For AN to say I disregard the scientific method is incorrect. I am speculating and if you don't consider that part of the scientific method then you don't understand the scientific method.
You're speculating on something which you have no knowledge of. If you're given a bunch of experimental results then you can then speculate as to how they all fit together, that's fine. If you simply guess the results without anything to justify your guesses then its a waste of time. At least when you have information about a system you know what your speculation should lead to. If you have no information and no understanding then what is the point?
For AN to say I make up narrative is insincere. I speculate based on what science does know and starting from where science leaves off.
This is not true. You can't speculate on something based in science since you don't know any. Reading pop science websites is so far from reading about actual science its not even funny. Furthermore since you don't know even known science its silly to think you can build on it. How can you speculate 'beyond where science leave off' about things like the expansion of the universe when you don't know what GR says about the expansion or what experiments/observations are relevant.
You don't base your ideas on observations/experiments or current models. You're basing it on nothing but the most superficial of information gleened from layperson websites.
I am not disregarding any experiments because the things that science does not know are not tested and proved by experiments.
You don't disregard any experiments before you don't regard them as being heed-worthy in the first place. And your statement is false anyway. If you're talking about expansion of the universe then you should have devised experimental signatures. For instance, the CMB power spectrum is an effect which depends on manner of space-time expansion in any GR based theory hence its a falsifiable idea.
Furthermore if you only consider things which science cannot then tautologically you're just making up stuff which can never be examined or tested. So what is the point if you can't connect it to reality?
AN approaches my speculation from the standpoint that I have no quantification, no proof, no testable hypotheses, and so he says I have nothing.
Given your 'work' fails by any and all standards of 'science' I would say my comments are valid.
Yet he has never been able to show that my speculations are not reasonably and responsibly connected to departure points in the accepted scientific consensus.
Superficial drivel is, by construction, hard to refute because you never say anything clear and precise. Anyone can come up with a few pages of made up nonsense which seems, at a glance, related in some way to some mainstream research area.
And besides, its not up to me to falsify your claims, its up to you to justify them. The very fact your claims are unfalsifiable by having no connection to anything measurable in science demonstrates that it is not science and thus not worth any attention from anyone who actually does science.
He calls anything that cannot be quantified or tested fairy tales
You make no prrecise predictions and you consider things which can never be examined, directly or indirectly. The whole 'fairies' thing is to demonstrate how vapid your claims are. Its like when people who believe in God try to use some sequence of logic with concludes "And therefore God exists". If you can replace "God" with "Giant bunny rabbit" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" then the argument is worthless since if it 'proves' the existence of anything then it proves the existence of nothing. Your work is like that. You throw around phrases like "
An eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density" but you don't precisely define what they are. Guest tried to get you to formally define what energy was in your work but you couldn't. You didn't even grasp the whole issue of giving definitions of such things. In your work I could replace "
An eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density" with "An oscillating phase through a charged membrane" or any other buzzword filled sound bite and it would be just as valid as your 'work'. Thus your work is worthless since it is indistinguishable from random guesses.
If you died tomorrow no one could continue QWC because there's no logic to it, its just random guesses. How can you be sure your guesses are valid? You can't. In any other area of physics if you separately give 2 people the same postulates they'll go away and work out the same theory. If your work can't pass this test then its worthless. This isn't some personal view or me being picky its a fundamental tenant of science and logic.
and offers ad homs to describe us who employ speculation
Get off your high horse. Speculation is an essential part of science. If you went into any physics research department in universities and asked the researchers you'd find that they all have plenty of speculative ideas on this or that but all of them will have some reason for those ideas be it tentative experimental/observational evidence or some mathematical structure within the theory. Random unjustified uninformed speculation where the speculator is deliberately ignorant of relevant information is not science. It's faith based on incredulity.
So the phrase, "an eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density", isn't really big words misapplied, and I hope that I have been able to resolve some the "gibberish" by this explanation.
Its still vapid even after your attempt to explain. Like I said, Guest tried to get you to define energy and you couldn't. And you're hardly using 'big words'. If you actually looked in the literature you'd realise just how poor your wording is.
Define energy. Define energy density. Define its time dependent parameters. Define its dynamics. Justify how you obtained such dynamics.
No doubt you'll just say I'm asking quantitative questions blah blah blah. In the research community you don't start talking about the wide ranging properties of systems unless you've got a clear definition of what you're talking about and you're able to provide justification for why you're approaching it the way you are. Physicists make an hypothesis, work through to its implications, compare with experiment, refine or rework areas which need improving, compare again, refine some more, compare it with other people's work, write out a lengthy and well documented description of the theory, the methods, the experiments and open problems, send it to a journal, provide further justification to any areas the reviewer might have issue with and
then announce their work. You just jump to the end and make claims about an unmeasurable, untestable idea which has no logical development and you can't even describe properly.
If you had ever bothered to learn any physics you'd know just how far from it you are.
) 