What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

[AlphaNumeric]

Now, since we have established that it is not fantasy to discuss a big crunch as you have pointed out, let's discuss it.

I never said it was a fantasy. It's just that to make it justifiable in any way is extremely different.

For instance, someone (possibly Hawking) once considered what the phenomenological implications of a universe collapsing, via a big crunch, to a very small, but non-singular, size was. What effect would this have on our universe? Does it alter the CMB? Or nucleotide ratios? It was a quantitative analysis so you could make somewhat justified statements about what might or might not have happened around the big bang.

You do none of this.

 

[quantum_wave]

You are really taking the piss. I've done exactly what you've asked - pointed out exactly where the fairies come into QWC and you come out with this BS? Is all this to avoid actually getting to the point and finding that you can't prove that arena action is not a fairy, ie something you made up?



There's no need to start a new thread. If the length of a line is x then the maximum possible separation of two points is x. Do you agree? Now put x = infinity and the maximum possible separation is infinite. It's obvious.

Since you invoked the piss word, this will piss you off. OK, there is fairy dust somewhere but as yet we haven’t gotten to it in this thread.

It is not fairy dust to discuss the possibility that a big crunch preceded the initial expansion of our observable universe. That clears us through step one, i.e. in QWC the big crunch preceded the big bang.

Maybe you refer to the possibility that there are multiple arenas. Again, there are models already so if that is the fairy dust you refer to then it can't be my fair dust since someone beat me to it.

We can move on then to step two about arena action. In QWC it is the process of arena action that takes us from the point of intersection between two arenas to the point of intersection between the arena that occurs as a result of that intersection and any other arena that occurs in the same fashion since all arenas have similar backgrounds. In the middle of the process of arena action there is an arena particle which is the core of a big crunch.

The process of arena action generates two waves, one before the particle forms and one after the particle bursts into expansion. the particle exists in its particle state only during that middle phase. If there is fairy dust in step two it is going to be in that process. Let’s find it and get rid of it.

As we work through the speculations I will be doing a re-write of the steps to properly emphasize the wave and particle status at each step.

PS, you clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.

Just keeping you on your toes.

And I do think we need to start a thread to help you with grasping infinity. Watch for it. You did say that if the universe had always existed we could never get to now. That is what made me realize that you either haven't read about it, contemplated it, or grasped it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I never said it was a fantasy. It's just that to make it justifiable in any way is extremely different.

For instance, someone (possibly Hawking) once considered what the phenomenological implications of a universe collapsing, via a big crunch, to a very small, but non-singular, size was. What effect would this have on our universe? Does it alter the CMB? Or nucleotide ratios? It was a quantitative analysis so you could make somewhat justified statements about what might or might not have happened around the big bang.

You do none of this.

Well hell, I'm no Hawking and you are no Einstein.

The point was that discussing a big crunch was not where the fairy dust is in QWC.

I haven't seen other models that propose the same method of big crunch formation as I discuss in QWC but you might know of one or you might want to research that for me. If it turns out that others have discussed it then I came to the same idea independently.

(I can hear you now thinking or saying that you don't have time in your busy life of being a famous scientist to do meanial research for quacks.)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

(I can hear you now thinking or saying that you don't have time in your busy life of being a famous scientist to do meanial research for quacks.)

Oh I've got the time. It's just you're not worth the effort.

 

[quantum_wave]

Oh I've got the time. It's just you're not worth the effort.

I was using child psychology.

So you do not know of any models that use the same method of big crunch formation as I discuss in QWC, fine. I guess if you don't care how they form, one big crunch is a good as the next.

But let it be known that the big crunches in QWC are not the result of some cosmological constant. And they are not cyclical.

I have discussed the cyclical model and I find it to fail. You don't care why I would think that of course and it is not part of QWC because the formation of big crunches in QWC is perpetual throughout the greater universe. It is just that the energy that composes each individual big crunch is never completely the same energy that eventually composes the next crunch. Some of the energy in a new crunch comes from each parent crunch. Each parent arena contributes energy for the new crunch and that energy comes from the overlap space as arenas intersect. Thus the energy in each crunch is a composite of the energy in the parent arenas and the energy from the background within which arena action takes place.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You don't care why I would think that of course and it is not part of QWC because the formation of big crunches in QWC is perpetual throughout the greater universe. It is just that the energy that composes each individual big crunch is never completely the same energy that eventually composes the next crunch. Some of the energy in a new crunch comes from each parent crunch. Each parent arena contributes energy for the new crunch and that energy comes from the overlap space as arenas intersect. Thus the energy in each crunch is a composite of the energy in the parent arenas and the energy from the background within which arena action takes place.

AKA : If I waffle enough and throw in a few buzzwords then maybe someone will be swindled into believing I'm onto something. And I'll continue ignoring that if all the buzzwords are changed it's 'Fairy theory'.

 

[quantum_wave]

AKA : If I waffle enough and throw in a few buzzwords then maybe someone will be swindled into believing I'm onto something. And I'll continue ignoring that if all the buzzwords are changed it's 'Fairy theory'.

That's the best you can do? Please use the quote function to show where I used buzz words.

You didn't read the OP and the Google.doc. The methodology clearly describes the lexicon and what options you have as a novice in QWC to get clarification if you can't understand the word usage.

By now I would have expected more from you, being a self proclaimed expert on something or other.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

That's the best you can do? Please use the quote function to show where I used buzz words.

You use phrases like 'arena action' which you've already demonstrated in discussion with Prom is purely a vacuous phrase, you could just as easily have said 'quantum flux' or 'fractal gradient' or 'geodesic divergence' or any other utterly undefined (in your work) and without substance term. You talk about 'energies' but if I asked you to quantify what you mean you'd be unable to, so you could just as easily have put in 'flux' or 'aether' or 'vortex' or whatever in that. Then there's 'composite energy of parent arenas', somethign you've simply invented and have no quantitative work for so when you say "more energy" or "less energy" you aremn't saying that because you've shown that's how it's rigorously constructed, you're saying 'more' or 'less' because you've decided it. If I swapped all the 'mores' for 'lesses' in your work and vice versa it'd read exactly the same. Why? Because there's no substance to it.

By now I would have expected more from you, being a self proclaimed expert on something or other.

We're in pseudoscience in a lengthy thread on your work. My expertise is not in random nonsense made up without rhyme, reason, methodology, justification, logic or rigour in an attempt to delude the author into believing that they don't have to actually know or learn anything to explain how the universe works. Or more succinctly, BS.

And unlike cranks and nuts, when I say I can do a particular thing in physics or maths I can. Take QuantumQuack for instance. He keeps saying how he's got plenty of knowledge of special relativity, yet can't ever display any or do anything quantitative. I claim I've got working knowledge of special relativity and I can show it. Or Geist, he claims he understands calculus enough to see the 'flaw' in Newton's Shell theorem yet he never actually does any calculus. I have shown working understanding of it. And then the less said about the delusions of grandeur coming from Bishadi the better, he refused a challenge to put up or shut up in his claims he's well ahead of everyone (everyone) in physics.

Cranks are all talk with nothing to say. Funny how they 'publish' their work on forums and then get nowhere, isn't it?

 

[quantum_wave]

So you have no questions. Go figure.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So you have no questions. Go figure.

What more needs to be asked? Prom's asked you a question you can't answer which amounts to you being unable to explain why QWC is any different from a made up 'Fairy theory'.

 

[quantum_wave]

What more needs to be asked? Prom's asked you a question you can't answer which amounts to you being unable to explain why QWC is any different from a made up 'Fairy theory'.

Wrong as usual. I asked where his methodology was. The answer was there is no methodology to the fantasy; follow along and learn how speculation done right is done. I fear it is beyond your ability to grasp.

 

[prometheus]

Wrong as usual. I asked where his methodology was. The answer was there is no methodology to the fantasy; follow along and learn how speculation done right is done. I fear it is beyond your ability to grasp.

As far as I can tell there isn't any methodology to QWC either, except that you are at one end making it up. Speculation done right? What the heck are you on about?

PS, you still haven't said what arena action is.

 

[Ophiolite]

Amazing! We point out that you are a ****ing idiot and you sail on regardless. Whence comes such powerful delusion? Is it drugs, genetic deficiency, embyrological malfunction, corrupt upbringing, or do you just like pissing people off?

 

[quantum_wave]

This is to those few who have been vocal antagonists of QWC and of my speculations.

Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?
Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?
Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?
Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?
Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?
Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

I don’t think all of that can be true of you; you cannot possibly be that intellectually dishonest, can you?

I cannot imagine that you are introspective enough to ask yourself these questions.
I can imagine that you are so insincere that you would say I am the devil and you are all angels if it got you an atta-boy from the tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up such a small and unimportant segment of professionals; shame on you if these statements apply to you.

A sure sign of being a crank is to brag about yourself, your education, your job and your accomplishments to make an appeal to your superior ability to think. It doesn't work that way. Thinking is best served by intelligence and bragging is a sure sign of the lack thereof.

Science cannot yet answer the questions, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what causes gravity”.

QWC exists because there is a healthy skepticism in science. Everything should be questioned, tested, and in the light of advances in science, everything should be re-questioned and retested. The standard consensus of science about the cosmology of the universe is incomplete, inconsistent, and internally incompatible because the consensus has reached the point of the limits of our ability to observe. We can't see an end to our expanding universe, we can't detect the internal components of the standard particles, and we cannot explain how mass and gravity might curve spacetime.

For that reason the standard consensus doesn't answer the three basic questions of cosmology; what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what physically causes gravity? QWC is not persuaded that General Relativity presents a perfect mathematical correspondence between physical space, matter/energy, and time. GR is the best consensus but QWC exists out of skepticism about the consensus of inconsistent and incompatible science represented by Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

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

I’ll be updating QWC and the updated version of the Google.doc will appear as my most recent blog entry for the time being. See you there if you are sincere about discussing ideas and speculating about cosmology.

 

[prometheus]

This is to those few who have been vocal protagonists of QWC and of my speculations.

You don't mean 'protagonists,' do you? I think you mean 'antagonists.'

Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?

No. We've never suggested science has all the answers.

Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?

No, and generally speaking we know what those limits are.

Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?

Since when? I'd like to see a reference that shows this.

Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?

I think I've already answered this.

Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?

If you mean genuine theoretical speculation like you see on the arxiv and in journals all the time then of course there is a place for it. If you mean your type of 'making stuff up,' speculation then yep, call me foolish if you like.

Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

Of course not, you are discussing it aren't you?

I don’t think all of that can be true of you; you cannot possibly be that intellectually dishonest, can you?

This comes from the person that cannot differentiate between people that know nothing about cosmology and are interested and children.

I cannot imagine that you are introspective enough to ask yourself these questions.
I can imagine that you are so insincere that you would say I am the devil and you are all angels if it got you an atta-boy from the tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up such a small and unimportant segment of professionals; shame on you if these statements apply to you.

Have you had any other reaction from a genuine physicist or cosmologist than "QWC is rubbish?" what is your basis for claiming the people posting on this thread are a "tiny ignorant group of arrogant elitists who make up ... a small and unimportant segment of professionals."

A sure sign of being a crank is to brag about yourself, your education, your job and your accomplishments to make an appeal to your superior ability to think. It doesn't work that way. Thinking is best served by intelligence and bragging is a sure sign of the lack thereof.

Not in my book. A crank is someone who is arrogant enough to think they can turn the establishment on it's head without having any experience or education in said area. Genuine statement of fact coming: I've been studying physics for 6 years and I've produced one piece of work of real scientific merit. I suspect you'll find the same from other posters on this thread and forum. Physics is not just something that happens overnight or comes to you in a dream.

Science cannot yet answer the questions, “What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, what causes mass, and what causes gravity”.

This is not quite true. If you asked me these questions I'd tell you "string theory, loop quantum gravity, the bubble model of cosmology and others provide a cause of the big bang." "The Higgs causes mass," and "gravity is caused by spacetime curvature," in ascending order of experimental verification.

QWC exists because there is a healthy skepticism in science. Everything should be questioned, tested, and in the light of advances in science, everything should be re-questioned and retested. The standard consensus of science about the cosmology of the universe is incomplete, inconsistent, and internally incompatible because the consensus has reached the point of the limits of our ability to observe.

You can't make statements like this about the "general consensus" without providing a citation. If you don't I strongly suspect you've simply made it up - it seems to work for the rest of QWC.

We can't see an end to our expanding universe, we can't detect the internal components of the standard particles

and there is strong evidence that the standard model particles are, in fact, fundamental.

we cannot explain how mass and gravity might curve spacetime.

This falls out of string theory quite nicely. There is no need to invoke made up speculations.

QWC is not persuaded that General Relativity presents a perfect mathematical correspondence between physical space, matter/energy, and time. GR is the best consensus but QWC exists out of skepticism about the consensus of inconsistent and incompatible science represented by Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

This is like walking into a room and finding a body in a pool of blood with a man standing next to it with a bloody knife. When questioned he says "I'm glad I killed the bastard," and then concluding that there's no explanation for this poor suckers death. In other words, ignoring the evidence doesn't mean the evidence isn't correct and the evidence points to GR and the standard model being very accurate models of the physics the describe.

I’ll be updating QWC and the updated version of the Google.doc will appear as my most recent blog entry for the time being. See you there if you are sincere about discussing ideas and speculating about cosmology.

You want to discuss speculation in cosmology? How about telling us a little bit about the bubble model to get us going - you don't need any string theory or LQG or anything like that for this model. PS - I genuinely don't know too much about it so I wouldn't mind having a discussion about it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1. Are you too ignorant to realize that science doesn’t have all of the answers?
2. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that there are limits beyond which theories cannot be tested?
3. Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that existing theories of cosmology, mass and gravity are inconsistent and incompatible?
4. Are you so convinced that science has the right answer that you ignore the scientific method and its warning of arrogance and tentativeness?
5. Are you so foolish that you think speculation has no place in cosmology?
6. Are you so arrogant that you think you should decide who can and who cannot discuss cosmology beyond the limits of scientific tools?

1. Noone has said that. Science is fundamentally about the admission of not having all the answers and the only way to get close to those answers is through careful methodology.

2. This is why physicists don't talk about absolutes, they talk in such terms as '5 sigma confidences' and 'realms of applicability'. Noone tries to use general relativity to model particle collisions at CERN because that's outside GR's realm of applicability. Nor does anyone claim that we've seen all the phenomena the world has to offer.

3. I am 101% certain that Prom and I know much much more about the failings of theoretical physics in regards to various phenomena. And you're being black and white saying they are incompatible. They are naively incompatible but that's not the same. You can't just write down a GR Lagrangian and quantise it to get quantum gravity, you must take a different route. Is it possible to write down a theory which becomes overwhelmingly like GR in one realm of applicability and overwhelmingly like quantum mechanics is another? Yes.

4. This is simply repeating your previous questions in a different way and you're making a strawman. Hundreds of millions of (insert currency here) are spent by physicists today testing their ideas, even on such things as 'established' as special relativity. The person who finds the chink in SR is going to 'live forever' in the physics community. Undoubtedly a Nobel Prize would follow swiftly. Entire physics departments are devoted to the questions "What's the best experiment we could do to test inflation/the Standard Model/relativity with current funding and technology?" and "If we see [X] instead of [Y] in that experiment what might model that new phenomenon?"

5. Speculation tempered by experience, hindsight and enough experimental data to choke a wide necked animal is essential to physics. Wild speculation with zero experience of physics, no knowledge of previous ideas/methods/results and not looking at any experimental data is bloody pointless.

As an example, I claim Mars is hollow. Why? Because the Earth isn't (seismic data) and has a big magnetic field (compared to Mars) which is related to its huge iron core. So if Mars has no magnetic field it must not have an iron core. So I claim it's hollow. Worthy speculation? After all, it gives a simple explaination for the lack of magnetic field, anyone can understand it. Should I now dive into spending years elaborating on that or would it be wiser for me to look at experimental observations such as the gravimetric field around Mars, which allows us to calculate its mass?

If you have zero reason to pick a particular speculation over any other possible explaination then don't bother because you offer no explaination oter than "Because I say so".

6. Look, if you want to get stoned and watch Donnie Darko and then babble to stoned friends about time travel, I don't care. You want to try to swindle people into thinking random unsupported claims piled on top of one another is adhering to the scientific methodology, I'll point out you're talking nonsense.

Let's take an example. Neil Turok constructed the idea of brane cosmology because it allows an explaination for the creation of our 3+1 dimensional space-time via the production of D3-branes formed by the output of energy due to a brane-antibrane collision in a larger universe, which could have been around forever as we've not been able to observe outside our 3+1 dimensions. In doing this you find that it implies such nice things as a mechanism for inflation via scalar fields and also the weakness of gravity (closed strings can leave our 3d space 'into the bulk'). It clearly, rigorously and quantitatively tackles some of the questions in cosmology. The weakness of gravity is a prediction, an outcome, an output you didn't have to put in by hand. All your 'work' is just you put in by hand, you haven't predicted anything, you just explain things 'after the fact'. If you have to put in more information than you get out your theory isn't a very good one.

And you have to put in everything.

 

[quantum_wave]

Please use the quote feature to link us to where I call QWC a theory. You are a crank to continue to make this mistake after being told repeatedly.

Comparing QWC methodology of speculation to wild speculation without any connection to physics is another of your crank behaviors. Denying that there is any useful methodology for applying speculation is ignorant. Responding to rhetorical questions and building straw men as you do so is crank behavior.

And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory. You don’t acknowledge and maybe you don’t realize that the consensus (standard theory) is not the same thing as the mainstream activities to advance the consensus, i.e. work by professionals does not automatically advance standard theory. References to non-standard theories being worked on by mainstream professionals are not references to standard theory and so when you do so you are agreeing with me and are not smart enough to see that.

Prom says that he is confident that standard particles are fundamental and yet both of you refer to string theory. You are ignorant if you don’t see the conflict. On one hand Prom states that the universe cannot have always existed because if it had we would never get to now (ignorant), and the other hand AlphaNumeric acknowledges that the universe might have always existed. You guys aren’t even in the same book, let along on the same page.

QWC is a set of ideas. Read the OP and the Google.doc before you go off characterizing what it is and what it isn’t and use the quote feature to back up your statements or you are just being cranks. You are spouting off and ranting (more crank behavior).

You are both repeating inaccurate statements about QWC, bragging repeatedly, addressing rhetorical questions, making straw men, arguing about simple obvious statements that most people would readily acknowledge, confirming what I have said as if I hadn't already said it, ignoring that QWC is an evolving set of ideas most of which mainstream professionals themselves have put forth, and referring to it as a made up use of buzz words. You both continue to be cranks for those reasons.

You both agree that one reasonable precedent to the Big Bang is a big crunch and that is what QWC says. QWC explores how a big crunch could produce the expanding observable universe by describing a physical picture. A physical picture is a description of what might cause things that we observe in order to place ideas on the table for discussion. QWC does that.

QWC is upfront about the need for new physics and gives a physical picture of the new physics that might be at work to produce our observable universe from a big crunch. QWC paints a physical picture of how big crunches might form, and it discusses reasonable and responsible ideas about a greater universe where the formation of big crunches would be common place. Those ideas combine to paint a physical picture of arenas, to describe how arenas might form and the process that might represent their progress from an overlap of arenas to big crunches, to expanding arenas like our own, and on from there to intersect and overlap with similar arenas which perpetuates the process. These ideas are not presented as fact and are clearly presented for discussion and your repeated statement about it being theory that I am trying to cram off on unsuspecting children is pure “crank”.

Theory, the scientific method, proposed tests, and experiments necessarily come after the physical picture. You need to be showing how what I say is inconsistent with observations and to do so you need to start at the beginning of the steps, i.e. show why a big crunch is not a valid idea. But wait, you already agree with that idea. Once you agree with validity of the idea of a big crunch you have to show how the QWC methodology used to reach the ideas about how a big crunch could lead to an expanding arena like our own is in error. Just saying there is no valid methodology for developing speculation is the view of a crank. Look at the methodology, use the quote feature and show what you object to, and give me a chance to revise the methodology to reflect any meaningful comments you conceivable (but doubtfully) could have.

QWC is pointless to you, but starting with a consistent and connected set of ideas about the cosmology of the universe is my approach and evolving those ideas is my prime objective. You are cranks if you can’t see that we have a disagreement about what is appropriate for discussion. If that is not the problem then enter into the discussion instead of trying to cram through your crank opinions on a forum. Please limit your responses to a few stupid statements and you don't need to address rhetorical questions.

Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

The updated Google.doc is there.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Please use the quote feature to link us to where I call QWC a theory. You are a crank to continue to make this mistake after being told repeatedly.

Nice redefinition of 'crank'. You've claimed QWC explains things, that it's using valid methodology. I very much disagree with that.

Comparing QWC methodology of speculation to wild speculation without any connection to physics is another of your crank behaviors.

Nice redefinition of 'crank'. Particularly given, despite repeated requests, you've been unable to justify any result you claim or give a single reason why QWC is more valid than random speculation.

And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.

I didn't say that. I specifically corrected you on it. The SM is not 'inconsistent'. GR and quantum mechanics can be made compatible, it's only if you go down the usual naive route that you get problems. You utterly ignored that and you have the hypocrisy to call me a crank for ignoring your corrections!?

Prom says that he is confident that standard particles are fundamental and yet both of you refer to string theory. You are ignorant if you don’t see the conflict. On one hand Prom states that the universe cannot have always existed because if it had we would never get to now (ignorant), and the other hand AlphaNumeric acknowledges that the universe might have always existed. You guys aren’t even in the same book, let along on the same page.

Where does Prom say he's confident particles are fundamental? You keep complaining we don't use the quote function and then you don't bother yourself.

And so what if Prom and I don't say exactly the same things on a particular area of RANDOM SPECULATION. I doubt either of us devote much thought time to the issues of 'pre-big bang' but I'm sure if we did we'd end up falling into similar viewpoints as one another as we learn more, understand more and work more on it. Unlike yourself who doesn't bother with the 'learn' part.

QWC is a set of ideas. Read the OP and the Google.doc before you go off characterizing what it is and what it isn’t and use the quote feature to back up your statements or you are just being cranks. You are spouting off and ranting (more crank behavior).

Nice hypocrisy. Notice how I post, I quote, respond, quote, respond. You have ignored a great many things I've said, not quoted bits you do respond to and the very post I'm responding to is a bit rant. Excellent hypocrisy. And I bet you're not even aware of it!

ignoring that QWC is an evolving set of ideas most of which mainstream professionals themselves have put forth, and referring to it as a made up use of buzz words

You read other people's ideas and take bits from each of them and then put them under the big heading QWC. There's no methodology to your work so saying "But someone in the mainstream community talks about it" ignores the fact they did it in a much more rigorous fashion, using quantitative models, deriving specific predictions, clearly stating their derivations. You simply pluck ideas out of the internet. If you asked Neil Turok "Why did you use D3 branes, not D5 branes?" he'd have a specific reason for you. With QWC the reason for any particular part of it is because you say so. That's not a valid methodology.

You both agree that one reasonable precedent to the Big Bang is a big crunch and that is what QWC says. QWC explores how a big crunch could produce the expanding observable universe by describing a physical picture. A physical picture is a description of what might cause things that we observe in order to place ideas on the table for discussion. QWC does that.

How can QWC explore anything when it's unable to describe or model anything? The physical picture you speak of is simply you making up some arm waving mechanism you find appealing. You're basically saying "Hey everyone, lets all talk about my view of the universe and my view of things!". You keep saying "QWC does...", "QWC says...." as if it's an independent thing, it's not. QWC says whatever you want it to say. A good theory, a good model doesn't bend to your every whim, it predicts things for itself. For instance, string theory demands 10 dimensions, not 6, not 19, not 2, 10. String theorists therefore must say "We cannot change this 10 to a 4 so we must see how we can make this requirement, this prediction, consistent with data". Special relativity says motion through space affects motion through time. You can't get around time dilation and length contraction, you can't say "Special relativity says time and space are absolute" because the postulates demand the lack of absolute time and space. You, however, can make QWC whatever you like.

A model which can say anything actually says nothing.

Theory, the scientific method, proposed tests, and experiments necessarily come after the physical picture.

So rather than use current knowledge, ideas and data to guide how we tentatively form a model for the universe we should just pick one at random and then see if it fits all the data? Clearly you don't grasp what the scientific method is. But then why would you, you've never done any science.

Look at the methodology, use the quote feature and show what you object to, and give me a chance to revise the methodology to reflect any meaningful comments you conceivable (but doubtfully) could have.

Yes, why should you bother finding things out for yourself when it's easier to just make **** up and laud over it till someone who has put in the effort to learn some physics points out your mistakes. After all, that would require you to open a book or do some work and cranks hate that.

Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena?

You tell us what 'arena action' is in precisely defined terms and we'll consider it.

The updated Google.doc is there.

And there's a wealth of freely available online lecture notes on cosmology and particle physics but I bet you don't read them, do you?

 

[quantum_wave]

Nice redefinition of 'crank'.

It fits you to a T.

You've claimed QWC explains things

what things? Failure to use the quote function repeatedly is crank behavior because you build straw men.

, You've claimed that it's using valid methodology. I very much disagree with that.

You say that over and over and then don’t respond when I ask you to use the quote function, i.e. it is crank behavior used to build straw men. Quote something from the methodology in the Google.doc that you object too, and saying "all of it" confirms you are a crank.

Nice redefinition of 'crank'. Particularly given, despite repeated requests, you've been unable to justify any result you claim or give a single reason why QWC is more valid than random speculation.

Please link us to any one of your repeated requests where you use the quote function and that I have not responded too. You are a crank to keep saying things that are not true and insisting that I am the one who is not responsive.

I didn't say that.

Did too.

I specifically corrected you on it.

Did not.

The SM is not 'inconsistent'.

Didn’t say it was.

GR and quantum mechanics can be made compatible, it's only if you go down the usual naive route that you get problems. You utterly ignored that and you have the hypocrisy to call me a crank for ignoring your corrections!?

I didn’t ignore that and responded to it. And you are a crank and it is not hypocrisy on my part to say it, it is hypocrisy on your part to deny it.

Where does Prom say he's confident particles are fundamental?

Read his last post.

and there is strong evidence that the standard model particles are, in fact, fundamental.

You were a fool to challenge me on that. I say it like it is everyone knows that when I say someone said something, they said it. You could never make such a claim and I have proven that you say people say things that they didn’t say. I asked you on another thread to deny that and gave an example at that time. You didn’t reply. Do you deny that because I could link you to that post.

You keep complaining we don't use the quote function and then you don't bother yourself.

I just did to respond to your request. Will you commit to respond to my similar requests which are numerous and all unanswered? That is a rhetorical question which means that you don’t need to respond. We all know you haven’t and won’t. Question answered for you.

And so what if Prom and I don't say exactly the same things on a particular area of *RANDOM SPECULATION*. I doubt either of us devote much thought time to the issues of 'pre-big bang' but I'm sure if we did we'd end up falling into similar viewpoints as one another as we learn more, understand more and work more on it. Unlike yourself who doesn't bother with the 'learn' part.

You are insincere to say that and it is untrue, I have explained the thousands of hours I have spent on “learning”, and I don’t need any help from you to understand what I am talking about. You on the other have don’t know what you are talking about when you say I haven’t done the learning part. That is your huge ego resorting to untrue statements that seem to make your position one of authority. Instead, it makes your position one of predictable arrogance.

Nice hypocrisy. Notice how I post, I quote, respond, quote, respond. You have ignored a great many things I've said, not quoted bits you do respond to and the very post I'm responding to is a bit rant. Excellent hypocrisy. And I bet you're not even aware of it!

Yes I am. I’m glad you noticed. Too bad you can’t see that we are talking about these things as they apply to you; it is your hypocrisy.

You read other people's ideas and take bits from each of them and then put them under the big heading QWC.

Hmm, think about what you are saying.

There's no methodology to your work so saying "But someone in the mainstream community talks about it" ignores the fact they did it in a much more rigorous fashion, using quantitative models, deriving specific predictions, clearly stating their derivations. You simply pluck ideas out of the internet.

Not true and pure “crankdom” to even resort to saying it. Did I say, “get over yourself”?

If you asked Neil Turok "Why did you use D3 branes, not D5 branes?" he'd have a specific reason for you. With QWC the reason for any particular part of it is because you say so. That's not a valid methodology.

Neil Turok is clear and up front about what he is doing, he describes the physical picture that his team has been developing into theory, and BTW, he wouldn’t give you time of day if he knew how you conduct yourself on the forums.

How can QWC explore anything when it's unable to describe or model anything?

Easy. How can you be so intellectually insincere and dishonest to say that the ideas I have presented don’t describe or model anything when I describe in detail what QWC is about and what the methodology is. I don’t claim it is theory or a model as such but you, crank as you are, insist that I said that. You are a crank not to use the quote feature when you make false statements but we have been over that repeatedly.

The physical picture you speak of is simply you making up some arm waving mechanism you find appealing. You're basically saying "Hey everyone, lets all talk about my view of the universe and my view of things!". You keep saying "QWC does...", "QWC says...." as if it's an independent thing, it's not. QWC says whatever you want it to say. A good theory, a good model doesn't bend to your every whim, it predicts things for itself. For instance, string theory demands 10 dimensions, not 6, not 19, not 2, *10*. String theorists therefore must say "We cannot change this 10 to a 4 so we must see how we can make this requirement, this prediction, consistent with data". Special relativity says motion through space affects motion through time. You can't get around time dilation and length contraction, you can't say "Special relativity says time and space are absolute" because the postulates demand the lack of absolute
time and space. You, however, can make QWC whatever you like.

Please use the quote function to link to where I call it a theory. Talking about ideas is the purpose of this thread and is not unusual activity to take place on a science forum. I am well aware of sting theory as a layman; I understand special relativity and don’t feel any need to prove it. I agree that I make QWC what I like, but you are invited to use the quote function, point to any of the steps, say why they are wrong or what observations falsify them, and suggest improvements. You would rather be a crank, brag about yourself, obfuscate, set up straw men, refuse to use the quote function, and claim that you are rubber and I am glue. All those things are characteristics of a crank. Thank you for recognizing that I have defined why you are a crank.

A model which can say anything actually says nothing.

The statement of a true crank again. Please us the quote function to show where I said QWC was a model. I have said “it says what it says” and offered to have you quote what I have said for purposes of discussion, correction, falsification, improvement, or support. Why don’t you deny that you are a crank and explain all of the behaviors you demonstrate that I characterize as crank behaviors?

So rather than use current knowledge, ideas and data to guide how we tentatively form a model for the universe we should just pick one at random and then see if it fits all the data? Clearly you don't grasp what the scientific method is.

Not true and it is crank behavior for you to say that. Please use the quote feature to show where I have misrepresented what the scientific method is.

But then why would you, you've never done any science.

This is a crank statement stemming from you huge ego that wants us to believe that you are aware of all science that has been done, or that you are the only one that has done science or some other stupid ego rant.

Yes, why should you bother finding things out for yourself when it's easier to just make **** up and laud over it till someone who has put in the effort to learn some physics points out your mistakes. After all, that would require you to open a book or do some work and cranks hate that.

You have completely mischaracterized the situation for you own warped motives. That is crank behavior. Please use the quote function to show where I have “made up or lauded” anything, or to show where you have pointed out my mistakes, or to evidence your claim that I not informed about something that I have said.

You tell us what 'arena action' is in precisely defined terms and we'll consider it.

It is in the document and we are inching along to discussing it in this thread as we go step by step. Please acknowledge that QWC starts with the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch. Then point out what you object to in the methodology using the quote feature, and then we can get on with arena action. We can go to the steps about arena action and address them in order and you can comment as we go. If you can't get yourself to do that your entire vacuous litany of requests, claims, rants, and straw men just reconfirm what everyone already knows about you; you are a craaaaank.

And the exact statement I made was:

Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?
http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

You certainly wanted to respond to this, “Forget all the crap, grow up, get over yourselves and tell me why a big crunch cannot be considered a particle that decays into an expanding arena? Or is that idea over your heads or out of bounds for discussion? Seems to me I have come across it elsewhere. In fact, didn’t you guys just mention it and not realize it (hint Higgs)?” But you didn’t.

And there's a wealth of freely available online lecture notes on cosmology and particle physics but I bet you don't read them, do you?

This is the statement of an egotistical crank who has no idea what I know or what I have been doing for many thousands of hours over more years than you have been out of diapers.

And I said, “QWC is pointless to you, but starting with a consistent and connected set of ideas about the cosmology of the universe is my approach and evolving those ideas is my prime objective. You are cranks if you can’t see that we have a disagreement about what is appropriate for discussion."

You didn’t respond but I know you will this time.

I also said, “If that is not the problem then enter into the discussion instead of trying to cram through your crank opinions on a forum.”

It must have been a problem for you; you made a meaningless challenge out of context and off topic. Try to stay with me here.

And I said, “Please limit your responses to a few stupid statements and you don't need to address rhetorical questions.”

You completely disregarded that statement.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh Jesus. For someone who says he's a lot older than me you seem to have regressed to child-like behaviour with "Did not!" "Did too!".

what things? Failure to use the quote function repeatedly is crank behavior because you build straw men.You say that over and over and then don’t respond when I ask you to use the quote function, i.e. it is crank behavior used to build straw men.

You said

QWC is upfront about the need for new physics and gives a physical picture of the new physics that might be at work to produce our observable universe from a big crunch. QWC paints a physical picture of how big crunches might form, and it discusses reasonable and responsible ideas about a greater universe where the formation of big crunches would be common place. Those ideas combine to paint a physical picture of arenas, to describe how arenas might form and the process that might represent their progress from an overlap of arenas to big crunches, to expanding arenas like our own, and on from there to intersect and overlap with similar arenas which perpetuates the process. These ideas are not presented as fact and are clearly presented for discussion and your repeated statement about it being theory that I am trying to cram off on unsuspecting children is pure “crank”.

You clearly view the methodology of random speculation and heaping guess upon speculation upon random idea as 'methodology' worth other people's time. Do you deny this?

Please link us to any one of your repeated requests where you use the quote function and that I have not responded too.

Prometheus asked you to define 'arena action', are you denying this? You couldn't.

It would seem your new tactic is to just refuse to address anything anyone says to you unless "You use the quote function!! Crank!", thus allowing you to sidestep the questions and it increases the amount of time and effort it takes to reply to you. You are an adult (so you claim) and we all know the majority of what has or hasn't been said in this thread, so grow up a bit when you know something has been said. So come on, what is 'arena action'?

Did not.

I did correct you. You said "And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.". I didn't because I then said "And you're being black and white saying they are incompatible. They are naively incompatible but that's not the same. You can't just write down a GR Lagrangian and quantise it to get quantum gravity, you must take a different route. Is it possible to write down a theory which becomes overwhelmingly like GR in one realm of applicability and overwhelmingly like quantum mechanics is another? Yes.".

So yes, I did correct you and for all your whining about not quoting and crank behaviour you're the one lying.

Didn’t say it was.

You said "And you readily agree that standard theory is incompatible and inconsistent while that is exactly the stimulus for alternative ideas. It is that incompatibility that drives mainstream professionals to improve standard theory.". Standard theory = The Standard Model and General Relativity. Neither are inconsistent and they are only naively incompatible. As I explained.

You were a fool to challenge me on that. I say it like it is everyone knows that when I say someone said something, they said it. You could never make such a claim and I have proven that you say people say things that they didn’t say. I asked you on another thread to deny that and gave an example at that time. You didn’t reply. Do you deny that because I could link you to that post.

I never made the claim he didn't say that, I asked where he said it. In this case your use of the quote function would have been useful because I would have had a point clarified. I wasn't sure if he was saying that he doesn't view the string theory description of particles are true, in which case particles aren't fundamental, even if they aren't bound states of other particles. You seem to be jumping down my throat for 'challenging you on that' when I asked a question, not made a statement. Are you so desperate to whine about us you'll just have a go regardless?

I have explained the thousands of hours I have spent on “learning”

I see you put learning in inverted commas. Would you care to explain the particular reason for that? When I say to people "I've spent many hours learning particle physics" I don't feel the need to use inverted commas because I spent those hours learning. I'd hazard a guess that you did it because you're aware that you didn't bother to open a book at all during that time but no doubt if I made that accusation directly you'd call me a crank.

You on the other have don’t know what you are talking about when you say I haven’t done the learning part.

Perhaps then you'd like to enlighten us on what material you have "learnt" from? Nothings stopping you saying that to show us we're wrong in our insinuations of your lack of knowledge.

Not true and pure “crankdom” to even resort to saying it.

I really think you need to come up with a new buzzword, because you're using 'crank' too much, even if you were using it appropriately. I suspect we've hit a nerve there and you're trying to do the same to us. Shame we're both firmly confident in the fact we aren't cranks. Damn that published work of ours! And it's not 'pure crankdom' to point out that nowhere have you given a rigorous methodology which doesn't just boil down to "Whatever I say goes!". If you could give a justified explaination for QWC's results you'd have done so, you'd have done it when we first started pestering you.

Neil Turok is clear and up front about what he is doing, he describes the physical picture that his team has been developing into theory, and BTW, he wouldn’t give you time of day if he knew how you conduct yourself on the forums.

So why can't you be upfront with your work? Why can't you give your precise assumptions and then carefully derive results from them? Why can he do what you can't? And actually, I've spoken to him in the past and he covered a bit of a GR lecture course I was doing when our usual lecturer was away. Very nice guy.

Easy. How can you be so intellectually insincere and dishonest to say that the ideas I have presented don’t describe or model anything when I describe in detail what QWC is about and what the methodology is.

How can we trust the implications of QWC when you could just as easily picked anything else as a starting position for QWC and got something utterly different?

and claim that you are rubber and I am glue

Now, now. You wouldn't be insinuating I've been using playground rhymes? If I asked you to use the quote function to show where I said that you'd be looking a mite hypocritical again

This is a crank statement stemming from you huge ego that wants us to believe that you are aware of all science that has been done, or that you are the only one that has done science or some other stupid ego rant.

The fact I state that based on your posts I would guess you haven't done any science is not the same as me saying that noone else but me has. People like Prom, BenTheMan, Temur, DH, Guest, CptBork, Trippy, Rpenner and a fair few others all show in their posts they've studied some area of science both in terms of their knowledge and in terms of how they view scientific methodology. You display none of that. I don't need to know all of science to see when someone else doesn't grasp the scientific methodology, just like I don't need to know every word in English to see when someone is unable to speak it.

If you can't get yourself to do that your entire vacuous litany of requests, claims, rants, and straw men just reconfirm what everyone already knows about you; you are a craaaaank.

I am not peddling my pet theory. I am not ignorant of what I speak. I am not claiming omniscience or a theory of everything. I am simply standing my ground in the face of your wish to continue peddling your pet theory, your pet theory which is devoid of anything worthwhile. You're getting frustrated and if all you can do is throw back "crank!" at me you're running low on creativity. Calling me a girl wouldn't change my gender, calling me a crank doesn't make me magically call into that category. I don't devote much of my time to you and this thread, I've spent maybe 20 minutes, at 8.30am and I might post again later. Otherwise today I'll do 6~8 hours of actual research. If I were a crank I'd devote all my time to this issue, as you've devoted thousands of hours to it, so you claim. Personally I don't care, you're more a source of light entertainment for me