Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

Why do you keep calling me names? Do you think this strengthens your situation?

Look, I'm offering to have a serious conversation with you regarding your writings. I've asked serious questions. This is your chance to have a real, scientific conversation. Why don't you engage yourself? Why have you suddenly lost all confidence in your writings?
Based on my prediction in my last post:

What is funny is that you, as a dweeb, think that you have any grasp of my situation. Count how many times you have posted to my threads with the fairy dust sentiment and then you will see who is infantile.

But just in case you have matured since then, answer this question: Do you think it is possible that the universe had no beginning, i.e. has always existed? Or go ahead and obfuscate and we will know that you are the one who has no intention of discussing QWC.

Note: Let me pose this same question to AN and Prom and anyone who is subscribed to the thread. Anyone have a yes or no answer or will you all be dweebs over such a simple question. I'm betting on dweebs.

Next time I am at the Maple Pavilion I will discuss your responses or lack thereof :).

You have already obfuscated. I'll discuss your lack of response when I get to the Maple Pavilion as I said I would. I just enjoy having something to do when I fire up my Verizon wireless card and hook up to my deep cell marine battery that gives me endless battery power in the wild :). Until then, why not give it a rest? Or are you becoming fixated too?
 
q_w, you only discuss questions you raise. That isn't how science is done, you have to answer questions other people raise. You saying to Guest "But you didn't answer my question!!!" doesn't negate the fact you have avoided all of his. Guest's view on what, if anything, came before the BB is immaterial to the fact you won't respond to his questions about your 'work.

You try to insult us with infantile "You're a dweeb!" comments. Ask yourself this, do you really imagine that's the way a good scientist defends his work? That rather than answer questions he just says "Whatever, dweeb!". Can you imagine Feynman doing that? Or you call us 'fixated'. How do any of those attempts at insults have any bearing in your inability to answer our questions? You claim you have yet you can't provide a single response which isn't an insult.
 
q_w, you only discuss questions you raise. That isn't how science is done, you have to answer questions other people raise. You saying to Guest "But you didn't answer my question!!!" doesn't negate the fact you have avoided all of his. Guest's view on what, if anything, came before the BB is immaterial to the fact you won't respond to his questions about your 'work.

You try to insult us with infantile "You're a dweeb!" comments. Ask yourself this, do you really imagine that's the way a good scientist defends his work? That rather than answer questions he just says "Whatever, dweeb!". Can you imagine Feynman doing that? Or you call us 'fixated'. How do any of those attempts at insults have any bearing in your inability to answer our questions? You claim you have yet you can't provide a single response which isn't an insult.
Here is what I think of that ... you are continuing to be a dweeb on my thread. Start a thread of your own if you want to tell people your rules.

Here on my thread, you are invited to leave so you stay because ...

Want a discussion, answer the question I just posed to you all in my response to Guest 238 and let's see where it goes. If you are not satisfied with where it goes no one (two words fyi) will blame you if you never return ;).

Loosen up, get off you ego high, believe that I am the only expert on QWC, and rate QWC as the lowest of the worst of ideas, but refer to my statements in the document to prove your point. Any other rants are off topic.
 
Well, I tried at least. Perhaps someone else will manage to get through to you.
You didn't try. You ignored my good natured offer to discuss QWC by refusing to even acknowledge that I posed a question to you to start a civil discussion. Maybe you are the one who needs to let someone get through to you.
 
Start a thread of your own if you want to tell people your rules.
They aren't my rules, they are science's. If you want to be seen to do science then you must play by its rules, not your own.

Or are you admitting that you have no interest in science and simply want to tell a fictional story?

Want a discussion, answer the question I just posed to you all in my response to Guest 238 and let's see where it goes. If you are not satisfied with where it goes no one (two words fyi) will blame you if you never return
No, because it is simply your way of avoiding our criticisms, by sticking to things you can waffle about. It's what you can't waffle about which is important. Science is about answering questions, the more questions a theory can answer the better. Endlessly sticking to one single question doesn't mean you can answer others.

but refer to my statements in the document to prove your point.
My point is that the document doesn't say what you claim it does.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? You claim it says something. I say it doesn't. I ask you to point to where it says it. You refuse.

How can we discuss a point in your document which doesn't exist?
 
They aren't my rules, they are science's. If you want to be seen to do science then you must play by its rules, not your own.

Or are you admitting that you have no interest in science and simply want to tell a fictional story?

No, because it is simply your way of avoiding our criticisms, by sticking to things you can waffle about. It's what you can't waffle about which is important. Science is about answering questions, the more questions a theory can answer the better. Endlessly sticking to one single question doesn't mean you can answer others.

My point is that the document doesn't say what you claim it does.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? You claim it says something. I say it doesn't. I ask you to point to where it says it. You refuse.

How can we discuss a point in your document which doesn't exist?
Your are not only a dweeb but you are too ignorant to read the document or to obnoxious to admit it covers all of your objections. That makes you a liar or a fool and I am betting you are both.

And I already know your answer to my question.
 
If it covers all my objections why can't you simply state which section it addresses my criticism that you need to demonstrate you have a valid working model of gravity at short distances whose effective theory is general relativity. Is a reply of "Section 4.5" too much to ask? If you aren't lying, post the section.

You can't call me 'obnoxious' for stating something which is true, that you don't address our criticisms. If you do address it why do you type a reply which is longer than simply giving the reference?
 
If it covers all my objections why can't you simply state which section it addresses my criticism that you need to demonstrate you have a valid working model of gravity at short distances whose effective theory is general relativity. Is a reply of "Section 4.5" too much to ask? If you aren't lying, post the section.

You can't call me 'obnoxious' for stating something which is true, that you don't address our criticisms. If you do address it why do you type a reply which is longer than simply giving the reference?
It is a simple matter of context. Your criticisms imply a context that doesn't exist and so your objections are not valid.

Do you want to discuss this with me or do you want to continue to be a dweeb by pretending you are asking questions and making criticisms about QWC when those questions and criticisms do not pertain to the context of QWC? Do you even understand that the document changes and has changed to cover criticisms that you and others have made over a year or so here at SciForums and over five or six years on the net and over many years in the discussion and contemplation stage before I brought it to the net?

If you want to discuss QWC you must do so in context. The document is where I have established the context; it is always subject to update (yes, at my discretion). That is how QWC evolves through collaboration. You say there is no collaboration and that too makes you a seem foolish. But I enjoy pointing it out so keep it up.

So this post contains the answer to your request for a line item in the document that answers your criticisms. I know you and how you will respond and you have never disappointed me yet.

Also, my response to all who are subscribed, one way to discuss QWC is to answer the question I posed, "Do you think it is possible that the universe had no beginning, i.e. has always existed". That will bring you back into context and you will find that I respond when you are in context. AN, you responded to my posed question in your typical fashion and I don't intend to discuss QWC with you when you use that approach.

Your options include: read the document and pose your questions in context, answer the question that I posed so a discussion could take place in context, or any other option including being a dweeb :).
 
And SFinn, are you Guest666’s or Prosthesis’ sock? No one objected to the last post which settles the context issue. I’m getting close to moving ahead. You’ll love the next section in QWC gravity.

The last meaningful series of post consisted of post numbers 65 to 69. I have been down with the new rhino virus; my wife had it for ten days and now I am five days into it. Acts like H1N1 without the fever. I’m looking forward to picking up where I left off, but you all need some review. Here is the content from posts 65 to 69. Read it and refer to the document for the steps that lead up to this series of posts. Feel free to ask questions if you aren’t a dweeb.

Post 65

Quantization of energy into quantum increments allows for the accumulation of energy quanta because they have mass and gravity and therefore they clump together to from stable particles that we can observe. Particle formation is one of the effects of quantum action. Quantum action then is the “continual process” that is going on within particles that “maintains the physical presence of mass”, “causes gravity”, and “produces quantum waves” that “expand spherically”.

Therefore quantum action involves “a continual process”.
It “maintains the physical presence” of mass during the ongoing process.
The process produces both “mass and gravity” at the same time.
The process produces “spherically expanding quantum waves”.


The next statement on the list from that same post is, “ It (quantum action) maintains the physical presence of mass during the ongoing process”.

Let me explain the difference between mass in spacetime vs. mass in QWC. In GR the inertial connection between objects with mass is the effect that mass has on spacetime, i.e. the presence of mass curves spacetime. Mass is composed of fundamental particles. “Fundamental” in terms of particle physics means they don’t demonstrate internal composition and the theory says that “in the Standard Model (of Particle Physics) the forces are communicated between particles by the exchange of quanta which behave like particles.” The force missing in the standard particle model is gravity and the missing particle is the graviton.

In QWC there is no missing graviton because the internal composition of particles with mass is a continual process of quantum action which emits waves that describe the presence of the mass that emanates them. As the waves expand out of and away from mass the volume of space encompassed increases rapidly and the energy density of the waves declines rapidly. These waves fill all space and the energy density of any point in space is the sum of the energy density of all of the individual waves that have ever traversed that point, though obviously the energy density of each wave is rapidly declining and so the contribution of an individual wave at a point in space is infinitesimal. The sum of the energy density of trillions and trillions of these waves at a point is space determines the energy density at that point in space.

The physical presence of mass in QWC is not just a physical particle that is connected to the rest of the world by the exchange of quanta that act like particles as described in the standard model. The physical particle itself, the leptons and quarks, are buzzing little bodies internally as the continual process of quantum action within them maintains their presence and establishes their inertial connection to other objects, replacing spacetime. More on that in the next posts as I go down the short list.

But as for maintaining the physical presence of a particle with mass, in QWC the fundamental particles are composed of energy quanta and so a fundamental particle does have internal composition. Every fundamental particle of the same type and energy level is composed of the same number of internal quanta. The physical presence of mass is continually being refreshed because for every quantum within a particle there is one quantum action per quantum period. A quantum period is the length of time it takes for one quantum action to occur. Supposing billions of quanta within a quark and three coupled quarks in a proton, the duration of one quantum action is brief and there may be billions of quantum actions taking place for each quantum every second.

The thing about quantum action that maintains the presence of mass is that there is a quantum collapse during each quantum action for each quantum within the fundamental particle. That collapse establishes the presence of mass because the collapse refocuses the energy of the quantum into a high density spot within the mass. The mass can be thought of as the accumulation of the high density spots produced by each quantum action for each quantum increment that makes up the particle.

Each collapse bounces into expansion and the spherically expanding wave that is produced by the bounce provides the potential energy for subsequent quantum action within the mass thus perpetuating the “continual process” and “maintaining the presence of the mass” as a continually refreshing set of high density spots. As mentioned above, mass also emits these waves and the portion of each wave that is not captured in subsequent quantum action within the mass is emitted as a low energy density spherically expanding wave. These emitted waves fill all space. The energy that leaves the mass in the form of these waves is replaced by the mass from the waves arriving at the mass from other mass

Post 66

Subject paragraph and list:
Quantization of energy into quantum increments allows for the accumulation of energy quanta because they have mass and gravity and therefore they clump together to from stable particles that we can observe and study.

Particle formation is one of the effects of quantum action. Quantum action then is the “continual process” that is going on within particles that “maintains the physical presence of mass”, “causes gravity”, and “produces quantum waves” that “expand spherically”.

Therefore quantum action involves “a continual process”.
It “maintains the physical presence” of mass during the ongoing process.
The process produces both “mass and gravity” at the same time.
The process produces “spherically expanding quantum waves”.

To this point, the posts about the "continual process" and the "maintenance of the presence of mass" have covered the stages of quantum action from the intersection and overlap of quantum waves within mass, the collapse of the energy in the overlap space to produce a high density spot that contains one quantum of energy, the bounce of that spot into spherical expansion, and I discussed how those expanding spherical waves intersect and overlap to achieve perpetuation of the process thus maintaining the presence of mass. Mass can be thought of as an ever refreshing set of quantized high density spots that are perpetuated by the ongoing process of quantum action.

Next, to address the statement, "The process produces both mass and gravity at the same time".

With the presence of mass maintained as a set of continually refreshing high density spots, and realizing that the spot phase of quantum action occurs once during every period of quantum action for every quantum within the mass, the missing explanation is how that produces gravity.

Since mass can be thought of as the high density spot phase, then gravity can be thought of as the period of collapse leading to the high density spot.

Let me describe the collapse in more detail. Space and energy are two different things but all space is filled with energy and each point in space has a level of energy density that is continually fluctuating as quantum waves traverse that point. This is true both within mass and at all points in space that surround mass. But within mass, the energy density is high enough to trigger quantum action, and the collapse phase of quantum action causes gravity.

Energy is collapsing from the shape and volume of the overlap down to the shape and volume of the high density spot, i.e. the tiny crunch. Space does nothing but as energy collapses it occupies less space. At the arena level the collapse is due to gravity, and at the quantum level the collapse is a natural part of quantization.*

*Speculation upon speculation at this point in QWC suggests that the quantum collapse is due to energy density perturbations (sub-quanta) that act like tiny hints of mass below the quantum level. These perturbations are thought to occupy all space at the sub-quanta level as the result of a perpetual history of intersecting waves whose overlaps are below the energy density threshold for quantization, i.e. overlaps that do not accumulate the quantum of energy necessary to trigger their own collapse.

When quantum collapse occurs, everything in the universe is tugged toward the center of collapse which turns out to be the subsequent high density spot that forms at the termination of collapse. The space vacated by the energy participating in the quantum collapse is simultaneously filled with energy that was surrounding the overlap space. That energy fills the void until the high density spot forms and bounces.

Definition of void in QWC: All space always contains some level of energy density. Energy immediately responds to changes in energy density surrounding it by equalization. If the change surrounding a given patch of energy density is of higher energy density then the energy density of our patch will increase and the energy density of the higher surrounding space will decrease and this will continue until the energy density is equalized or until the equalization process is interrupted by another change to the energy density of the surrounding space. The term "void" refers to an energy density differential between two adjoining patches of space with differing levels of energy density. Partial void is always more correct. The lower energy density acts as a void and the potential of the void is determined by the volume and energy density differential. There are no total voids in QWC but partial voids occur at all points in space when that point is surrounded or adjoined by a patch of space containing lower energy density.

I will probably post next about the movement of mass through space, i.e. the inertial connection unless there is discussion of something before I get a chance to write up the next post.

Post 67

[next post]From the Maple Pavilion on the salt marsh at Upper Tampa Bay Park:
But gravity means nothing if there is nothing to be effected by it and so the explanation of gravity in QWC requires an explanation of how various objects know the mass and location of each other. It is this inertial connection that completes the process of gravity in QWC and that replaces the fabric of spacetime of General Relativity.

The collapse phase of quantum action pulls energy from the surrounding energy density of space, whether that space is within mass or surrounding mass. The energy density of the energy pulled in tells the receiving mass about the source of the waves that supplied the energy being pulled in. The receiving mass is also an emanating mass, and the net gravity wave (sum of the emanating quantum waves) broadcasts the location and mass of the source object.

Further explanation is needed to answer two questions. How does the mass work as a unit when obviously some quanta near the surface of the mass will provide and receive energy to the surrounding space, while those quanta deep inside the mass may provide and directly receive only a tiny amount of their energy to the outside because most of their renewal energy comes from the space immediately surrounding them within the particle. Also, the second question that has to be answered is how does mass tell or know the other mass' location and remote mass, i.e. how is the path that mass takes through space determined by this flow of quantum wave energy into mass.

The first question is answered by the nature of energy to equalize its density across its environment. In the case of a particle with mass, equalization causes the energy density across the entire particle to be equalized at all times within the particle, so the energy density near the surface is always the same as the energy density deep inside the particle. This allows for the gravity emanation to be equalized as it leaves the mass and enables it to broadcast precisely the same information in all directions.

The answer to the second question is more complicated. The energy density of the net of the quantum waves emanating from the mass is equal at all points surrounding the mass. However the energy density in the space surrounding mass is different at every point as determined by the sum of all of the quantum waves that have ever traversed each of those points in space, i.e. as a result of the gravity waves reaching the object from all remote objects. Since the equalization process that takes place makes the net emanation from the mass equal in all directions the mass is able to distinguish the energy density differential arriving to it from all directions.

The path that mass takes through the space surrounding it is determined by the path of lowest energy density.

The larger the mass of an object, the lower the energy density of the net quantum wave emanating from it.*

*Mass has very high energy density and the surrounding space has very low energy density, but the surrounding space also has a different energy density at all points as determined by the expanded gravity waves from remote objects that have crossed each point in space. By constantly pulling this renewal energy in during the collapse phase of each quantum action, the mass tries to pull an equal amount of energy from all directions since the energy density is equalized within the mass. In so doing it moves toward the path of lowest energy density as it tries to fulfill its needs from that direction, i.e. it moves in the direction from which it is most difficult to draw an equal ration of energy from the arriving gravity waves. Eureka, you have the cause of gravity in Quantum Wave Cosmology.
(end of post)

Post 68
Mass moves; that is all there is too it. Place a mass anywhere and it will move in a specific predetermined path based on the imprint left in space by the gravity emanations of all other objects of mass. The entire mass of an object is refreshed once each quantum period* from energy that has been emitted by surrounding mass. During each quantum period the entire energy content of the mass is forced out of the space occupied by the mass at the same time as the replacement energy is pulled into the space occupied by the mass. That is what quantum action does. This is a 100% exchange of energy every quantum period and yet the presence of the mass is maintained.

*A quantum period is the length of time it takes for every quantum in an object to perform one quantum action. If the quanta are not synchronized then one quantum period for the mass is longer than one quantum period for an individual quantum but less than two quantum periods for an individual quantum.

But note that with each refresh of the mass, the location of the mass has changed. My last post described how the new location is determined. The mass moved toward the path of lowest energy density in the surrounding space because it tried to draw in replacement energy equally from all directions. It easily filled its energy needs from the high energy density paths but was forced to move in the direction of the lowest energy density path to fulfill its energy replacement needs from that direction.

Post 69

(New post, Maple Pavilion, 11/10/2009)

In spacetime at the quantum level you have the quantum foam which seems to be impossible to quantify because of the uncertainty as to the location and momentum of the particles that constitute the mass in that infinitesimal realm. That uncertainty is not resolved but is accounted for and dealt with by the wave function in quantum mechanics but is not resolved or accounted for in General Relativity.

QWC resolves the uncertainty and does away with the need for spacetime.

In QWC mass moves as a result of quantum action which effectively works in a pumping fashion to force energy out of the space occupied by the mass when the high density spots bounce into expansion, and by pulling energy into the space occupied by the mass as quantum collapse occurs which focuses energy back into new high density spots. The high density spot phase of quantum action causes mass to have a momentary location in space, and the bounce phase of quantum action converts that energy into a wave that emerges from that location and allows mass to move. Figuratively, the high density spots cause mass to have location and the quantum waves allow mass to have momentum. A single quantum of energy constitutes a quantum increment of matter which is either in a location in space or is expanding spherically to intersect and overlap with other quanta to be refocused as a high density spot in a slightly changed location.

(end of post)

Don’t hesitate to read the Google.doc. There is nothing commercial or illogical in the document IMHO.

http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

Go there and take a look. You can read the whole document in a matter of minutes if you skip the boiler plate and go down to Step I. Why don’t you do it to test if what I say about context is true?

I’ll be back to adding content in a few days. Use that time wisely. Try to beat the world economic collapse ;).
 
That uncertainty is not resolved but is accounted for and dealt with by the wave function in quantum mechanics but is not resolved or accounted for in General Relativity.

QWC resolves the uncertainty and does away with the need for spacetime.
So it resolves it, its just you just can't say where in your document it actually does it? :shrug: So what you really mean is it doesn't resolve it.

If I'm wrong, say where in the document and we can discuss it. I've looked, I can't find it. If you want discussion, you need only point to where in your document you 'resolve' the problem.
 
So it resolves it, its just you just can't say where in your document it actually does it? :shrug: So what you really mean is it doesn't resolve it.

If I'm wrong, say where in the document and we can discuss it. I've looked, I can't find it. If you want discussion, you need only point to where in your document you 'resolve' the problem.
Alright AN, it is in Step III., but I know you better than you know yourself :), and this discussion, though sincere on my part will go nowhere unless you admit that “in context” the changes to the document mitigate your criticism.

The posts in this thread are from the document, which you didn’t read. You did look at the link from an ISP in London last week but you are lying about having read it. I told you I would know.

Use of the word “resolves” is applied “in context” to mean that if you follow the steps of QWC from the beginning to the point where mass and gravity are caused, there is an explanation for gravity. That explanation is in the form of a physical picture in QWC that “resolves” the uncertainty that blocks an understanding of the cause of gravity in GR, i.e. in that context, QWC does away with the need for spacetime at the point where spacetime becomes quantum foam with only uncertainty and the probability function to provide the as yet unresolved mathematical path to quantum gravity. I’m saying that spacetime does not work to provide a realistic correspondence between reality and math when it comes to how gravity works. I accept the math of the EFEs above the quantum level as our best effort to describe what gravity does and will do, but IMHO, the cause of mass and gravity in QWC present a physical picture of the reality where spacetime fails.

That is in this thread and in the document.

The context (that you don’t seem to admit is there) can be established in the answer to the question posed earlier, “Could the universe have always existed”. My answer is yes and QWC picks up there. You don’t have to answer yes to the question to follow and understand QWC in context, but if you answer “no” then why bother with QWC at all. The fantasy that Guest666 refers to goes right back to that point. QWC is fantasy if the universe had a beginning. He just wasn’t smart enough to read the document and come up with that himself.

I have updated the document today to include my explanation of the statement, “QWC resolves the uncertainty and does away with the need for spacetime.”
 
Last edited:
picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


Here are a few graphics to get the discussion started. In QWC mass moves toward the path of lowest energy density. The phrase "lowest energy density" is referred to as negative energy density in the graphics but as I have explained in the document, energy density is always positive. So why say mass follows the negative energy density path? Because the wave form emitted by quantum action has a positive and a negative component based on the portion of the wave that is generated by the bounce of the high density spot and the collapse of the energy in the overlap into the high density spot; a plus and a minus, push and a pull, a positive and a negative in relative terms. But those terms are relative to the bounce and collapse of quantum action and really represent the movement of energy from and into mass. The energy is always positive but the relationship between the positive and negative phase of the wave form is relative.

So the negative path is really the relative lowest energy density path through space, which is filled with the QWC gravity aether that is composed of the gravity waves emitted by mass.
 
Alright AN, it is in Step III., but I know you better than you know yourself :), and this discussion, though sincere on my part will go nowhere unless you admit that “in context” the changes to the document mitigate your criticism.
Your document does nothing to mitigate my criticisms. You claim you have removed the issue with short range gravity but you have neither a short or a long range gravity model and you can model or calculate nothing. So your claim is baseless.

The posts in this thread are from the document, which you didn’t read. You did look at the link from an ISP in London last week but you are lying about having read it. I told you I would know.
Well that wasn't me.

Use of the word “resolves” is applied “in context” to mean that if you follow the steps of QWC from the beginning to the point where mass and gravity are caused, there is an explanation for gravity. That explanation is in the form of a physical picture in QWC that “resolves” the uncertainty that blocks an understanding of the cause of gravity in GR, i.e. in that context, QWC does away with the need for spacetime at the point where spacetime becomes quantum foam with only uncertainty and the probability function to provide the as yet unresolved mathematical path to quantum gravity. I’m saying that spacetime does not work to provide a realistic correspondence between reality and math when it comes to how gravity works. I accept the math of the EFEs above the quantum level as our best effort to describe what gravity does and will do, but IMHO, the cause of mass and gravity in QWC present a physical picture of the reality where spacetime fails.
You're basically saying "Because I have no details I have none of the problems which arise in mainstream models when you look at the details". You claim you resolve the problem but you resolve it by having jnothing in your work.

If I said "Quantum mechanics and GR are perfectly compatible" you'd say "No they aren't!" and cite someone saying as much. But if I challenged you to prove the statement wrong without using an explaination or a source which didn't ultimately get its justification from the quantitative framework of each theory you'd be unable to. If we do away with the quantitative side of QM and GR then it could be claimed that they are compatible and there'd be no evidence against that. If you remove all the details and any results which follow from the details then a superficial analysis would not reveal any problem between them.

Only by doing the quantitative details do the problems arise. You have no quantitative details so you have absolutely zero justification for saying you don't have the problem QM and GR do.

How is it this logic is beyond your grasp?

but if you answer “no” then why bother with QWC at all.
Why bother with it at all when its nothing but guesses piled on assumptions piled on ignorance and provides you no answers or ways to model things?

I have updated the document today to include my explanation of the statement, “QWC resolves the uncertainty and does away with the need for spacetime.”
If you'd justified your claim properly you'd not have needed to do that at all.
 
Your document does nothing to mitigate my criticisms. You claim you have removed the issue with short range gravity but you have neither a short or a long range gravity model and you can model or calculate nothing. So your claim is baseless.

Well that wasn't me.

You're basically saying "Because I have no details I have none of the problems which arise in mainstream models when you look at the details". You claim you resolve the problem but you resolve it by having jnothing in your work.

If I said "Quantum mechanics and GR are perfectly compatible" you'd say "No they aren't!" and cite someone saying as much. But if I challenged you to prove the statement wrong without using an explaination or a source which didn't ultimately get its justification from the quantitative framework of each theory you'd be unable to. If we do away with the quantitative side of QM and GR then it could be claimed that they are compatible and there'd be no evidence against that. If you remove all the details and any results which follow from the details then a superficial analysis would not reveal any problem between them.

Only by doing the quantitative details do the problems arise. You have no quantitative details so you have absolutely zero justification for saying you don't have the problem QM and GR do.

How is it this logic is beyond your grasp?

Why bother with it at all when its nothing but guesses piled on assumptions piled on ignorance and provides you no answers or ways to model things?

If you'd justified your claim properly you'd not have needed to do that at all.
Man up you fixated dweeb. Don’t you get tired of me pointing out that the QWC Google.doc makes your words those of a complete fool? Why do you think that posting on my threads hundreds of times without ever addressing the document has any meaning? No one gives a razed sas about your opinion of anything anymore. You have wasted all of your credibility on rants that are wrongheaded.

QWC Google.doc
 
You keep calling me fixated, yet I ignore many of your posts, I leave them for days, even weeks, before replying and I expend minimal effort and time on your nonsense. Pincho Paxton, or whatever it is, gets more attention from you.

Like I said, you want someone to be fixated because it gives you some feeling that you aren't wasting your time. Too bad. If you can tell who I am from my IP then I would hazard a guess you're not getting many hits to your document. Obviously that lurker following you hope for isn't really amounting to much.

How does your document make me look a fool when it models nothing, had no predictive power, has no connection to experiments or observations and is nothing but your fictional views? It is devoid of any valid science. I have spent less than 10 minutes on your threads in the last week. You've spent considerable time on your crap and you've achieved nothing. If I've lost credibility at least I once had it.
 
Back
Top