Why?
Spacetime vs. QWC gravity
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Why?
Read the OP on the Zeno thread. Fourth paragraph.
That doesn't answer the question, that merely restates your opinion. For completeness.
Why is there always a finite length of time between any two points on the continuum?
You will turn on me in a second and call me every name in the book if I enter in to a discussion with you. Your character has been displayed by the attacks and trolling that are obvious in all of my threads. Crap doesn't turn into sugar and you have treated me like crap. If you can't figure out what a time continuum is ask someone who cares. As far as I am concerned you are ignorant to believe that if time has always existed we could never get to the present. You have had months to figure this out and seem to be stuck on it.
If you are serious, try to explain your thinking to me instead of leading this discussion into a new and better trolling opportunity. What do you think a time continuum is and how is it created?
If you are serious, try to explain your thinking to me instead of leading this discussion into a new and better trolling opportunity. What do you think a time continuum is and how is it created?
I've explained my thinking and asked you a simple question about something you said and you can't answer. I knew the water was shallow but this hardly even qualifies as a puddle. Pathetic.
You are so predictable and so ignorant. Why don't you just admit you were wrong.
Last edited:
Your character, with your admission of lying about things I 'supposedly' said, has been shown too. And you're right, crap doesn't turn to sugar, so why do you think if you repeatedly ignore any and all criticism about your method and your claims it'll magically become a worthwhile endeavour?
How many times have you had to be corrected on mainstream stuff? I asked you what, if any, courses which any and all universities in the world consider required to do cosmology and surprise surprise, you ignored my question repeatedly. Clearly you don't want to admit you have none of the required knowledge to grasp mainstream cosmology over and above Wikipedia and New Scientist articles. If I'm wrong about this, why don't we do a few of the questions I linked to in the post of mine you haven't got around to addressing yet? Why don't you put your physics where your mouth is? Both Prom and I are working on a PhD. We've convinced professors we're educated and intelligent enough to do original research and we have done so. We have proof we know the mainstream view. You keep trying to convince us (well yourself more than anyone else) that we don't know the mainstream view but the evidence is the reverse, your grasp is considerably worse than ours. Now we don't claim to be perfect but the issue of such things as "Is there infinite amount of time in the past" is a question which doesn't relate to either of our work, we aren't cosmologists, and in the grand scheme of things the deficits in your knowledge and understanding are considerably larger.
And so we come back to this - You're simply asserting things as if somehow your opinions mean more than the rest of humanity and when this is pointed out by people that know more than you about the subject you're pontificating about were "trolling." I will not admit I'm wrong because there's nothing that you've said to prove me wrong. If someone does in the future legitimately argues why what I've said is wrong then I will happily admit it, as I've always said.
It's pathetic that you're so filled with your own self worth that you ignore the advice of those that clearly have more knowledge on cosmology than you (I'm thinking of AN, oli and ophiolite mostly). It's pathetic that you can't even back up the most simple you assertions with any type of logical reasoning, never mind any mathematics. This thread really belongs in a religion subforum because that's what you're trying to create. A religion where your word on cosmology is law, despite evidence to the contrary and logic you cannot refute.
So without any hope whatsoever that you will provide a response that show the slightest hint of actual thought rather than just pulling the answer out of your ass; Why do you say there always a finite length of time between any two points on the continuum?
I just abandanoned my line by line response to your last lengthy post. It is a waste of time.
Either address the topic or rant away. Your choice. I have always responded to your on topic posts, but in my threads I choose the topic and put it in the OP.
Last edited:
When you can grasp the Zeno issue I will discuss it if you want but you and your puppet are a waste of time. Like I say, the topic is in the OP and the content is about QWC. Address the topic or rant and spout vitriol, have it your way.
Then why don't we cut directly to you showing you know all about mainstream cosmology, such as big bangs and inflation, and you answer Question 7? It's about time between big bangs and big crunches. Those are two topics you like to talk about when it comes to QWC and since you're claiming that I'm a little short in my cosmology knowledge and you aren't why don't we see you do that question.
And if you can't, provide as much of your working as possible. Total working time for someone who knows how to do calculus, PDEs and knows about the FRW metric is under 15 minutes. Much less time than I imagine it would take to reply to my post line by line.
Also, can you explain why I have published work which explicitly mentions deSitter space-time solutions in string theory and yet you also claim I said it was a non-GR result? Or perhaps the fact you can't answer that is the reason you aren't replying line by line.
AN, thanks for the offer but I am no more interested in your suggestion than you are in stating your views on my topic.
Read the OP and respond on topic or go on playing games, it's your choice.
Read the OP and respond on topic or go on playing games, it's your choice.
No, you have yet again lied about me and I want to clarify this because it seems you will keep on lying unless you're exposed. Or perhaps you'll keep on lying, you didn't stop after your last admission of lying.
Explain to me why I would say de Sitter space-times are non-GR, so you claim, if I have published work on supergravity de Sitter space-times. If you can't then admit that you lied about things I've said, because in fact I never said de Sitter solutions aren't valid GR solutions, I was in fact saying that some infinite space-times have a well defined shape, like AdS. Hell, in this thread I've had to tell you how de Sitter got his solutions, as you obviously didn't know (or simply made it up to further your own nonsense).
It'll take 1 line for you to say "I was lying, you never said it". It'll take more lines to whine about how no one wants to talk to you about your BS.
Funny how you keep trying to convince thread readers (and yourself) I've not got a clue but whenever I challenge you to a throw down you run away. Real physics too scary for you?
If you want to talk about your work, fine. You said the following :
If you can't provide the expressions I ask for then the implications you claim from those assumptions are nothing but further assumptions. Guesses built on assumptions balanced on random ideas spinning on concepts you borrowed from other people. You keep saying things like "I am no more interested in your suggestion than you are in stating your views on my topic.". I've given my views on your topic, it's nothing but random guesses with no rhym or reason other than your personal preferences and since you aren't God your personal preferences aren't science. What specifically those personal preferences are are irrelevant. Even if someone came along tomorrow with exactly the same set of 'predictions' as you but they had managed to derive them from a small set of postulates rigorously that wouldn't make what you do science, it would make what they do science. Without method or logic you are utterly wasting your time deluding yourself. As Prom said, you just want people to believe you've got some amazing grasp of Nature and that your words are worth listening to more than anyone else. If that isn't the case you'd be open to criticism, correction and the accepetance you're not doing science. Making proclamations about the universe with no method, reason or observational justification is a religion, not a science.
Explain to me why I would say de Sitter space-times are non-GR, so you claim, if I have published work on supergravity de Sitter space-times. If you can't then admit that you lied about things I've said, because in fact I never said de Sitter solutions aren't valid GR solutions, I was in fact saying that some infinite space-times have a well defined shape, like AdS. Hell, in this thread I've had to tell you how de Sitter got his solutions, as you obviously didn't know (or simply made it up to further your own nonsense).
It'll take 1 line for you to say "I was lying, you never said it". It'll take more lines to whine about how no one wants to talk to you about your BS.
Funny how you keep trying to convince thread readers (and yourself) I've not got a clue but whenever I challenge you to a throw down you run away. Real physics too scary for you?
If you want to talk about your work, fine. You said the following :
Give the for function/formula for gravity in terms of mass you mention. Give me the expression you'd use to find the energy in a region of space-time. Give me the formal description for the energy of the geometry of space-time you mention. And space-time isn't geometry, space-time has geometry.
If you can't provide the expressions I ask for then the implications you claim from those assumptions are nothing but further assumptions. Guesses built on assumptions balanced on random ideas spinning on concepts you borrowed from other people. You keep saying things like "I am no more interested in your suggestion than you are in stating your views on my topic.". I've given my views on your topic, it's nothing but random guesses with no rhym or reason other than your personal preferences and since you aren't God your personal preferences aren't science. What specifically those personal preferences are are irrelevant. Even if someone came along tomorrow with exactly the same set of 'predictions' as you but they had managed to derive them from a small set of postulates rigorously that wouldn't make what you do science, it would make what they do science. Without method or logic you are utterly wasting your time deluding yourself. As Prom said, you just want people to believe you've got some amazing grasp of Nature and that your words are worth listening to more than anyone else. If that isn't the case you'd be open to criticism, correction and the accepetance you're not doing science. Making proclamations about the universe with no method, reason or observational justification is a religion, not a science.
Last edited:
You have a mental disorder.
You clearly have self-image issues.
Forget everyone who isn’t posting on this thread because you are and you are fixated with it or me or your insecurities or something.
Try replying to the topic. Hint, it is in the OP and actually in several of my posts that follow. This thread is not about you though you are acting like it is about whether or not you are a liar, which you are.
You missed a few details about my threads and the discussion of ideas I call QWC. Try to get a grasp of my intentions and get over your personal problems long enough to admit I am mentioning ideas and discussion of ideas that pertain to unquantifiable aspects of the possible nature of the universe beyond the standard cosmology and the standard particle model.
Why? Because there are aspects of the consensus about cosmology and particle physics that are incomplete and the problems with them might be impossible to reconcile without very drastic changes. I discuss speculation about very drastic changes and you are so fixated on quantification of the unknown that you can’t let go of the personal issues. In your mind you make me persona non grata when it comes to the very discussions that I am leading. You are the persona non grata, out of place on my threads like a fish is out of water.
So you think I have an amazing grasp of nature? Thanks.
And you're the King of Prussia. See, I can do that too.
Me stating, giving explicit examples, that you're a liar because you repeatedly tell falsehoods doesn't mean I have 'a mental disorder'. I am perfectly capable of rational discussion and obviously I get by day to day well enough for people educated in science to think I'm a well informed educated rational individual. So your attempts to insult me with utterly baseless comments are a little pathetic.
Are you denying you admitted lying in the post I link to?
Again, how is me making a statement of fact 'self-image issues'? You claimed I thought de Sitter solutions were non-GR. I have work published last year with said solutions in it. Proof you're wrong. How does that relate to self image issues for me? If anything, your repeated avoidance of rational discussion reflects badly on you.
You really do want the world to revolve around you, don't you? The fact I post elsewhere and do other things with my life seems to pass you by. Remember, the sum of my posts here isn't equal to the sum of my physics achievements. The same can't be said about you. You're fixated with the wish people were fixated or in awe of you. You want to be the center of attention but you don't like it when people point and laugh at you.
Well when you keep lying the conversation is going to degrade to "That isn't true" and when you deny you're wrong the cycle begins. If I'm a liar, please explain why I've talked about de Sitter solutions in GR work before. Or can't you?
And what might those be? That I have a life which is more than the sum of my posts in a pseudoscience forum? Yes, that's a real problem.
I mean, if I'd spent 3 or 4 years babbling on a science forum my attempt to convince people I was doing worthwhile science and all I had to show for it was ...... nothing then I might have personal issues but I'm glad that isn't the case. For me, at least.Yet again you utterly twist what I said and miss the point. I'll repeat what I said, which you even quoted :
As Prom said, you just want people to believe you've got some amazing grasp of Nature
Notice the subtle difference? I say "You wish people said you are good at science" and you read it as "You're good at science". Thanks for illustrating my point so perfectly.
I haven't said otherwise. But the point, the point so you consistently ignore or fail to grasp, is that random speculation is sodding pointless. You don't even look at experiments or learn previous ideas, you simply make crap up. That is utterly worthless. Anyone can make speculation about things outside science. How about "Before the big bang the entire universe was filled with milk". There, something science doesn't address. Yes, its obviously nonsense but all you're doing is replacing 'milk' with a buzzword like 'arena action' or something like that.
How can you fail to grasp this? It's pretty simple. Random speculation is pointless. Anyone can do it. Without method or reason its simply "I claim the universe is like....". That isn't science, it's egotistical self masturbation.
You can't seem to read or comprehend the obvious. You are the one playing with yourself. Run along now.
OK, this is easy. Anyone can do it.
I ask any of you (the two or three lurking and watching the train wreck that is typical of my threads with AN around or even AN and Prom) if you have ever considered the possibility that GR has problems if there was space and time before t=0 or 10^-30 if you prefer? Yes or no and a brief comment.
I then ask if you are comfortable with the fact that BBT does not say there was a Big Bang; it doesn’t even say anything about the event that caused the expansion. Are you comfortable with that or not and a brief comment.
QWC simply addresses possibilities and then examines where they lead.
Wanna try discussing one possibility. You pick it. Your mission if you choose to accept it is to say whether or not you consider it possible that there was a big bang even though BBT does not say there was one, and if so can you think of anything that might have caused it?
I ask any of you (the two or three lurking and watching the train wreck that is typical of my threads with AN around or even AN and Prom) if you have ever considered the possibility that GR has problems if there was space and time before t=0 or 10^-30 if you prefer? Yes or no and a brief comment.
I then ask if you are comfortable with the fact that BBT does not say there was a Big Bang; it doesn’t even say anything about the event that caused the expansion. Are you comfortable with that or not and a brief comment.
QWC simply addresses possibilities and then examines where they lead.
Wanna try discussing one possibility. You pick it. Your mission if you choose to accept it is to say whether or not you consider it possible that there was a big bang even though BBT does not say there was one, and if so can you think of anything that might have caused it?
GR is an effective theory so it isn't valid at high energy, short distance processes. No one says otherwise.
No, it doesn't. You make a random guess or borrow someone else's idea then randomly guess what the implications are.
You obviously believe that you are using some worthwhile method but you aren't. How can you fail to grasp this point?
But with no knowledge of how space-time behaves or any consideration of observational phenomena all you can do is randomly guess. Disprove my claim the universe was full of milk. You can't. But its not a worthwhile speculation. Changing 'milk' for 'arena action' doesn't change that.
Savvy?
Sure, what you are saying isn’t rocket science. You are one who believes that science does not include speculation and that there is no methodology to approach speculation in a reasonable and responsible way, or at least if there is a way to separate reasonable and responsible speculation from wild or fanciful speculation it doesn't matter, the result is still speculation.
No, random unguided speculation is not a good way to go about things. Educated speculation based on experience and knowledge can be. Once again you paraphrase me to the point of getting it utterly wrong. It's funny how you often said "Quote me when you respond to something I've said!" yet you don't seem to follow your own suggestion.
Let's consider an example close to what you do, speculation about what might, if anything, have come before the big bang. Hawking (and others) have used their knowledge of general relativity and quantum theory to simulate a universe collapsing down into a very very small region before rebounding and expanding outwards in a new big bang. Using the known behaviour of quantum systems and gravity they can make statements about what signatures in the observable universe such a process would leave. Turok has considered the formation of our universe as the result of two large, higher dimensional branes (brane-antibrane pairing) combing and spitting out a bunch of D3 branes upon which our observable universe lives. Such constructions lead to general implications for such things as the CMB and the strength of particular quantum interactions. Once again, implications for the observable universe are constructed by taking what we know about physics and seeing what particular speculative ideas would result in.
Then there's your method. You don't use any physics known to be valid in our universe, you talk about 'arena action' but have not defined it properly or shown its applicable in current physics. As a result you have absolutely no way to derive in a logical manner what a collapsing universe in QWC would imply for our current universe, you simply make up the results.
See the difference? Speculation is fine if you don't speculate about the end results, you speculate about the initial setup. Hawking, Turok etc didn't speculate about the signatures we might see in our universe, they speculated about before the BB and then derived the signatures. You speculate about both before the BB and after it. If there's no connection there's no ability to make predictive or useful statements. There must be a clear logical path from assumption to prediction. You simply do not have that.
The fact I criticise your methods doesn't mean I criticise mainstream methods. You need to get your head around the fact you are not doing science so when I say you're wrong or going about things in a bad way I'm referring to your methods alone. You've deluded yourself into thinking you're closely aligned with the scientific method, allowing you to convince yourself that criticism of you is criticism of science.
Speculation is an essential part of science. Heck, I've even got a section in the work I'm currently writing up which involves me speculating a new symmetry in stringy compact spaces but I give justification for why I think that by spending several pages explaining the different ways a problem can be approached. Conversely, random uninformed speculation which you refuse to accept any negative comment on is not part of science, it's bordering on religion.