Shape of the universe discussion thread
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Getting a little cerebral, aren’t we?
Try this one: A good cosmology is infinite and infinitesimal.
Ya both are same things. However no one has been able to do this. Just take a look at the gap between quantum physics and normal physics. Quantum physics only works for subatomic shit and the regular physics only works for ordinary objects. No one has been able to reconcile the differences between them. A good theory should work for objects of any size.
And a good pseudoscience is vague and poorly explained.
Maybe, but in your case it is obnoxious arrogance that eliminates any possibility that your comments could have any relevance. You’re a troll, and fixated with putting down others. Everyone like you who is obsessed with being somebody themselves assumes that people who simply enjoy a hobby and are intelligent enough to grasp ideas from others, make relationships, and contemplate original ideas must have ulterior motives and you are going to do everything in your power to make sure that you ruin whatever you can for them. You show all the characteristics of someone who has not just poor self confidence, but severe issues and if you don’t get over it or get some help you are doomed for a life of failure. Mark my words; you will continue to be unhappy in life until you are happy with yourself, and when you are happy with yourself you will view what others are doing for what it is instead of for what you proclaim with your infantile and meaningless remarks that you spew forth in all of the threads that you troll. I know you can’t help it and that is why I say get professional help.
Last edited:
There's a difference between having an interest in science, reading pop science books and pitching questions on a forum like "How come science can't talk about before the big bang?" compared to simply making up things without any method or reason other than you like the sound of your own proclamations and then trying to convince people its worth them investing their time into developing it further, which in fact amounts to little more than you telling them your thoughts.
The former is a perfectly good thing, I wish more people did it. The latter is simply you telling people your ideas about life, the universe and everything and ignoring any and all corrections.
You have yet to explain why QWC is anything more than you speaking your view of the universe outloud. If every person who knows relativity died tomorrow and all the books on it burnt, save a single page stating the two postulates of special relativity, it would still be possible to reconstruct exactly special relativity from just those postulates. SR is not dependent on the people who develop it. If you died tomorrow and all the material on QWC lost other than the first 5 'steps' you keep mentioning then it would be impossible to reconstruct QWC as you currently have it because it is nothing but your view on things.
And thus it is worthless.
People can always tell that your life is unfulfilled and unhappy. By looking at your posts for the day we can see when you are feeling particularly insignificant and worthless, like today. Like I said, it is a serious mental problem and you should get help.
Having met AN and conversed quite a bit with him in the last few years I can categorically say that this is false.
Excuse me, but you are not credible in science or cosmology, and so when you support AN how can we consider your opinion useful. I have noticed the two of you come to threads to support each other’s obnoxious arrogance, but in your joint efforts to say what is and is not appropriate cosmological discussion you both need to get busy and do some reading. I am thousands of hours ahead of you in respect to cosmology and as for intelligence; you both seem to be ignorant when you venture outside of math. To quote a recent phrase, the "ego has landed", when you two try to discuss cosmology.
Last edited:
A jury of my peers seems to think I'm scientifically credible, not to mention the people that gave me a first class for my degree in theoretical physics, and the people that give me money to research theoretical physics for my PhD.
If I were a psychologist I'd be able to authoritatively speculate that you are projecting your own inadequacies on to others. As it is I'll just leave that thought out there for people to make up their own minds.
If I were a psychologist I'd be able to authoritatively speculate that you are projecting your own inadequacies on to others. As it is I'll just leave that thought out there for people to make up their own minds.
I'm close to finishing a large paper and a small paper, which will quickly lead to a thesis and 'Dr' before my name. I've just moved out of student land and into a very nice flat. My girlfriend and I have been together more than a year. I enjoy my work and I'm about to do a bit of teaching, which I also enjoy. I have little to no problems with money.
But of course you knew that, given your extensive knowledge of my life gleaned from my critique of your clap trap.
Is this the royal 'we', where you're simply trying to give the impression you speak for some silent group of people, or are you actually referring to some group of people who seem unable to post for themselves?
So as well as being a visionary for physics and a psychic for knowing so much about my life, you're also a mental health professional. Wow, you really are a jack of all trades!
Or perhaps I'm cutting a little too close to the truth and you just can't come up with any valid response to my comments, such as how QWC is utterly without structure and is simply your musings, so you're just hurling baseless accusations.
And you are? Good one. Who precisely is making the decisions on who is or isn't credible? If we went by education, publications and demonstrated knowledge you lose on every count when compared to Prom or myself.
So please explain what criteria you're using to define 'credible'.
So your opinion of me, someone who you've never met, is a perfectly valid thing for you to give but when Prom, who I have met (more than once), gives his opinion of me he has to justify why its 'useful'? Do you even think about what you say?
You mean you've spent more time reading pop science books and magazines? I asked you to do a question from the first question sheet of the first cosmology course I sat at a student and you refused. And its quite clear you're unable to do it.
So explain precisely how you're ahead of us in cosmology? In terms of education, produced work and achievements we're ahead of you on every count. For instance, I've repeatedly linked you to published work of mine where I give AdS, Minkowski and dS space-time configurations, to prove your claim I thought deSitter solutions were not valid GR solutions false. You never responded. Can you provide any published work of yours in which you address cosmological issues? No. Can you provide a link where you show a working, working, understanding of GR and cosmology? No. Can you provide any evidence at all you have any knowledge which is beyond what any half interested person could get from reading Wikipedia and using Google for a weekend? Nope.
And so we're back to wondering quite what the criteria you're using for 'credible' and 'ahead' are....
Yeah, that's why professors pay us to teach undergraduates.
We don't claim to have huge new ideas which go where science dare not tread. You're the one doing that. We accept criticism on our work from peer reviewers, you do not. We don't lie about our grasp of topics, you do. If I'm wrong about you lying, why don't we go through a few cosmology questions from homeworks I did long ago. After all, if you're way ahead of me you should have no problem with them. Or are you hiding something?
And notice how this thread is no longer about you defending your 'work' from criticism, its about you attacking me. My last post was addressing your 'work', the methods and rational (or lack of) you use and rather than retort my comments you claim I'm mentally ill. I guess you're backed into a corner and that's all you've got left. :shrug:
My hobby is developing and evolving my personal cosmology. I don’t consider my credentials to qualify me to be taken seriously by cosmologists, but they do qualify me to talk about cosmology. My discussions are intended to accomplish my prime objective of having a personal view of cosmology, which I have done and which I continue to develop. That view is based on everything that I read about it and contemplation of the relationships that are both common among cosmologies and that set cosmologies apart from one another. Also, I pay attention to what is written about the problems with the various cosmologies and those problems are what often stimulate my contemplations. I have been doing this enthusiastically since 2001 and have contemplated cosmology since the first time I saw the Milky Way spread like a bright banner across the dark night sky when I was five. If you have run across my threads and paid any attention you should see the evolution of the ideas. I invite everyone to go along with me, to comment about content and cosmology, and I point out the fools who pretend I am the dope when they are really the dopes (unless you are a moderator and then what you say goes).
I’m a quick learner when it comes to forum discussions and I started participating way back when I was one of the first Prodigy members in the 1980’s. If I mention any existing theory there are a variety of responses ranging from the AN type who claim I know nothing if I didn’t do the math, to the teenager who had a dream. I end up in a position to defend or debunk existing theory and I have found that the best way to do that is to discuss the problems with the consensus cosmology and let you, the reader mention other existing theories. When you do that, if I feel you are ignorant of the existing theory that you mention I have learned that is when I should point out my view of that theory and put it into perspective with my personal cosmology. So I try not to discuss alternative cosmologies by name. I host my threads from the perspective of problems with the standard cosmology and then I discuss my ideas. You don’t like my method, you don’t need to participate. You participate to make me out to be the fool and I will show the forum why you are the fool.
One other aspect of forum life is that both topics and people are characterized by what is said about them by others. I understand the Saul Alinski approach and I bet that I am as good at it as you two.
As for the shape of the universe discussion everyone and I mean everyone who has any education in science knows that when you talk about the shape of the universe you are talking about General Relativity. Shape in GR is about space as confined by theory. Shape outside of GR is a topic that most of you may have never discussed or contemplated unless you looked out into the night sky and wondered about infinity. This thread was my way of moving my personal discussions to the contemplation of infinite space and to distinguish that discussion from the GR perspective of shape being open, flat, or closed. I did so, I made my point, and I met the fools who can’t contemplate anything beyond the standard cosmology.
You ignored my request you justify how your opinion of me is worth saying but Prom needs to justify the 'usefulness' of his opinion, despite he having actually met me.
You ignored my challenge you back up your claim you've got a good grasp of cosmology.
You ignored my request you explain why Prom is not 'credible' when it comes to science or cosmology, yet you seem to believe you are.
You failed to provide any evidence/justification for you being ahead of us with regards to cosmology.
You failed to retort my comment that if we're ignorant of anything outside of maths why are we allowed to teach (and we're both in physics departments).
You failed to explain whether your constant use of the word 'we' was simply the Royal We or you're the representative of some group who for some reason are unable to voice their opinions for themselves.
You have failed to retort my point that the only way to 'develop' your work is via your opinion. If your 'work' can't be reproduced independently then it's nothing but opinion and baseless conjecture.
You failed to explain how you arrive at such conclusions as "Shape outside of GR is a topic that most of you may have never discussed or contemplated" or "By looking at your posts for the day we can see when you are feeling particularly insignificant and worthless", when I have made no attempt to discuss anything here other than your clap trap. How do you make such leaps of logic?
You failed to explain how you arrive at such 'diagnoses' as "Like I said, it is a serious mental problem and you should get help. " when you aren't a mental health professional, you've never talked to me about anything personal and we've never met. Any actual mental health professional would require at least a face to face interview, so one might be tempted to conclude you're throwing worthless and baseless ad homs about.
All in all you avoided backing up anything you claimed, avoided retorting anything I'd said and avoided addressing any direct question put to you. Why is that?
You ignored my challenge you back up your claim you've got a good grasp of cosmology.
You ignored my request you explain why Prom is not 'credible' when it comes to science or cosmology, yet you seem to believe you are.
You failed to provide any evidence/justification for you being ahead of us with regards to cosmology.
You failed to retort my comment that if we're ignorant of anything outside of maths why are we allowed to teach (and we're both in physics departments).
You failed to explain whether your constant use of the word 'we' was simply the Royal We or you're the representative of some group who for some reason are unable to voice their opinions for themselves.
You have failed to retort my point that the only way to 'develop' your work is via your opinion. If your 'work' can't be reproduced independently then it's nothing but opinion and baseless conjecture.
You failed to explain how you arrive at such conclusions as "Shape outside of GR is a topic that most of you may have never discussed or contemplated" or "By looking at your posts for the day we can see when you are feeling particularly insignificant and worthless", when I have made no attempt to discuss anything here other than your clap trap. How do you make such leaps of logic?
You failed to explain how you arrive at such 'diagnoses' as "Like I said, it is a serious mental problem and you should get help. " when you aren't a mental health professional, you've never talked to me about anything personal and we've never met. Any actual mental health professional would require at least a face to face interview, so one might be tempted to conclude you're throwing worthless and baseless ad homs about.
All in all you avoided backing up anything you claimed, avoided retorting anything I'd said and avoided addressing any direct question put to you. Why is that?
You ignored everything I said too. I get the idea that you are not interested in what I say, only what you say. Think about it; can you think of any reason I would ignore what you say? Could it be that after over a year of history with you being completely ignorant of cosmology and not showing any interest in what I discuss about it, while you continue to troll with nothing but your pure ego behind you, I might not want to think about anything you say, let alone respond at your command?
Let’s try something. This is a quote from one of my posts earlier in the thread.
“The landscape of the greater universe would be filled with arenas each like our observable universe, playing out the various stages of intersection with other arenas, overlap, collapse of the galactic matter caught in the overlap into a big crunch, big burst, expansion, intersection with other arenas, overlap, collapse, big crunch, big burst, you get the idea.”
All of you cosmology fans recognize terms like:
Greater universe
Observable universe
Overlap and collapse of the galactic material
Big crunch
Big Bang
Expansion/Inflation
Etc. etc.
I know there is a Lone Lurker who understands those terms and how they relate to different cosmologies.
Who can tell me in their own words, without looking it up, the difference between the way I use the term landscape, i.e. relative to the greater universe, and the way Susskind uses the term in his book, The Cosmic Landscape, 2005, which I have.
If you know that off the top of your head, then what does Smolin say on Susskind’s view of the Cosmic Landscape in his book, The Trouble with Physics, 2006, which I have. I don’t think anyone in this forum cares enough to say so if they do know the answer. I have known each of their views and been influenced by both as I develop my own ideas about cosmology.
“The landscape of the greater universe would be filled with arenas each like our observable universe, playing out the various stages of intersection with other arenas, overlap, collapse of the galactic matter caught in the overlap into a big crunch, big burst, expansion, intersection with other arenas, overlap, collapse, big crunch, big burst, you get the idea.”
All of you cosmology fans recognize terms like:
Greater universe
Observable universe
Overlap and collapse of the galactic material
Big crunch
Big Bang
Expansion/Inflation
Etc. etc.
I know there is a Lone Lurker who understands those terms and how they relate to different cosmologies.
Who can tell me in their own words, without looking it up, the difference between the way I use the term landscape, i.e. relative to the greater universe, and the way Susskind uses the term in his book, The Cosmic Landscape, 2005, which I have.
If you know that off the top of your head, then what does Smolin say on Susskind’s view of the Cosmic Landscape in his book, The Trouble with Physics, 2006, which I have. I don’t think anyone in this forum cares enough to say so if they do know the answer. I have known each of their views and been influenced by both as I develop my own ideas about cosmology.
I've attempted to get you do be more specific in what you mean by 'arena action' or for you to further elaborate on your methods, but you refuse.
Because you lied and now you can't think of a way to dig yourself out of your hole so you're changing the subject.
You claimed you're ahead of us in cosmology. You lied. You claimed Prom isn't credible in science. You lied and were a hypocrite. You claimed a lot about me without basis or reason other than you could only respond with ad homs. You claimed we're ignorant outside of mathematics. You lied. You asked Prom to explain why his opinions are 'useful' while you give yours freely. You were a hypocrite.
Need I go on?
I've asked you to explain 'arena action' or your methods, but you can't because it boils down to 'because I say so'. If I'm wrong, go ahead.
You asked Prom why his opinion of me is 'useful' after you'd given your opinion of me. Prom has met me. You haven't. And you're accusing us of 'pure ego'! :lol:
If you have nothing to hide and you aren't lying repeatedly then is it too much to ask for you to justify your grand claims like I've got a mental health issue or that you're ahead of us in cosmology?
If you don't plan to respond to such challenges then either don't make such wild claims or start a blog. Don't come on a discussion site making claims you can't back up and then whine when someone says "Really?".
You have not asked questions about what I say characterizes arena action. You demand proof or quantification.
You are a human with the ability to say any trash you want. You are ignorant about cosmology. I know far more than you do about it. You have a huge ego and employ the worst of human tactics. You have the lowest character of anyone on the forum as far as I can tell. You make claims and accusations that are completely untrue and you deny what is the truth about your arrogant ignorance. Do you know the definition of worthless protoplasm.
And you defend Prometheus? His grasp of cosmology, which you have never refuted, amounts to his statement that it is absurd to think that the universe has always existed because if time had no beginning we could never get to now. He doesn’t even have the sense to look up Zeno’s paradox about “Achilles and the Tortoise”, let alone looking up how James Gregory in his work in the 1600s with the convergent series finally officially broke the paradox. This is how strong you two are in cosmology and math history, ignorant and oblivious of the Zeno paradoxes and their solutions that resolve the issue of the absurdity that Prometheus and apparently cling to.
I have my own personal cosmology of which you, Prometheus, and your friends have never shown to be inconsistent with observations or data. I didn’t make it up; I developed it from a broad understanding of cosmology. I can defend it. You haven’t got the nerve to test me so instead you resort to personal attacks, fabrications and lies. The first post you made on my thread over a year ago said you thought I was an idiot as proved by the fact that I was exchanging posts with someone you were hounding and attacking. I have shown you were the arrogant idiot and you have continued to confirm that right along. From time to time your friends supported you but they have all realized you are on an ego vendetta.
Your next post will be meaningless too, without a doubt, unless you show that there is something wrong with QWC. You can’t, you haven’t, and you are so distraught that you resort to posts that try to bluff your way through your failure to show an error in QWC.
You answer this or get lost: Do you agree with Prometheus that it is absurd to believe that the universe has always existed? Or now that I have provided the answer to his paradox, do you acknowledge that one of the initial speculations of QWC, i.e. that the universe has always existed is not refuted by Prometheus’ foolishness with the infinite sequence paradox. “Hello?” That was solved over three hundred years ago.
Do you believe it is absurd to base QWC on the speculation that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Do you have any observations that refute that? Please state the theory, provide a link, and say why you think it shows that energy can come from nothing if that is your opinion. This is open discussion.
Do you consider it absurd to speculate that particles with mass that occupy the Particle Model could be composed of energy in quantum increments which is a speculation of QWC and a line of study in String Theory? Do you even know who Susskind is? Smolin? Can you answer the questions in my previous post?
Have you ever considered wiping the slate clean and addressing the speculations of QWC. I can defend QWC and haven’t even had to break a sweat with your amateur attacks demanding quantification of things that everyone knows cannot be quantified but are still valid pursuits and active issues in alternative cosmologies. What have you quantified about aspects of your work that cannot be physically observed? How do you perceive the correspondence between mathematics and nature? Are you educating yourself on the issues of cosmology, the history, what is resolved and what are still open debates? Do you think you understand the cosmology of the universe? Why do you insist that I say I do then? I don't. I have a personal view of cosmology for discussion purposes. Discuss it on my threads or admit you don't intend to.
Last edited:
Zeno's paradox has nothing to do with an infinite time direction. Since you clearly don't understand it, Zeno's paradox states that we shouldn't be able to move anywhere, since we have to cover half the distance, then half of the remaining distance and so on. Since we have to do an infinite number of things, it should take an infinite amount of time. This, as you state, was resolved by convergent geometric series'.
This isn't what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that time is infinite and is makes sense for there to be events in the infinite past, a point which I dispute. Do you see the difference?
I feel compelled to restate that I have never been adverse to admitting I'm wrong and if someone proves me wrong I am more than happy to admit it. I only repeat this because of QW's rampant deceitfulness - if I don't I know what the tone of the next post will be.
Time only goes forward, direction of time is not the issue in the paradoxes. What is "an infinite time direction"?
You say I don't get it, that it is not about infinite time direction which I would have never thought it was, and then you point out to me that it deals with an infinite amount of time. I will give you credit for understanding the paradoxes of Zeno's day but you should be able to see that they apply to the issue I have with your thinking.
Yes, as I pointed out.
I do, but that simply means that you believe that I am saying that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events and I am saying that in a universe that has always existed there has never been a time when events were not occurring. Let me ask you the same question, can you see the difference. An event occurs at a point in time and there is always a finite length of time between two events. If you take now as a time event, and pick any time event in the past that is on the continuum of all time events, there is a finite length of time between them.
What I am trying to get you to understand is the difference between a time continuum that starts with a beginning event, say the Big Bang, and a time continuum that has no beginning, say in a universe where Big Bangs are common events across the infinite landscape of a greater universe that had no beginning. Let "now" be an event on both continuum and so there is a finite length of time between now and the point in time that marks the beginning on your continuum. There are no events prior to your beginning point on your continuum. There is a point in time on my continuum that corresponds to the beginning point on your continuum, however there are prior events on my continuum and in fact if there was no beginning, you cannot go back to a point in time the marks the beginning on mine and so my continuum is infinite and yours is finite.
That is an unsettled issue in cosmology. If the issue was as simple as you make it out to be, it would be settled.
You were doing fine until your ego forced you to show your ignorance again. You have no intellectual credibility because you don't understand that the question of a beginning is a major issue in cosmology and because you lash out a people who challenge your poor intellect beyond your ability to understand.
You must get this monkey off your back. You brag about how your are tested and respected in your community. Bring people in your community to me that support your view.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
Zeno was of the school of philosophy that in his day seemed to dispute even the possibility of motion and therefore we could not trust our senses. Funny that is it written that he was executed when he was on the wrong side of a political argument. I would have thought that it would have been a scientific argument that would have done him in.
Zeno was of the school of philosophy that in his day seemed to dispute even the possibility of motion and therefore we could not trust our senses. Funny that is it written that he was executed when he was on the wrong side of a political argument. I would have thought that it would have been a scientific argument that would have done him in.