You weren’t being rude and don’t apologize because I don’t think you got carried away with yourself at all.
I do in fact acknowledge the Big Bang event. I often say that the consensus theory, i.e. BBT does not actually say there was a big bang nor does it say what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. I then go right into the discussion of what could have caused the big bang event that BBT doesn’t mention. I show the process of concluding for myself that there was a big crunch, how it formed, and the new physics I suggest that could cause a crunch to burst (my QWC version of the Big Bang event).
I must be older than you are. After all, I’m on SS and middle aged people call me sir
.Yes, as you acknowledge, the methodology is the only thing that separates reasonable and responsible speculation from idle and wild speculation. Those who refuse to see the difference haven’t spent much time trying to speculate about things that science does not yet have the answers for.
I would say we have both been around long enough to have a considerable understanding and appreciation for science and so being completed in one’s thinking about the universe is not an option. Insisting that everything that I include in my personal cosmology works together with internal consistency and is not inconsistent with observation and the consensus does not mean that I expect to complete it. It means that my personal cosmology satisfies me in that it is just that, internally consistent, not inconsistent with the consensus, and it will always be a work in progress.
The consensus has no cause for the big bang and doesn’t even say anything about time before 10^-43, i.e. it begins with expansion in progress. Oh sure, there are many theories that go beyond the consensus but I use the consensus as my starting point. I simply speculate about “before” 10^-43 using a defined methodology. QWC is drawn from science, science theory, and speculation. Nothing built on such a tentative foundation can itself every be considered complete.
You are right to point out that in my write up I use lexical definitions and avoid the précising definitions of specific theories, and I explain why I do that. My personal cosmology is not intended to replace anyone’s view of cosmology and it is a bottom up approach where all of the components are added one at a time so they all fit and work together to satisfy only me. Of course the similarities with the consensus are there from the start and the move from there to speculation is bottom up meaning that I don’t start with theories, I start with observation and speculation using the consensus as the starting point. To me it doesn’t fit to try to use words that have specific meanings within existing theories if I don’t incorporate that theory and don’t defend it.
I understand QWC and can answer any questions that refer to it specifically, but I can’t compare it to existing theories that I don’t incorporate into it because those theories use précising definitions that I don’t use in QWC. That makes the words I use the lexicon on QWC as I say in my introduction.
And you refer to what you and I do as work on our ideas while I don’t look at it that way. True it uses energy to have a personal cosmology as you can attest, but being a hobby and the most interesting of pass times makes it an enjoyable endeavor and not work as such, wouldn’t you agree?
QWC depicts a multiverse where our observable expanding arena emerged from a big crunch and that emergence, the big bang type event is a common occurrence throughout the greater universe that is made up of a potentially infinite number of other arenas. Arenas don’t last forever because they expand, intersect, overlap and the overlaps collapse into crunches from which new arenas emerge. Entropy is defeated and the greater universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale, while within arenas exists the micro scale where quantum mechanics operates.
The new physics that I suggest is necessary to make the two scales work together. By working together I mean that the new physics suggests a common cause of mass and gravity and that common cause is responsible for the crunch/burst process that is characteristic of the arena process of the greater universe. My endeavor is to get all of the ideas that I have discussed in my various threads documented using the step by step process and so the document itself is a work in progress at all times.
That is why I was asking if you have documented your ideas so that I could refer to the document and compare, looking not only for common ground, but for ideas that work with mine.