Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

[quantum_wave]

Please point me to the content where you explicitly demonstrate you have a short range gravity model whose low energy effective theory is GR and/or Newtonian gravity. I can't seem to find where you reconstruct the Einstein Field Equations or something sufficiently close to them to produce a verified predictive working model of gravity.

Remember, you did say you'd addressed my criticism.

And you're a professional in psychology? Or is this just another example of you pretending you have professional level knowledge in yet another area of science you infact do not?

Besides, if I have a personality issue and have managed to produce peer reviewed published science, it reflects badly on you that you've achieved nothing in more time. For every personality issue or disorder you claim I have the fact I have succeeded in something you obviously desperately want to succeed in just shows how poorly you're going about things. You've called me stupid and possibly insane, yet I'm streets ahead of you. Must be a bit upsetting, eh?

Dweeb, that post is further proof of your fixation. Point me to something in the Google.doc that you want to discuss, not something riled up in your demented psyche.

As for being a psychiatrist, I don't need to be to diagnose your problem.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Point me to something in the Google.doc that you want to discuss, not something riled up in your demented psyche.

I would like to discuss where you respond to my criticism that I don't believe you have justified your claims about 'resolving' the problem about quantum scale gravity by demonstrating you have a quantum model which has Newtonian gravity as an effectvie theory.

The problem is I can't find this in your work. But you did say you have answered all criticisms raised. Can you please point me to the section of your document where you provide that particular retort so that we can discuss it. You claim to have addressed something but if you haven't, how can I point to it in your work to discuss it? See the problem?

 

[quantum_wave]

I would like to discuss where you respond to my criticism that I don't believe you have justified your claims about 'resolving' the problem about quantum scale gravity by demonstrating you have a quantum model which has Newtonian gravity as an effectvie theory.

You don't get it. I link you to the document because I don't feel inclined to chat with you until you read it and demonstrate at least some juvenile level of understanding. Everything has context and you missed the context. Listen up: QWC is explained in detail in the document. I tell you what QWC is, why it is, what the methodology is, and what the steps are that make it up. I also describe the rules for getting me to engage with parties like you (see below). QWC has a first step, a second step, etc. I decide who I engage with freely without rules and who I insist follows the rules of engagement described in the document. My decision in your case is that you should read the document to find out what the rules are. If you follow them I will discuss QWC with you. [hint]You have to say which is the first step you are having trouble with.[/hint] If you have trouble with the 1000 th step, I have to assume that you are OK with the previous 999 steps.

The problem is I can't find this in your work. But you did say you have answered all criticisms raised. Can you please point me to the section of your document where you provide that particular retort so that we can discuss it. You claim to have addressed something but if you haven't, how can I point to it in your work to discuss it? See the problem?

I see the problem. You haven't paid any attention to what I have been saying. You ask to be pointed to something in my document which means you have no clue what is in the document. That is why you are a dweeb, get it? [clue]I said that I evaluate comments and suggestions that are properly submitted[/clue]. I am telling you how to open a discussion about QWC. I hope you lose interest because the rules are going to evolve to make it necessary for you to read the document. You can't just pretend that QWC is something it is not and expect me to answer your questions as if they were in context. They aren't.

To close our conversation, I don't know what it is that has gotten you so interested; did I say something worth you getting your panties all twisted about? What did I say? Never mind, you have given your opinion about QWC for over a year, every since you called me an idiot in the first QWC thread, "Mass has Gravity". I find it interesting to go back and see how QWC has evolved in that past year while posting here in SciForums. You are free to belittle it at will but your character has suffered while QWC has moved forward to my satisfaction.

Anyone who wasn't haunted by insecurity and deep mental issues would have just left it at that. But you became fixated and couldn't stay away from my threads. You must have given ten different reasons for your fixation but the real reason has become obvious.

 

[Guest254]

I'm having trouble getting to grips with this, I'm afraid. There are six immediate questions in the first two paragraphs alone, and possibly a fatal flaw.

Consider the greater universe to be a potentially infinite space and consider energy to be a potentially infinite commodity that occupies all space. The energy in a given space can be reduced but never completely removed (1). There are no voids anywhere, ever.

The energy commodity that occupies any given space has a characteristic called energy density. Energy density is the amount of the energy commodity in a given space divided by the space it occupies. The second characteristic of the energy commodity is that the energy density of a given space is always fluctuating (3) as the energy commodity enters and leaves the given space. Energy density fluctuations are caused by quantum (4) waves (5) of energy that continually traverse all space. (6)

It seems that initially you propose to setup this theory in something you call space. This seems to be an axiom, so let us state it clearly:

• Axiom 1: Space is a set $$X$$.

So now I can start with my questions:

(1) Why can this commodity not be completely removed? Why is it there in the first place? Is this an axiom? If so, let's state it:

• Axiom 2: For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow ?$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$, where $$ || \cdot ||$$ is a norm on ?

(2) What is "energy", i.e. what is the "?" appearing in Axiom 2. You need to tell us - for the time being we'll just say that the "energy" lives in some normed space $$(Y, ||\cdot||)$$.

• Axiom 2 (again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$.

(3) So this commodity that occupies our space is time dependent? Well again we need to modify our Axiom 2. I assume by "time" you mean some parameter that lives in $$ \mathbf{R}^+$$.

• Axiom 2 (again, again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\times \mathbf{R}^+ \rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U,t) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$ and $$ t\in \mathbf{R}^+$$.

(4) What does the word "quantum" mean in this context? Does this theory incorporate quantum mechanics? In that case, we've already fallen over, because our definition of the term "energy" contradicts that used in quantum mechanics. In QM, we construct a Hilbert space (or more correctly, a rigged Hlibert space) $$ \mathcal{H}$$ over some three dimensional space (which would need to coincide with your $$X$$). But then energy in this context is described in terms of the expectation of the elements of an algebra of Hermitian operators acting on $$\mathcal{H}$$, not of some function from $$X$$ itself.

Please resolve this conflict, or clarify in detail why there is no conflict.

(5) What does "wave" mean here. Is there some additional field defined upon $$X$$ that has wave like properties? What are these fields? How are they defined?

(6) By your use of the term "traverse", I must infer that whatever these "waves" are, they are time dependent. In that case, what describes their evolution? We can't turn to QM and the Schrödinger equation, because we've already established a major conflict.

If we could iron over these major problems, then perhaps we can start on the third paragraph.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I just had a lengthy post eaten by the Wifi fairy! Damn it!

 

[quantum_wave]

I just had a lengthy post eaten by the Wifi fairy! Damn it!

I hate it when that happens.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, why reply to Guest's criticisms and back up your claims when you can avoid them and reply to something else.

Can't you back up your claims you addressed our criticism? Or was it that our criticisms weren't 'submitted properly'? As if improperly submitted criticisms magically don't need to be addressed.

I thought you said you would embarrass us, all you're managing so far is to embarrass yourself.

 

[quantum_wave]

We might be able to move you forward from the first two paragraphs but it might require some patience on both of our parts. I don't think in terms of how to put QWC into mathematical terms. Having patience with me on your part means that I will talk in physical pictures and I will try to grasp the math and logic as you apply it. But I won't be able to fill in the mathematical blanks without talking them through with you. You will lose patience with me if I understand you from you past posts.

By me having patience with you I refer back to the numerous passive aggressive posts that you have made to my threads in the past and so my impression of you will influence my desire to work things out patiently. We could work on sorting things out mathematically and come to the same point that you trolled time after time, i.e. QWC in your view is no more that fairy dust. When you go there we are done, OK. My assumption is that you have already reached your conclusion and any time I spend with you will be wasted. On that basis let's see where it goes.

I'm having trouble getting to grips with this, I'm afraid. There are six immediate questions in the first two paragraphs alone, and possibly a fatal flaw.

Will you be disappointed if we don’t get through the first two paragraphs on your terms? My first problem with approaching the math is that you read the first section of the Google.doc and jumped right in, while I added that first section about “A brief description of energy in QWC" very lately. I am sure you would be able to answer some of your questions if you were to read the entire document to see what I say QWC is and why it is. For example I accept all science fact. I am not the first to describe space as infinite. If the math you are trying to develop has already been done and is accepted by professionals there is no reason that I know of why the same work wouldn’t apply to “space” in QWC. But I qualify that by incorporating the entire Google.doc and the stipulations that I have stated throughout the document. One stipulation is that I don’t invoke any theories unless I can read a link that describes them and decide if there are any aspects of the theories that are not compatible with my view of cosmology. My view of cosmology is what QWC is and so you are wasting your time unless you are patient enough to show where my view is not compatible with observations and data. You would know that if you actually had read the entire document. Do you want to go on?

It seems that initially you propose to setup this theory in something you call space. This seems to be an axiom, so let us state it clearly:

• Axiom 1: Space is a set $$X$$.

If you had read the document you would know that I don’t propose to set up a theory on space. Space to me is one of the things that I consider potentially infinite and if you don’t accept that as a given, then you can’t grasp QWC. Can you go forward on that basis? If you can’t go forward on the basis that space, with whatever mathematical terms we end up describing it, can simply be an infinite emptiness if you could remove everything that isn’t “empty space” (though in QWC it is never empty). Can you go forward on the basis?

So now I can start with my questions:

(1) Why can this commodity not be completely removed? Why is it there in the first place? Is this an axiom? If so, let's state it:

• Axiom 2: For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow ?$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$, where $$ || \cdot ||$$ is a norm on ?

(2) What is "energy", i.e. what is the "?" appearing in Axiom 2. You need to tell us - for the time being we'll just say that the "energy" lives in some normed space $$(Y, ||\cdot||)$$.

• Axiom 2 (again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$.

(3) So this commodity that occupies our space is time dependent? Well again we need to modify our Axiom 2. I assume by "time" you mean some parameter that lives in $$ \mathbf{R}^+$$.

• Axiom 2 (again, again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\times \mathbf{R}^+ \rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U,t) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$ and $$ t\in \mathbf{R}^+$$.

(4) What does the word "quantum" mean in this context? Does this theory incorporate quantum mechanics? In that case, we've already fallen over, because our definition of the term "energy" contradicts that used in quantum mechanics. In QM, we construct a Hilbert space (or more correctly, a rigged Hlibert space) $$ \mathcal{H}$$ over some three dimensional space (which would need to coincide with your $$X$$). But then energy in this context is described in terms of the expectation of the elements of an algebra of Hermitian operators acting on $$\mathcal{H}$$, not of some function from $$X$$ itself.

Please resolve this conflict, or clarify in detail why there is no conflict.

Does what I have said begin to shed any light on space in QWC for you? If it doesn’t change your questions or allow you to force yourself to read the rest of the document then you can simple write off QWC.

(5) What does "wave" mean here. Is there some additional field defined upon $$X$$ that has wave like properties? What are these fields? How are they defined?

The rest of the document addresses what fills space and the characteristics of energy that fills all space. You will have to read on to review quantum action and what I mean by a quantum of energy. Until you have that perspective I can’t see any benefit in saying what a wave is, what the medium across which the wave travels, what causes the waves to be generated and what happens when waves intersect.

(6) By your use of the term "traverse", I must infer that whatever these "waves" are, they are time dependent. In that case, what describes their evolution? We can't turn to QM and the Schrödinger equation, because we've already established a major conflict.

I mention that I suppose that these waves travel at the speed of light so that is the time factor, but I qualify that by saying that they are not associated with electromagnetic radiation and so these waves would be generated and would traverse the energy background in the absence of any EM and could conceivably not travel precisely at the speed of light.

If we could iron over these major problems, then perhaps we can start on the third paragraph.

I don’t think that approach will be useful for the reasons I have given. We won’t be able to get over these major problems until you shape the question in the light of what I have said in the entire document.

Pay attention to what I call departure points and if you have any questions about what the use of departure points might have on you being able to grasp QWC then that is a question you could ask after reading the document.

Finally, I have reason to believe that math can be developed that represents the physical picture but I am not sure that math can ever be developed that will precisely represent reality and in QWC, we are talking about my personal view of what that reality might be. If you now have a better understanding of what QWC is (my personal view of what might be reality) and if my views are not of any interest to you or if math cannot be applied then would you agree to walk away? Would you be able to walk away?

For your convenience: The QWC Google.doc

 

[quantum_wave]

yes, why reply to guest's criticisms and back up your claims when you can avoid them and reply to something else.

Can't you back up your claims you addressed our criticism? Or was it that our criticisms weren't 'submitted properly'? As if improperly submitted criticisms magically don't need to be addressed.

I thought you said you would embarrass us, all you're managing so far is to embarrass yourself.

a**h***.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Excellent retort. Shame it doesn't do as you claim and address our criticisms. You managed to show you have a quantum gravity model which has GR as an effective theory yet? Because if you haven't you have lied about QWC resolving that particular problem and you lied about retorting our criticism. And calling me all the names in the world won't alter that.

 

[quantum_wave]

Excellent retort. Shame it doesn't do as you claim and address our criticisms. You managed to show you have a quantum gravity model which has GR as an effective theory yet? Because if you haven't you have lied about QWC resolving that particular problem and you lied about retorting our criticism. And calling me all the names in the world won't alter that.

Dweeb.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Taking the high road I see. Every time you simply insult me and don't back up your claims you prove my point for me. And that fact I'm a more successful physicist than you means your insults to me reflect poorly on you.

 

[quantum_wave]

Taking the high road I see. Every time you simply insult me and don't back up your claims you prove my point for me. And that fact I'm a more successful physicist than you means your insults to me reflect poorly on you.

Whatever, dweeb.

 

[Guest254]

Space to me is one of the things that I consider potentially infinite and if you don’t accept that as a given, then you can’t grasp QWC.

This is an empty comment. Nothing I've said about the set $$X$$ prevents it from being infinite.

Does what I have said begin to shed any light on space in QWC for you?

You've completely failed to answer any of my questions.

If it doesn’t change your questions or allow you to force yourself to read the rest of the document then you can simple write off QWC.

Erm, so I'm only allowed to ask questions you tell me I'm allowed to ask? That's not very scientific, is it? I don't see the problem here. I was perfectly polite, I provided genuine questions and was not unreasonable in my requests for clarification. I have asked you questions about things you've written. Why so evasive?

Perhaps this was because you thought when I wrote $$X$$, you (incorrectly) assumed I was talking about some finite set. Now I've been good enough to clarify this for you, could you return to my questions and answer them to the best of your ability? Here they are, for your convenience:

It seems that initially you propose to setup this theory in something you call space. This seems to be an axiom, so let us state it clearly:

• Axiom 1: Space is a set $$X$$.

So now I can start with my questions:

(1) Why can this commodity not be completely removed? Why is it there in the first place? Is this an axiom? If so, let's state it:

• Axiom 2: For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow ?$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$, where $$ || \cdot ||$$ is a norm on ?

(2) What is "energy", i.e. what is the "?" appearing in Axiom 2. You need to tell us - for the time being we'll just say that the "energy" lives in some normed space $$(Y, ||\cdot||)$$.

• Axiom 2 (again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$.

(3) So this commodity that occupies our space is time dependent? Well again we need to modify our Axiom 2. I assume by "time" you mean some parameter that lives in $$ \mathbf{R}^+$$.

• Axiom 2 (again, again): For each $$U \subset X$$ there is a function $$E:X\times \mathbf{R}^+ \rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)$$ such that $$ || E(U,t) || >0$$ for each non-empty $$U\subset X$$ and $$ t\in \mathbf{R}^+$$.

(4) What does the word "quantum" mean in this context? Does this theory incorporate quantum mechanics? In that case, we've already fallen over, because our definition of the term "energy" contradicts that used in quantum mechanics. In QM, we construct a Hilbert space (or more correctly, a rigged Hlibert space) $$ \mathcal{H}$$ over some three dimensional space (which would need to coincide with your $$X$$). But then energy in this context is described in terms of the expectation of the elements of an algebra of Hermitian operators acting on $$\mathcal{H}$$, not of some function from $$X$$ itself.

Please resolve this conflict, or clarify in detail why there is no conflict.

(5) What does "wave" mean here. Is there some additional field defined upon $$X$$ that has wave like properties? What are these fields? How are they defined?

(6) By your use of the term "traverse", I must infer that whatever these "waves" are, they are time dependent. In that case, what describes their evolution? We can't turn to QM and the Schrödinger equation, because we've already established a major conflict.

If we could iron over these major problems, then perhaps we can start on the third paragraph.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is an empty comment. Nothing I've said about the set $$X$$ prevents it from being infinite.

You've completely failed to answer any of my questions.

Erm, so I'm only allowed to ask questions you tell me I'm allowed to ask? That's not very scientific, is it? I don't see the problem here. I was perfectly polite, I provided genuine questions and was not unreasonable in my requests for clarification. I have asked you questions about things you've written. Why so evasive?

Perhaps this was because you thought when I wrote $$X$$, you (incorrectly) assumed I was talking about some finite set. Now I've been good enough to clarify this for you, could you return to my questions and answer them to the best of your ability? Here they are, for your convenience:

Forget it. Read the document or do what dweebs do.

 

[SFinn]

quantum_wave,
With the infantile attitude that you convey on the board it amazes me that anyone engages in discussion with you at all.
You brought up a theory and the moment someone offers some constructive criticisms or questions about it you either ignore them or throw out immature personal attacks.
In your mind is this how a professional should act toward their supposed peers when bouncing ideas off of each other?

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave,
With the infantile attitude that you convey on the board it amazes me that anyone engages in discussion with you at all.
You brought up a theory and the moment someone offers some constructive criticisms or questions about it you either ignore them or throw out immature personal attacks.
In your mind is this how a professional should act toward their supposed peers when bouncing ideas off of each other?

And yet you are compelled to comment. You didn't read the document or you would know that I didn't bring up a theory. QWC is ideas for discussion. The criticisms that you support from the dweebs have been responded to in the document. You seem to have no clue about the history of posts by those who you automatically side with. You don't understand what QWC is about. Read the document and either address what I say in the document or don't, it is up to you.

Those who you support have fabricated what they claim QWC says. Their criticisms don't apply to what I say in the docuemnt, i.e. they have been made up out of their own minds and then have trolled for over a year without ever responding to my references to the document. Always the same criticism, never any acknowledgment of what QWC really is. Refusal to read the document before jumping to conclusions. That is why there is a Google.doc and if you want to discuss QWC with me you have to read the document and refer to what I say in the document.

Note the QWC is a step by step set of speculations that start from departure points that I identify in the document. You can't claim that you are criticizing QWC at step 1000, if you haven't criticized it at step one or two or 999 unless you accept all of the steps before the point of criticism. That is just the way it is if you want me to discuss it with you. Start your comments at the first point where you have a problem with it. For example, like I mentioned to Quest248, I start with some precise statements including that in QWC space is infinite, the universe has always existed, all space contains energy, etc. If you don't agree, then QWC is meaningless to you and you should walk away. The dweebs can't seem to walk away, they can't seem to find time to actually read the whole document, and they like to pretend that QWC is something that they make up instead of what I say it is.

 

[prometheus]

Just when you thought the train wreck couldn't get any worse...

 

[quantum_wave]

Just when you thought the train wreck couldn't get any worse...

Oh no, not you!

 

[Guest254]

Forget it. Read the document or do what dweebs do.

Of the two of us, I'm the only professional scientist so I think the continual barrage of "dweeb" comments is silly. I gave you the opportunity to speak about your work in a scientific manner, by addressing some simple and reasonable questions. And this is your response? This kind of behaviour doesn't do a lot for you or your work.

If you feel these (precise) questions are answered (precisely) elsewhere in the document, I am more than happy for you to refer me to the relevant sentence or sentences.