You are a crank because you can’t use the quote feature to show where I present QWC as theory.
No, if that were true I'd be dishonest, not a crank. You have claimed, have you not, that QWC attempts to explain things? You've claimed you've got good, sound methodology, have you not?
The crux of the point Prom and I are making is that your claim that you are proceeding in a viable manner is not true.
And I’m not sure you have the ability to even do “theory”. I put theory in quotes to show that it is in reference to your use of the word in the sentence to which I am referring.
Where have
I been attempting to 'do theory'? Like I said, I'm not peddling my pet idea here, you are. I'm not claiming to have some insight or model or concept or understanding far and away beyond what I'm capable of. Nowhere in this thread have I claimed anything about my own work, in regards to its validity, applicability or justification, I've done little more than refer in passing to the fact I do physics research.
Of course if you wish to engage me in a discussion of my research then I'm more than willing to discuss such things in another thread. I have nothing to hide, I'm willing to give a quick walk through of what I do, starting with basic assumptions and showing/discussing how to work through to particular predictions or results. I've got nothing to hide here. And the fact I (and Prom) have published work to my name would seem to suggest that, as Prom says, you're slinging mud and hoping some sticks.
On the contrary. Denying ignorance is the first clue to ignorance. You have shown nothing but ignorance in regard to QWC. Why should anyone think you are not ignorant in other respects? (Rhetorical)
On the question of scientific methodology, general structure of physics models, ideas and theories, historical derivation of concepts and results by physicists and working, first hand, knowledge of how physics research is done I'm not ignorant of what I speak. The very area I do research in is one where there's almost no experimental reason to believe it, yet due to it's mathematical, quantitative structure it holds the interest of physicists. String theory has no experimental motivation/justification, like QWC, but unlike QWC it has a rich and broadly applicable quantitative structure which has been rigorously developed from a few simple to state postulates. That's an example of how an idea with little experimental justification can still be widely accepted as legitimate work. Given QWC has zero experimental motivation for it's claims, if it's going to be even close to being viable as physics research it needs coherent logical structure, as string theory has, but it does not.
You want QWC to be taken seriously but you refuse to listen to the criticisms of people who know what science and research involves. You want the approval of physicists but don't want to listen when they say things you don't like. Seems a silly way to go about things, in my opinion.
By saying that you insinuate that I am; if you call what I am saying a claim of “omniscience” you are a crank. I use the word sparingly but in your case “sparingly” occurs quite often as you pointed out.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. I was referring to common behavioural traits in cranks.
You aren't claiming omniscience but you're pulling ideas randomly out of thin air and then heaping assumptions upon them, such as your whole 'interesting arenas' thing. Assumption built on a guess built on a whim. No method or logic, just guesses. Now there must be some reason you're telling yourself why that particular guess/idea is more valid than any other possible one, would you mind sharing it with us? Why do you think you, someone who deliberately avoids learning physics, are the person to guide QWC's development? You must have some reason why you think you're worth listening to and we should be ignored, why our random postulations about fairies are less worthwhile than you random postulations about 'arena action'. The simple fact of the matter is you want
your ideas to be discussed by other people, but the problem you're finding if that you can't justify why anyone should hold your ideas in higher regard than any other random suggestion and it definitely seems to be ticking you off.
I think you don’t know what creativity is.
Nowhere in this thread have I tried to be creative. I do not need to be creative to point out flaws in your logic or the lack of rigour in your claims or your failure to have anything close to a sound methodology. Can you point me to some posts of mine in this thread where I tried, and clearly failed, to be creative and original in coming up with a viable physics result/concept/topic/prediction? I make no attempt to talk about the specifics of my research here, though I do ask a question now and again related to a particular mathematical problem I might be having. The fact I have published work to my name shows I have creativity in research level physics because you don't get published for copying someone else. I am sufficiently creative to write papers, heck I don't even have any input from my supervisor because she doesn't understand the work I'm doing.
Come on, you must be aware of how weak your attempts at insults are. You can't have a go at Prom or myself for lack of results or lack of understanding or lack of knowledge when it comes to physics, compared to you, we have quantifiable proof that your whining is baseless.
No magic necessary in your case. And I didn’t know you were gender confused. There is a thread for that I bet.
Ah, such a poor way to finish your post, calling my sexuality into question. For someone trying to take the high road that's hardly a good thing to do, is it? Rather than insinuating I'm gay to try and annoy or upset me (besides, those kinds of attacks are often Freudian in nature....) why don't you put me in my place by responding clearly and concisely to some of our criticisms? When someone says to me "Oh yeah, how do you justify that then?" when I make a claim about some particle physics theory
I show them. I put my maths where my mouth is. And despite having been annoying cranks on internet forums for many years now not one,
not one, has ever turned around and done the same to me.
Funny that......
