deal with what we cannot yet know (or cannot prove) due to the limits of our tools and ability to observe, and the derived truths in QWC are nothing more than speculations that I as a layman can go with.

So to me axioms would be, for example, the universe is infinite and has always existed, everything is composed of wave energy, time simply passes, etc. They stake out the perspective from which I base my personal views.

An axiom in QWC is self evident or a necessary truth from which related "truths" are derived. I'm not doing science, I am developing my personal view of cosmology which should be of no interest to you unless you want to contribute.

 

[quantum_wave]

He knows you know he doesn't know the definition of an axiom. He knows you know he doesn't know better than you know he doesn't know, because he knows you better than you know yourself.

Now you know, and he knows it.

No so. I don't know Prometheus like I know AN. Now you, you are just as big a lost cause as I am; no science has ever come from either of us, right. You are definitely not a cult member like me though because you think your fairy dust doesn't stink. I make no such claim.

I suppose you think the universe had a beginning? You have never answered a question from me so your posts to date are 100% trolling. Welcome back and feel free to show off.

 

[CptBork]

In QWC I deal with that lack of scientific answers by axioms and derived “truths” which fall into the category of reasonable and responsible speculation. The axioms deal with what we cannot yet know (or cannot prove) due to the limits of our tools and ability to observe, and the derived truths in QWC are nothing more than speculations that I as a layman can go with.

I have no problem with you speculating about the universe's properties in whatever manner makes you personally happy. The only question is, as I have asked before: what makes you the arbiter of "reasonable and responsible" speculation? What lines separates it from "unreasonable and irresponsible" speculation?

 

[quantum_wave]

I have no problem with you speculating about the universe's properties in whatever manner makes you personally happy. The only question is, as I have asked before: what makes you the arbiter of "reasonable and responsible" speculation? What lines separates it from "unreasonable and irresponsible" speculation?

You probably did ask that before. I have only the answers I have given in this thread which I will rephrase but I invite you to give me an example from what I have written of something that you find unreasonable and irresponsible.

I also would like to ask you a question. Do you find I have misunderstood the use of the word "axioms" when I apply that term to the aspects of the universe that I want to start with as self-evident or necessary truths and use as the basis for deriving my so called reasonable and responsible speculations?

That, in a way, rephrases my meaning of "reasonable and responsible", i.e. they are derived from axioms that are used to establish "truths" that are either self-evident or necessary in my pea brained layman estimation. Speculations so derived are then used as the basis of speculation upon speculation and so on in a step by step manner to develop and express my personal view of cosmology. It is not presented as science or teaching; it is presented to show where I am in developing a personal view and to put it out there for forum members to take shots at.

I think you might be a cult member from the posts that I have read but you can easily disavow cult membership. Saying someone is a non-cult member is just a light hearted way to poke fun at people who insist some particular science theory is reality or who flame someone else for having a different view of something, .

 

[CptBork]

I also would like to ask you a question. Do you find I have misunderstood the use of the word "axioms" when I apply that term to the aspects of the universe that I want to start with as self-evident or necessary truths and use as the basis for deriving my so called reasonable and responsible speculations?

Well it depends on what you consider a "self-evident" truth. Is it supposed to be something that any objective person could agree with, intended to divine the origins of the universe? Or is it only intended as an arbitrary axiom to muse upon and ponder the consequences that would arise if it were true?

I think you might be a cult member from the posts that I have read but you can easily disavow cult membership. Saying someone is a non-cult member is just a light hearted way to poke fun at people who insist the science theory is reality or who flame someone else because they are too dumb to realize they aren't even wrong. Its your call.

The whole idea of a cult is that it expects its followers to believe certain things without justification, so I wouldn't want to be associated with the label regardless of whatever it's really intended to mean.