You protest too much and deny what is obviously true about yourself.
I elaborate on my views. I'm sorry if you think an explaination addressing points raised is too close to coherent rational conversation for comfort.
AlphaNumeric, you do not belong on any type of discussion forum but especially you should be banned from the Pseudoscience forum if you continue your antics here.
Practice what you preach.
This was uncalled for under any rules of decorum.
Reiku and I go back a while and given you two were clearly enabling one another in that thread I didn't bother sugar coating what I said.
You never commented about the content of my thread and went immediately off into some arrogant challenge based on your zero intellect and infinite arrogance. You were obnoxious for no reason and you have been fixated on me in every QWC thread since then.
You keep saying 'fixate' but it's clear that isn't the case. Yes, I've replied to a number of threads you've made but because you post a lot of them and you make claims/statements which I disagree with. There's been plenty of posts of yours I haven't replied to. There's been plenty of posts
not of yours I've replied to. Get over yourself, I wouldn't fixate on you, you aren't worth it.
and not one has ever addressed my content using the quote feature
Why bother with such blatent lies? Infact, I've previously commented that I'll quote you and reply to you, point by point, but then you'll mass quote (ie all at once) me and ignore the majority of what I've said.
I’m discussing ideas that are not testable with current technology but they are not inconsistent with known science, observation or data.
But then so is Guest's 'Invisible Fairy Theory'. It's easy to come up with something which is not inconsistent with known science. Coming up with something which actually
describes known science is another thing. For instance :
Idea 1 : The universe contains dark matter, which accounts for the spiral rotation profiles of galaxies and mostly exists as a 'halo' about the galactic core.
Idea 2 : The universe contains dark matter, which accounts for the spiral rotation profiles of galaxies and mostly exists as a 'halo' about the galactic core. The matter is made up of interdimensional fairy dust and smells of strawberries.
Idea 1 is an idea which was suggested to explain observations and from which testable predictions follow. Idea 2 is just as consistent and predictive as Idea 1 but obviously nonsense, the second part of it is just tacked onto the 'valid' bit. That's what you're doing, you take other people's ideas and tag on utterly random (ie what you like the sound of) speculations which add nothing to the original ideas and due to your method of random musing, you have no way of making it into a valid component of science.
String theory isn't testable yet but there's no reason to think that down the line it won't reach the point where it is testable. Your work doesn't have that, it'll forever remain an untestable, undevelopable set of things
you like the sound of and ad hoc together into something CSS then invents an acronym for.
Speculation does not itself warrant the treatment that it is given here, and my speculation is purposefully done with a methodology that distinguishes between reasonable and responsible speculation vs. idle, wild or fanciful speculation. If you don’t condone speculation fine, but at least say what specific speculation you object to and show some reason why you object. Otherwise you are an empty shirt.
Speculation is fine. Questions like "Is there anything outside our universe?" "What kind of ideas are there for before the big bang?" or "Is time travel possible". All fine. But don't for a second think that simply making up
pure fiction off the top of your head and slapping a title like "Quantum wave cosmology" means it's anything other than
pure fiction. It's not that you're asking questions and speculating, it's that you furvently believe that you've got some kind of rigorous methodology to what you do, that if we all threw in our 2 cents on random speculation (ie avoiding considering any actual astronomical observations or current and previous cosmology in the mainstream) that you'd end up with anything other than
pure fiction.
You're making grandeous claims and then just saying "Oh we'll work out the details later". It doesn't work like that. For instance, the idea of instantaneous transmission of gravity is a nice concept, being very simple (infinite propogation speed means no wave mechanics unlike gravity waves in GR) but no matter how much you tried to come up with the rigor for it, the maths to back it up
its doomed to failure because we know gravity doesn't work like that. If you have no starting point, simply making random stuff up, then the chances are you're going to be way off in describing Nature. Its hard enough when you start from a set of phenomena you want to describe!
Do you see the difference between 'speculation' and what you and CSS do? You take your work to be much much more legit or methodical than it actually is.
notable I started in the Pseudoscience forum, you were slandering me and belittling ideas
Well I generally tend to belittle ideas I think should be belittled immediately. If you were saying something I didn't agree with, I told you so. And I've repeatedly said to you that I don't belittle speculation, I disagree with how you go about it and how you think anything close to science is actually done.
claiming I was cramming my theory (and I never claimed it was theory, just ideas for discussion) down people’s throats, and using ad homs.
I never said 'crammed'. You have been trying to get people to think there's something to your work, that your methodology is sufficiently sound that its worth others getting in on it. I disagreed and said that I would want to point out to anyone naive enough not to see through your nonsense that it is precisely that, nonsense.
t then turned into trolling because you entered every thread, never quoted what I said as far as content, never showed and never have been able to show where my ideas are not consistent with observations and data, and have acted like a total a**hole toward me without provocation.
That's a lie. There's several threads you've got in Pseudo which I've not replied to. And given your threads tend to be on much the same topic as one another and you bring up the same issues I've clashed with you before on it's not like I'm going into threads on topics I wouldn't normally. You and CSS are two of the most prolific cranks in this forum and as I'm one of the arrogant "I don't like cranks" persons we cross paths a lot. It isn't 'stalking' or 'fixation', we're both fairly prolific posters. When QuantumQuack was posting a lot, I replied to him a lot. When Reiku was, I replied to him. I tend to clash with the 'crank of the month'. I don't reply to you a lot because I'm fixated on you, I reply to you a lot because you post a lot of stuff I deem cranky and I say so. If your stuff were posted under 10 different names I'd still reply to them. You need to realise
I don't give a stuff about you on a personal level. It's the crankness of your posts, not you, that makes me reply.
But when ignored in the Cosmology forum you whined to no end and even complained to the moderator that I was a crank to ignore the smart people regardless of the fact that you were hijacking and trolling all of my threads.
You didn't like what Prom, Guest and I had to say (odd how 3 people who do science for a living didn't agree with you, must be a conspiracy!) so you called it trolling. You just couldn't accept bad reviews.
Your low life posts show you have no self respect and are probably severely impaired socially.
So you making hyperbolic assumptions about how I interact with people day to day from how I interact with you, someone I don't know and don't care to know,
isn't being impolite or an ad hom? Why would I treat people I know day to day, people whom I spend time with because we have similar interests/jobs/views, as I treat a crank on an internet forum? Next week it's my 1 year anniversary with my gf. You previously said to Prom he'd be a miserable failure and likely socially inept, despite you knowing nothing of him personally. I had to point out he's got a wife. The fact you're unable to grasp that because
you behave differently to how most people behave I treat you differently says more about your social interactions than mine.
Until then I is my intention to point out your obnoxious arrogance where ever it appears on a thread in Pseudoscience
Spiffy.