So you are saying that I am ignorant of all of that and you just happen to know about it because you learned what other people have added to our body of understanding. I couldn't have learned any of that because ...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.
But if there was known physics our body of understanding would have encompassed it. That is why I mention the consensus. Once a consensus is reached it defines where we agree and draws the line between what is agreed and what still remains in doubt. You are saying that I am going too far and skipping steps when I go on from where science consensus leaves off.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.
You have used the phrases, "you need to get your head around the fact", and "you have deluded yourself", and said that I think I am doing science and that I an deluded to think that your criticism of me is a criticism of science. You are wrong. I have my head around what I am doing and you don't, or if you do you don't think I am qualified to do it, or you think that I go too far. Who made you the forum police? I have not deluded myself into thinking that I am doing science. I do not consider your criticism of my posts to be a criticism of science.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.
:rhetorical humor:I want you to stop your speculation on such trivial things :/rhetorical humor (no need to get you panties all twisted by me saying that: and get busy on what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.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.
I asked you if you have any ideas and you didn't because you say we cannot know those things and speculating about them is useless unless there is some justification. How about the justification that there is no known physics to explain it and yet it happened. If we don't speculate about new physics to justify how it happened then we just don't care.
The new physics and the method I used to come up with my speculation about them is not like guessing that the universe is filled with milk and is no where near that fanciful.
It starts with where the consensus leaves of and takes it one step at a time. You are the deluded one if you interpret that as follows, quote=AN: "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."
But never-the-less, let me see if I understand. You will troll my threads until I stop posting about my personal speculation if that speculation does not meet your requirements.