Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
And DH replied
So I guess you don't understand the motivation. I do.DH said:
AN, I noticed you posted again to my thread. I still have you on ignore and until Plasma Inferno appoints a second moderator, or until the current moderator decides if you and Prom have been hijacking and trolling for an argument as opposed to me posting pseudoscience, I am keeping you on ignore. I maintain that ideas that have not been resolved by science by showing that they are inconsistent with observations are in fact pre-science (protoscience) instead of pseudoscience (non-science).
If you are actually participating in the intention of the thread get someone to send me a PM and I will reply to your posts.
BTW, I would be willing to moderate the Cosmology forum for awhile if that would help.
If you are actually participating in the intention of the thread get someone to send me a PM and I will reply to your posts.
BTW, I would be willing to moderate the Cosmology forum for awhile if that would help.
I know, but you can trust me :shrug:.
Previously I asked you where one of your predictions came from, and you became irate because it soon emerged that your answer was nothing more than "it's the first small number I thought of".
Has your work taken you to a point where you can answer such questions? What are your postulates? Where are the derivations from these postulates. And what predictions have you made from these derivations? Show us the numbers, and how you got them....
*I'm not trying to dig at you here. I genuinely like to learn about new areas of physics, so if you have a viable alternative to modern theories, or even some interesting ground work on an alternative approach, then I'd love to learn about it. However, I'm not interested in why you think fairies made the universe out of cheese, and why this explanation is better than current models because it doesn't require knowledge of graduate level mathematics.*
Has your work taken you to a point where you can answer such questions? What are your postulates? Where are the derivations from these postulates. And what predictions have you made from these derivations? Show us the numbers, and how you got them....
*I'm not trying to dig at you here. I genuinely like to learn about new areas of physics, so if you have a viable alternative to modern theories, or even some interesting ground work on an alternative approach, then I'd love to learn about it. However, I'm not interested in why you think fairies made the universe out of cheese, and why this explanation is better than current models because it doesn't require knowledge of graduate level mathematics.*
I don't think I got irate but I think you were not interested in a wagner (wild arse guess not easily refuted) about the number of quanta in a proton. I had tried to give some perspective to my thinking and you got irritated that I couldn't quantify the quantum. I was only trying to put it into perspective for talking purposes by saying it would have to be so tiny that it can't be measured. I offered a wagner to put my thinking into perspective. You wanted quantification and came back with the same insistence three times. I couldn't quantify it and conceded that. It was in my first thread at Sciforums which I started in the Pseudoscience forum under the name, "Mass has Gravity". That is my side to the story.
No, I still cannot do any better on the energy of a quantum in QWC.
This is not being presented as theory, or didn't you notice that?
Some people are not interested in discussing ideas about what came before the Big Bang, or what causes mass and gravity if they are alternative to standard theory. Science does not know what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. I am discussing possible alternatives. I like the idea that a big crunch preceded the Big Bang for reasons I have recently stated.
Being able to distinguish between ideas about the cause of the Big Bang and cheese fairies doesn't take much effort. If you try you can see there is a difference.
So it is a story about cheese fairies! If not, tell us how it differs from a story about cheese fairies. The answer should not take pages and pages and pages.
Scientists and engineers use words like "dullard", "moron", "worthless crap" and "BS box" when discussing ideas? Yikes 
That link you gave to the "crank collector" was pretty good by the way. Have you read the crackpot index?
That link you gave to the "crank collector" was pretty good by the way. Have you read the crackpot index?
What is tame about the idea that a big crunch was the origin of the initial expansion of our observable universe? You realize that a “big crunch” can’t appear out of nowhere any more than a cheese fairy can appear out of nothing don’t you? It isn’t tame to support the idea that our big crunch was formed out the intersection and overlap of two “parent” expanding arenas each similar in energy content to our own is it?
That is an interesting idea to me. It seems plausible that there is unknown physics that can make a big crunch burst into expansion. So the steps in logic are that something like a big crunch preceded the big bang and if it was a big crunch then some physics has to exist to make a big crunch burst into expansion.
If one big crunch can burst into expansion then that big crunch has to have formed somehow. The formation of a big crunch from the intersection and overlap of two expanding arenas in space seems to have possibilities. Using the expansion to lead to the overlap and gravity overcoming expansion in the overlap makes the formation of a crunch out of the overlapping galactic material a reasonable option doesn’t it?
That concept should be worth some discussion as to how it compares to other alternatives. Please make a distinction between discussing a hypothesis and saying that the person who wants to discuss it isn’t doing so in a scientific manor. What is unscientific about that hypothesis?
And I think I mentioned several predictions just by mentioning that hypothesis. There is a prediction that our expanding observable universe was preceded by a big crunch. There is the prediction that a there is physics to make a big crunch burst into expansion. There is a prediction that it takes two or more preceding expanding arenas to form a big crunch. There is the prediction expanding arenas can intersect in 3-D space. There is the prediction that when galaxies from each expanding arena converge in the overlap space that gravity will overcome expansion momentum of the galaxies and a big crunch will form. There is the prediction that there would be some localized gamma ray blasts when galaxies converge, and those gamma blasts would be occurring in a localized region of space.
Help me say that in a way that is scientific enough to get over the short comings of the messenger and get to the point where the ideas can be discussed.
Last edited:
No, we are generally more polite to one another because we generally know that each of us is competant in both the quantitative and qualitative sides of the theory we discuss and we both understand the scientific method. Someone saying "My theory talks about the origin of the big bang" will get absolutely nowhere unless they can answer questions like "Can you show such a claim from postulates?" or "How did you go about deriving such a result?". Sometimes something as simple as "Are you sure Step 1 implies Step 2?" can be enough for someone to say "Oh, you're right. I'm incorrect". QW hasn't done anything of the sort, despite being completely unable to link his claimed steps via logic or derivation.Scientists and engineers use words like "dullard", "moron", "worthless crap" and "BS box" when discussing ideas? Yikes
By which you take 'possibilities' to mean it doesn't immediately self contradict itself. It's easy to come up with one or two sentence claims which are not immediately self contradictory, it's chlids play. The problem with that means you can't use that as a way to justify something as 'science'. Gravity is the effect of invisible fairies pushing things towards one another. Is that worth investigating? Obviously not. It's made up on the spot and it's absurd. Just because you happen to use particular buzzwords you don't understand doesn't mean your claims are any less absurd, you just aren't able to realise that due to profound and self inflicted ignorance.
Translation : "Help me veil my random, made up and unjustified claims in sufficiently technical speak that even less people will be able to tell there's nothing to my claims, I want to swindle as many people as possible.". Rebranded **** is still ****.
AN I see you have posted to my thread again but I can't read it because I still have you on ignore.
The fact that you keep posting confirms that you are hijacking to promote your agenda of saving the world from me. If I am wrong have someone send me a PM telling me you have changed your mind and now want to talk about the ideas I mention for discussion.
I no longer care what you have to say or I wouldn't have you on ignore. Continuing to post from your agenda is not only hijacking but it is trolling for an argument. You might ask yourself what type of personality shortcoming a person would have to be so dedicated to returning again and again to thread that you have no interest in.
The fact that you keep posting confirms that you are hijacking to promote your agenda of saving the world from me. If I am wrong have someone send me a PM telling me you have changed your mind and now want to talk about the ideas I mention for discussion.
I no longer care what you have to say or I wouldn't have you on ignore. Continuing to post from your agenda is not only hijacking but it is trolling for an argument. You might ask yourself what type of personality shortcoming a person would have to be so dedicated to returning again and again to thread that you have no interest in.
I mentioned this earlier but there have been so many off topic posts that new people coming to the thread may not know to go back to this point go get a fresh start on the content:
To go see the steps of speculation that this thread is intended to discuss click the link to post # 93 and #94 ...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=93 and #94 and see what the steps of speculation I think apply if you start with a big crunch.
It seems to me if you have any interest in what I am interested in you will find it easy to participate and engage in discussion. Don't be misled by the antagonists who call me names and ridicule my approach to engaging into discussion. The only reason I can see for that high number of people continuing to post derogatory remarks and showing no interest in discussing my topic is that they want to save you from me. Let me know if you think they are justified in that or if you think I am sincere in trying to strike up a discussion on topics that I am interested in.
To go see the steps of speculation that this thread is intended to discuss click the link to post # 93 and #94 ...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=93 and #94 and see what the steps of speculation I think apply if you start with a big crunch.
It seems to me if you have any interest in what I am interested in you will find it easy to participate and engage in discussion. Don't be misled by the antagonists who call me names and ridicule my approach to engaging into discussion. The only reason I can see for that high number of people continuing to post derogatory remarks and showing no interest in discussing my topic is that they want to save you from me. Let me know if you think they are justified in that or if you think I am sincere in trying to strike up a discussion on topics that I am interested in.
Oh God, a new sig and it's not even my birthday!AlphaNumeric said:
Anyway, call me an idealist but I see the internet as a place to share ideas in a polite manner. Example: instead of demanding that QWC is "worthless crap" until it is supported by a mathematical foundation, I asked the following;
Same point, but I try to be polite. If you feel you have pointed out QWC's problems and quantum_wave simply refuses to accept what you're saying then just move on. You realize he's blocked your correspondence and can't see what you post anyway, right?RJBeery said: