brain-in-a-vat

OK, that is enough robust discussion . I don't mean to sound ungrateful because though the feed back was brief and limited to my posts being found "too vague", I can appreciate how difficult my writing is to follow. Essentially I am asking the reviewer to forget all you know about standard theory for a moment and consider a view of the universe built from the bottom up. Also, when I make the claim that my speculations are "reasonable and responsible step by step speculations", I know that is a huge accusation on my part. But because I realize these "problems" with being able to reach out to your community, I simply must express my gratitude for providing a forum where I can make my presentation. Now it is time for someone to step forward and engage me with the questions that come into your mind. Does anyone want to ask how I can seriously expect to be taken seriously? Does anyone want to ask why I think the my speculations qualify as protoscience instead of non-science when no one in the scientific community has peer reviewed work that covers what I cover? Certainly there are those among you who maintain that if there was anything to what I propose, some much more qualified individuals would have come out with it long ago. So why does no one point out my audacity and cut me down with the criticisms that I see offered to almost every thread in this forum? Is it because no one can get themselves to actually read all the way through my stuff because it is so revolting? Or because it gets so vague too quickly to catch your interest? Or am I posting about a field of investigation that is outside of the interest of the group?

Hi Granpa, I think you are the one who pointed me to Science Forums, the Original (from a post at SciForums). Little did we know that my first thread would be such a bust . But anyway, seeing your post, I thought I too would offer my response to the question about Intelligent Design. Before I answer, here are some questions that come to mind when I consider the concept of God: If God wanted our worship wouldn't we see God personally, as in a voice from a burning bush or vivid visions, etc? Things that we individually would find to be irrefutable evidence of God. I don't see those things personally nor do most for the most part and so having human worship either isn't the main thing to God, or God is more of a personal concept than an active "take charge" director of lives. If God wanted us to make a personal choice to have faith without any coercion wouldn't it be unseemly for there to be any kind of irrefutable proof at all? After all, who wouldn't believe if they got the message from a burning bush that appeared in their living room? The only way people can choose freely is if there is no irrefutable evidence of God. If there is no irrefutable evidence of God, there is no irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design is there? So the possibility of an Intelligent Designer is moot if there is no evidence other than the perceived beauty and mystery of nature. Pantheism views Nature as God but applies no human-like characteristics, i.e. the Pantheist God can be viewed as the natural universe as a whole without any need for design or even any explanation of creation. It is OK with Pantheist's if the universe came from nothing or if it has always existed, God is the universe and all that might turn out to mean. Atheism is a little more standoffish and says there is no evidence of God and atheists prefer to reject any concept that acknowledges a God. So now my point. Intelligent Design requires an act of intentional design effort which would have preceeded an act of creation. Intelligent design therefore requires an intelligent God to pre-exist the creation of the universe and somehow then be separate. The existence of the universe to an advocate of ID is the proof that God exists. Two problems with ID are, "where did God come from if not eternal, and if eternal, then what to heck was going on for the eternity before creation"? I am not personally able to envision "no space or time", i.e. "nothingness", but that is a personal flaw . A universe that has always existed at least leaves the possibility of a Pantheist God without such dilemas that a "creator" presents. And if there was an "intention" as implied by ID that the universe host intelligent life forms (perhaps as the purpose of it all), then that "intention" would have had to always have existed too in order to avoid the need for a creation and the dilema of "before creation ... what was there, or where did God come from?" In conclusion, I don't see any scientific case for Intelligent Design.

This is a warning, there is another big post coming . Whew, I spent the day writing and editing and as soon as I can get someone to proof read it I will post it. I'm hoping to create some suspense while you wait, given that since Skeptic backed out of the discussion, well ... there isn't anyone left . This post will contain another level of detail in a few areas, but of course with detail comes length and so be prepared for about three thousand more words. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNucleosynthesis Begins The initial cautions posted by members of the community were, “if you are asking for input, if you are saying, ‘here is my idea, what do you think’, if you don’t come across as if you insist you are right and expect a Nobel Prize, then the community might evaluate your ideas and give you feedback, especially if they find the ideas violate known science. “On the other hand, if you speculate about things that cannot be tested, then it will be treated as pseudoscience and for the most part ignored.” And then there are my ideas that have a hint of being responsible and reasonable but where the “test” suggested is really a prediction that some solid evidence is coming, but maybe not in our lifetimes (or in any human’s lifetime for that matter). I realize that is exactly like what we are asked to believe by various religions, or even by cult groups who have dire predictions of doom. My effort in an earlier post was to distinguish my ideas from pseudoscience because the test/prediction cannot be performed or repeated in the short term. So let me offer more detail for you to evaluate which might lead to some feedback about possible tests doable with today’s technology that I am not experienced enough to know about. If you read this you will have to read about two thousand words just to get exposed to the new detail. It is not easy reading and I don’t claim to have the ability to express myself in an interesting way. This post has to do with nucleosynthesis and the energy-to matter-to energy (E-M-E) process. The thing that makes the E-M-E process available for us to evaluate in the present and at the quantum level of order (and for possible testing ideas) is that the M in E-M-E is matter and matter is said to form within every arena during its expansion phase from dense dark energy. So if matter does form from dark energy then all particles we call “fundamental” will form out of the energy or as a result of interactions of those particles that do, i.e. there are no particles, not even quarks, in the burst of dense dark energy. In addition to the dense dark energy producing the fundamental particles, there is a factor from outside of the initial dense dark energy ball that is considered to have a major role in the matter formation process. Remember that the big crunch formed as a result of the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas. The energy environment outside the crunch is composed of the arena remnants that did not get caught up in the collapsing overlap of the expanding arenas. That “outside” energy begins to be incorporated into the expanding dense dark energy right from the instant of the burst. It can be said that the dense dark energy is equalizing its energy density with the energy density of the surrounding energy environment as expansion progresses. If we say that the burst contained an arena worth of energy (i.e. the total energy in the burst is the same for every burst; it could be called an arena-quantum), then the total energy in the expanding arena is increasing as this equalization occurs. The expanding arena contains the original arena-quantum of energy and it gains energy from the outside environment through the process of energy density equalization. So with this description of the dual source of the energy content of the expanding arena, we have the constituent energy from which matter forms and the expanding environment within which it forms. Let’s analyze the two constituents. The expanding energy ball referred to as dense dark energy has the word “dense” because it has been compressed to the maximum possible energy density inside the crunch and retains that label until its density declines to the matter formation threshold. The name contains the word “dark” not to say that there are no particles that are emitting electromagnetic radiation (there are no particles at all), but to say there is an unseen expansionary force there. That force is the result of what is called potential expansion energy that was built up as the energy was compressed beyond the upper matter functioning range, i.e. the “energy” part of the force that I called arena action earlier in the thread. The other constituent of the energy content of the arena is the energy environment that surrounded the crunch at the time of the burst, and that is being incorporated into the dense dark energy as expansion occurs. That energy is called background energy and is made up of three main constituents, electromagnetic radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. Electromagnetic radiation is coursing through space from all directions as the result of a history of arenas that have played out across the landscape of the greater universe. It is called cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The other two constituents of the background energy are quantized and unquantized dark energy. Both are energy remnants from the same history of arena action that gives us the CMB. Some of the dark energy becomes quantized during the matter formation process but does not get incorporated into the fundamental particles that form next; it is dark matter. The other part of the dark energy is simply the expanding remnant of the dark energy which continues to occupy space and files all voids after the matter formation period is completed; a period that is very brief in cosmic terms. So that is the “soup” from which matter forms during the expansion phase of arena action. I bet you are saying that you can’t understand this, but I know that understanding can be gained. You can envision things that are against your current understanding. I’m sure it is entirely possible for you to do that. But I also think that we can envision future discoveries and the process of discovery requires us to do so. I don’t know if you would agree that you need to understand what I am saying before you can debunk it, and it isn’t likely that you are thinking that I am envisioning future discovery. But never the less, there are certainly some laughs here if you have the right attitude. I would like to know what the laughable parts are, and I hope you think that is the right attitude on my part. So let’s move to the part about what the temperature is of this pre-matter formation soup. Any process of nucleosynthesis must comply with the entire recipe, and temperature is just as important to the recipe as the constituents that go into the soup. My prediction is that we have a “cold start” to the matter formation process. I know that goes against your current understanding and for that I apologize because I said I accept most peer-reviewed theory as the best we can do given the evidence and the tools. Briefly, my reasons for going with a “cold start” in Quantum Wave Cosmology are twofold. First, if matter ceases to function at some maximum level of energy density (required in the mechanics of the burst) then photons are not being emitted to heat things up. Second, the high energy photons, electrons, protons, X-Rays, cosmic rays and other particles already in existence and characteristic of the tremendous heat and radiation associated with the formation of a big crunch will be converted to dense dark energy. This conversion occurs just like the conversion of gravity and mass of the crunch that occurs at the moment of the negation of functioning matter. How can heat be converted to dense dark energy? The process of heat generation is stopped in the core as gravity and mass are converted to dense state energy leaving no functioning particles to produce or absorb electromagnetic radiation. As the core grows it does not generate heat and it gradually diminishes the mass of the crunch (dense energy has no mass in QWC because mass is a process and all processes are halted). As the mass of the crunch is diminished, the gravitational emanation of the crunch is proportionally diminished. The core consists of perfectly equalized energy density and the equalization is maintained throughout the core as it grows. The existing heat outside the core is at the maximum possible temperature which is associated with the maximum possible energy density that triggers the formation of the dense energy core. That heat energy is expended to drive the energy density over the threshold required for dense state energy to form. The heat is effectively converted to dense state energy in the process. Two main differences between Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and big burst nucleosynthesis are the point at which heat begins to dissipate and the constituents of the soup from which matter forms. So after the burst and after energy density equalization has lowered the energy density to the matter formation threshold we get rapid and abundant matter formation across the expanding arena. The phrase “rapid and abundant” means that matter forms almost simultaneously throughout the space encompassed by the arena. I maintain that dark matter is the first matter to form. Dark matter is the first product of the quantization of energy. Quantization occurs as follows. When the density of the dense dark energy declines to the matter formation threshold it reaches the point in the range of energy densities where there is sufficient background intrusion from outside the arena to allow quantum action to occur. Remember quantum action was forced to stop due to the compression of energy in the big crunch. A huge amount of mass, gravitational energy and heat energy was consumed to produce the dense state energy, and so it is expected that there will be a huge amount of dense dark energy consumed to produce dark matter and its associated gravity, i.e. it is an e=mc^2 type of relationship. Dark matter is marked by the presence of energy quanta. Energy quanta exist when quantum action is taking place. So what is quantum action and what causes it to take place? Quantum action is the consequence when energy density falls from the dense state to within the range that accommodates the formation of matter. As the density of energy declines out of its dense state where it was perfectly equalized it is forced to give up its equalized state and it gives it up grudgingly. Microscopic low density holes form and the dense energy rushes in to fill them and to maintain the equalization state. But it is a futile effort and more and more holes of low energy density keep forming as arena expansion continues and the dense energy keeps filling them. What was once mostly dense dark energy quickly becomes mostly “holes” of low energy density and what is left of the dense dark energy is only able to find and maintain its dense state at the center of the holes. By way of analogy, if you shot photons into expanding dense state energy then microscopic low density “holes” form in the dense state energy because the energy of a photon is lower than the density of dense state energy. But that is only half of the picture because once the “holes” predominate, the low energy density of the holes surrounding the remaining bits of dense energy want to equalize with the bits of dense energy. As a result the bit of dense energy is forced to expand to fill the low energy density hole. This produces a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy and primes the process of repeating quantum action that occurs within mass. Quantum action goes on at all times when the energy density of the arena is within the matter functioning range. The bit of dense dark energy in each “hole” has now become a quantum of energy and the force of quantum action that began as a struggle between the dense state energy and the intruding low energy density is now self-perpetuating process of overlapping energy quanta followed by the collapse of quanta of energy into high density spots. The spots in turn bust into expansion to perpetuate the process. The formation of matter across the expanding environment quickly transforms the arena into a sea of dark matter and dark energy. It can be described as intersecting energy quanta closely packed across the expanding arena. All the while the entire arena sea is continually being intruded upon by the three constituents of the surrounding energy environment. Gravity is extremely strong relative to expansion momentum at this stage in the E-M-E process. What unfolds in the arena from here is a result of the imbalance between gravity and expansion momentum. Expansion momentum will eventually win out but until then, fundamental particles of matter, electromagnetic radiation, atoms of hydrogen, neutrons, helium, and eventually stars, stellar nucleosynthesis, metallization, and galaxies will form. We have dark matter in the form of energy quanta separating and moving away from each other due to the expansion momentum imparted to them as they formed, and also attracting each other with their new gravitational emanation. The expanding arena is now ready to start quanta clumping due to gravity, and the clumping is the source of many of the fundamental particles. To be continued after the robust discussion to follow

Gravity and acceleration are facts of life. Even though there is a continuum of "nows" that can be referred to as time passing, when objects including clocks are separted by being in different gravitational fields for any reason, time as it is measured in that frame will differ from time as it is measured in any other frame. Still, all frames can be reconcilled to the "now". I don't see the problem .

Yes, now you have it. But I am a little concerned with your statement, "The word time is troublesome". Now is now everywhere and if you perform perfect reconcilliation of the distance separating objects and their relative motion you get the same moment in both places. That moment passes as the "nows" "roll forward", as you say, and time is merely a measurement of "nows" passing. The measurement being different at two locations separated in time and space makes no difference, now is still the same now in both places at all times, I speculate. The energy density explanation of time dilation is a new idea I think (except that I posted it in another forum a while back), but if it is not new I hope someone will point out that I am wrong to think that.

Asprung, I see this thread is now in the Speculaiton Forum. Here are some speculations that apply to this topic that you might find interesting. Ideas of time travel being related to the different rate of aging via time dilation are misunderstood by many. The error is in thinking that time passes at a different rate in different gravitational fields (or in reference frames that are accelerating at different rates). What happens is when you accelerate an object or person, you slow the function of the matter that the object or person is composed of. How does acceleration slow the functioning of particles? Energy density. Particles are composed of energy. An accelerated object has greater energy density. It can be said that relatively speaking, an object at rest is better lubricated by the lower energy density relative to the same object in a stronger gravitation field, i.e. being accelerated. To put it differently, the particles of an object in a strong gravitational field are being accelerated at higher speed and so their particles will physically move slower within their mass. The net result is that if you start with two people in the same reference frame, accelerate one person on a long circular journey at near the speed of light, and bring them back together, the accelerated person will have aged more slowly. This gives the illusion that a different amount of time has passed for each individual. Actually, the same amount of time has past, but the rate of aging was slower for the accelerated individual because of the higher energy density experienced by the accelerated individual.

Thank you for your comments so far. I’ll look at your parting comments and I appreciate you sharing them. Well, I did say it was simple math, actually basically just a formula that calculates the percentage of an energy quantum, whether at the quantum level of at the arena level, that is involved in the overlap at any particular point in the progress of the intersection of two expanding quanta. The value of the formula is based on the idea that when an overlap proceeds to a particular point, a full quantum is accumulated in the overlap. A basic idea in QWC is that this event triggers an energy collapse into a high density spot if it occurs at the quantum level or into a big crunch if it occurs at the arena level. Because the action at the two levels is so similar, the same equation works at both levels. When expanding spherical quantum waves within mass intersect and overlap the overlap proceeds until a new quantum forms and collapses into a high density spot. When expanding spherical arenas in the greater universe intersect and overlap the overlap proceeds until a enough energy to cause a big crunch is accumulated. BTW, your comment about how vague my ideas are just possibly might be way I am here. I know I am “out there” with these speculations and am looking for input that either sets me straight, adds clarity, or even shows some interest if there ever is any. Not that my stuff will suddenly take on some clarity, but I did say it would take some time to get it all posted. I was almost getting excited when you took some interest so early in the game . I hope others will pick up where you leave off to keep my feet to the fire. I have that if you can stand the word salad. To me the salad is a good first course. I’ll get to that early in my posting but I can’t cover it all in one post. No one would be able to get their arms around QWC if all of the courses are served in one big buffet. And to try to lay it all out at once would not be fair to me either because I want some input on the various ideas individually as I go. Later when it is pretty much all posted and IF anyone stays with it, then overall comments about QWC will be appreciated. Well I don’t know how to respond. One, you said you aren’t good at imagining and speculation is akin to imagining. Two, I haven’t even gotten much more that a toe in the water . Thank you. I hate to have spelling errors and usually use spell check but somehow it seems a misspell slips through. What causes it? The idea is that quantization is natural and occurs when a quantum of energy occupies a quantum-space. This natural event is supposedly happening at the scale of the quantum level and at the scale of the arena level. I know that is pretty vague. How strong is it? I don’t know of any way to quantify it yet. What does it do? It does QWC . Not to be cute but the natural quantization at the quantum level and at the arena level does it all, along with a thousand little details that accompany the big idea of "two levels of quantization". Earlier I mentioned the gamma ray blasts, “There are recorded gamma ray blasts that occur rarely, and the exact cause may not be proved, but I am using an idea that when stars collide and especially when galactic black holes collide there would be a gamma ray blast. I acknowledge that even when two galaxies collide there is really very little interaction, star collisions would be infrequent, and black hole collisions ... well they could happen. But when two arenas intersect and overlap, there would be millions of merging galaxies and so the frequency of gamma blasts would certainly be at a detectable level (over hundreds or even thousands of years I think).” I have animations of galaxies colliding and it isn’t a crash scene. They can almost pass right through each other. I would expect a few stars would collided and produce the gamma ray blasts but only when millions of galaxies pass through each other would we be likely to get a couple of galactic black holes colliding. That should be detectable many years later when the blast reaches us. Yes, the “bounce” is part of LQG I believe. QWC is my concoction but I’m not the only one thinking about these things. LQG is a team effort sponsored by University and science grants. They have funding and computer equipment and in fact it was computer simulations of reverse entropy in the form of a collapse that lead the team to the “bounce”. The computer just kept on cranking out the simulation and the “bounce” was born. I wrote about it in another forum when it was published. Not at all. I said I accept most peer reviewed theory as the best we can do with the evidence and tools we have. I’m not going to post speculation that goes 180 degrees against the mainstream. I understand that current theory includes an “explosion of space” as you put it but there are alternatives that produce the same type of expansion, that themselves are not explosions. My alternative is that the burst of a big crunch releases a ball of dense dark energy that was compressed in a big crunch. Dense energy is a state of energy inside a big crunch, and dark energy is the force of expansion (energy density equalization of the dense dark energy with the low energy denstiy of the greater universe). Dense dark energy is my term for the energy that expands out of the crunch before matter forms. You know that we can’t really see space or an explosion of space; we see the galaxies as they move in space. The "inflation" you are talking about that occurs as expansion proceeds is the "evidence" that Hubble observed showing the red shift increases with the distance from us (in all directions). That observed red shift would be observed from all points in the expanding arena because all galaxies, except for within some local groups, are moving away from each other. My explanation is that matter formed after the dark energy had expanded the ball of dense dark energy until the density was low enough for matter to form. The matter formation is one of the thresholds of energy density that I mentioned earlier. When matter begins to form, it forms within an expanding energy environment and expansion momentum is imparted to the matter as it forms from the dark energy. All matter that forms has expansion momentum, but the particles of dark matter are so close together at the time they form that gravity is stronger than expansion momentum and so clumping of particles occur. Atoms form, hydrogen especially, and as hydrogen clumps, hydrogen stars form, etc. Nowhere is this in any way an explosion of matter. It is a burst of energy too dense for matter to exist. As the density declines matter forms while expansion of the energy is still occurring. The resulting galaxies (time passes) occupy a co-moving coordinate system which is exactly what we observe. The galaxies are “riding” the expansion momentum from the big burst. Eventually, if I have my way, arenas will intersect . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thank you for that. I promise you I will not discuss evolution or space aliens, at least it is not currently a part of QWC .

True, to present QWC from top to bottom will take some time. Hopefully as it unfolds there will be many suggestions and improvements. But even though it all plays together if you ask me, there are stand alone features that then fill slots in the big picture. The combined mechanics of mass and gravity and aether at the quantum realm can stand alone. At the level of the greater universe, the concept of the energy-to matter-to energy arena process that includes an entropy phase and a reverse entropy phase can stand alone, but since mass, gravity, and the aether play roles at that level, they fill their appropriate slots there too. That is good to know. I met someone on another forum who was working in the same thing, Vern is his name, on SciForums (I am Quantum_wave over there). He has a website you should be able to find. Let me know if you take a look. But also, I hope you want to do due diligence on what I have to say about quantum action just so you can assure yourself that there is nothing worthwhile there and at the same time help me iron out the bugs or abandon the idea. I will. BTW, I assume LaTeX works here. Funny that the simple math I have to describe quantum action was the hardest part because I have a simple equation but there are a few variables and to track a single quantum action takes a series of calculations. I have a spread sheet now that helps but there is some fudging necessary to hit exact phases. The living action of establishing the presence of mass and the emanation of gravity is scoped out but requires so many individual calcs that I am putting it off. The living action is the latest part of the picture that I have put together. "Living action" is simply the math that describes a three quantum mass, the way the mass is maintained, the way gravity emanates from mass, the way gravity is transmitted between mass, and the way that mass moves as a result. Quantum action may be the place to start. If so, my ideas about the aether have to be introduced and discussed to see how much merit they might have. I need the aether because I can't establish the presence of mass and the gravity that emanates from mass without it. Yes, if you Googled it you found probably more that a year of my posts where I call it QWC. Bad Astronomy where I was Bogie, and SciForums where I was and am Quantum_wave. Before that, earlier in my evolution, I posted on other forums too. Back then I called it the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) which I still like. In the ISU, the energy particle was called the Elemental Energy Particle (EEP) but it wasn't as robust as the energy quantum and the force of quantum action. Each forum I have worked on has helped me build the ideas that I now call QWC. Yes. One way to put it is that space could be empty but isn't because all space has some level of energy density, there are no voids. Energy density plays a major role in QWC. OK, let me write a post with a brief abstract of QWC that mentions the key concepts and draws the major relationships. From the abstract I can elaborate on any given concept to get feed back. That might end up being the best way to decide where to start with the detail I have and to let the weak points get vetted out by you and other as I go. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust a technical question. I found a couple of spelling errors in my previous posts and noticed when I went to correct them that the edit button was gone. How long to I have to edit? Is it only a few hours? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMr Skeptic, I have pulled the pieces from our several exchanges that relate to the arena landscape of the greater universe. This portion of our discussion is about the process of energy-to matter-to energy that is characteristic of “arena action”. Arena action is a force at the arena level that is strikingly similar to the force of quantum action in the quantum realm, so that is why I isolated that part of the discussion. If you can envision the expansion of multiple arenas in the landscape of the greater universe, you have a good mental picture of the action in the quantum realm also. If you note the expanding arenas intersect and overlap at the arena level, you have a physical picture of quantum waves intersecting and overlapping at the quantum level. A quantum wave is the quantum realm’s equivalent to the expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe. If you can envision the expansion momentum of expanding arenas being interrupted when two arenas intersect, then you can envision what happens when quantum waves at the quantum level intersect and overlap. If you can envision the overlap of arenas involving two sets of galaxies where each arena is contributing its galaxies to the convergence, each set will have relative momentum. When the arenas meet and the momentum of their respective sets of galaxies are combined, gravity comes into play between the two sets of galaxies and there begins a dance of swirling rendezvous of galactic material (maybe to colorful a language). The overlap region then is a new energy environment containing some of the galaxies from each set and having a new center of gravity. That center of gravity is the birth of a new big crunch because now gravity rules the new environment instead of expansion momentum. In the excerpts you will come to below you will see a brief discussion of what happens to a big crunch to cause it to fail and burst into an expanding ball of dense dark energy. There is a corresponding set of mechanics at the quantum level except the equivalent to the big crunch is called a high density spot at the quantum level, and the burst of a big crunch is called a “bounce off of a maximum limit of energy density” in the quantum realm. Just as quantum action and arena action are forces that operate at their respective levels of order (quantum realm and arena landscape), there are quantified energy increments at each of the two levels of order also. At the quantum level of order I have been calling the quantized increment of energy the “quantum”, and at the arena level of order the quantized increment is the energy of an arena (the energy in an arena is equivalent to the total energy of our expanding universe as you call it. I call it for now the critical capacity of a big crunch. Arena action is what we have been discussing in the excerpts from our posts (below). Quantum action has strikingly similar mechanics. I mention this because if you will follow my lead here for just a moment, the mechanics of the action at the arena level will give you something to relate to when I describe the mechanics of the quantum level, i.e. quantum action. Here are the excerpts: Biav: What test do I propose that will allow the community to seriously consider QWC? None, unfortunately. Aside from discovering the unifying force, the test will be the fulfillment of the prediction that our expanding arena (our known universe) is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas. Eventually our arena will intersect and overlap some neighboring arena and when that occurs there will be cosmic collisions and gamma ray blasts to record the convergence. Skeptic: So, we know our universe is expanding. You are suggesting that there are other universes and that they are expanding (fairly reasonable), and that two such universes could expand into each other? But what is the mechanism (reason) by which our universe could intersect with another? Biav: Yes, but I call them arenas because I reserve the term "universe" to mean the sum of all arenas. The greater universe is a somewhat redundant term but I use it often to distinguish between our expanding universe (arena), and the arena landscape of the greater universe. Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is twofold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs). Second, expanding arenas have similar histories that set them into expansion and the initiating force will cause them to continue to expand until they intersect. They begin with the convergence of galactic matter from two (or more) arenas that have previously intersected. In the overlap region, the expansion momentum of the galaxies is overcome by the gravitational attraction between the converging galaxies. A new center of gravity is established and a big crunch forms out of the galactic remnants in the overlapping region of the two previously expanding arenas. The crunch encompasses some physics related to energy density thresholds. Matter has a range of energy density within which it can function. In a big crunch that threshold of energy density is exceeded and matter ceases to function inside a big crunch. Gravity ceases when matter fails to function and the crunch fails from within. At the final capitulation of the crunch, the remaining gravity of the crunch is defeated by the potential expansion energy of the dense dark energy compressed at the core of the crunch and the dark energy is released into spherical expansion (an expanding ball of dense dark energy). The two expanding arenas that both start from the burst of their own crunches will expand indefinitely until they intersect, overlap, and provide the gravity and galactic remnants to form a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap. Skeptic: So the arenas are embedded in some kind of space in the greater universe, and are expanding into that space? Biav: Yes. One way to put it is that space could be empty but isn't because all space has some level of energy density, there are no voids. Energy density plays a major role in QWC. End of excerpts. If you can envision my view of arena action and how it perpetuates itself as arenas overlap, new crunch/bursts occur, and new arenas emerge, then picture that same action at the quantum level and you have a view of quantum action. Where at the arena level the big crunch establishes the presence of a single arena, at the quantum level, a high density spot establishes the presence of a single quantum of mass. The presence of mass is perpetuated at the quantum level in the same way the presence of arenas is perpetuated in the landscape of the greater universe. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI was too late in editing to correct this in my last post. In the following paragraph from my post to Mr. Skeptic, the word "quantified" should read "quantized". "Just as quantum action and arena action are forces that operate at their respective levels of order (quantum realm and arena landscape), there are quantified energy increments at each of the two levels of order also." ... should say, "there are quantized energy increments at each level of order", meaning that there are quantized energy increments at the quantum level that contribute to establishing the presence of mass, and there are quantized energy increments at the arena level that are equivalent to the total amount of energy that can be accumulated into a big crunch before the maximum energy density threshold is reached.

Maybe I should have said that they do stand together and work together as opposed to being one idea about mass, a different idea about gravity, one about the quantum level and a different one about the level of the greater universe. I hope to present for evaluation ideas about the aether, energy quanta, the force of quantum action, and the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments that work together and work with the ideas about energy density thresholds, energy density equalization, energy density differentials, and the energy-to matter-to energy process that characterizes arenas (our expanding universe is one arena) and big crunch/big bursts that defeat entropy. Yes, for example I hope you will consider and evaluate the ideas about how the particles considered fundamental particles today (because they are thought to have no internal composition) might be composed of energy quanta and might be very busy places internally as quantum action generates quantum waves. That would be a considerable change to the standard particle model and yet every particle in the model would still be there but would have a whole new horizon of possible metrics (term usage?). One improvement would be that the long sought after gravity wave could be identified and added to fill the spot left vacant by the missing graviton. I have reached the point of "does it work" and have some childish math to discuss a tiny three quanta mass moving relative to a similar mass, and how gravity travels between them across the aether. The same idea of energy quantization and the force of quantum action is involved in how the presence of mass is established and how gravity works. I know , what are the chances of navigating that minefield? Yes, but I call them arenas because I reserve the term "universe" to mean the sum of all arenas. The greater universe is a somewhat redundant term but I use it often to distinguish between our expanding universe (arena), and the arena landscape of the greater universe. Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is two fold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs). Second, expanding arenas have similar histories that set them into expansion and the initiating force will cause them to continue to expand until they intersect. They begin with the convergence of galactic matter from two (or more) arenas that have previously intersected. In the overlap region, the expansion momentum of the galaxies is overcome by the gravitational attraction between the converging galaxies. A new center of gravity is established and a big crunch forms out of the galactic remnants in the overlapping region of the two previously expanding arenas. The crunch encompasses some physics related to energy density thresholds. Matter has a range of energy density within which it can function. In a big crunch that threshold of energy density is exceeded and matter ceases to function inside a big crunch. Gravity ceases when matter fails to function and the crunch fails from within. At the final capitulation of the crunch, the remaining gravity of the crunch is defeated by the potential expansion energy of the dense dark energy compressed at the core of the crunch and the dark energy is released into spherical expansion (and expanding ball of dense dark energy). The two expanding arenas that both start from the burst of their own crunches will expand indefinitely until they intersect, overlap, and provide the gravity and galactic remnants to form a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap. There are recorded gamma ray blasts that occur rarely, and the exact cause may not be proved, but I am using an idea that when stars collide and especially when galactic black holes collide there would be a gamma ray blast. I acknowledge that even when two galaxies collide there is really very little interaction, star collisions would be infrequent, and black hole collisions ... well they could happen. But when two arenas intersect and overlap, there would be millions of merging galaxies and so the frequency of gamma blasts would certainly be at a detectable level (over hundreds or even thousands of years I think). Agreed, and I think the ideas would be useful if they have any merit, and that is what this thread hopes to get your help to determine.

I agree. I don't say I am right and the mainstream is wrong. What I say is that the mainstream theories leave some questions unanswered and some mainstream theories are contradictory. I'm a little concerned that you will put some of my ideas into category two because my speculations start at the departure point of what science knows (or at least standard theory) and what science does not yet know. I claim that the ideas are reasonable and responsible speculation and will try to defend them to the extent that I can do so without becoming unreasonable and annoying. If a moderator says stop at some point, I would stop and go back to work in the ideas on my own. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My idea is that this force has not yet been detected because it is expressed at energies much smaller than even the rest energy of any particle in the standard model. Fundamental particles with mass would be composed of energy in quantum increments. The energy quanta that make up any particle with mass would establish the presence of mass because the force, quantum action, is operative within the mass. The energy and force work as a repetitive process within mass.

I am a humble thinker and have explored the "pop" articles about current theories but have not tried to confirm of disprove them. I don't understand much math beyond what a college graduate from the school of business would have learned through normal courses forty years ago. I do grasp the meaning and use of limit theory and some concepts in calculus but I don't try to write equations to tie in my ideas with the math of existing theories. Generally I accept peer reviewed theories as being the best that we have been able to do so far given our tools. My ideas are a set of connected ideas that must all stand up together. This will be my first attempt to find out what a science forum community thinks of them in their latest form. But that is pretty much just optimism on my part because to get the set of ideas presented is likely to be a lengthly process and I may run "amuck" long before I get it all out . Let me work on an answer to the question brought up by iWill about "so what"; what do I think makes my ideas useful or meaningful to a science community. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhat I am interested in presenting for criticism is called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). It includes the “ideas” of a cosmology of the universe. The gist of it was developed over a few years on-line, in various forums and in unpublished essays to address issues that are still not solved by science. It is not science as such but neither is it non-science. I would like to start by making a case for QWC as protoscience. To test out ideas that address issues like the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, the aether, the “beginning” or lack thereof, the cause of expansion, and others I go outside of the peer reviewed scientific theories and models. I don’t argue against the current standard cosmology (Big Bang Theory, the General Theory of Relativity, the Cosmological Principle), and the standard particle model of particle physics, or Quantum Mechanics accept to the extent that questions remain unanswered within those theories and with compatibility between them. I propose the existence of undiscovered physics for consideration. Clearly QWC is not yet science by the guidelines presented by the Task Force on Teacher Institutes of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) located in Berkeley, California. This initiative was funded by a grant that Stan Weinberg, the Founding Father of NCSE, had received from the Carnegie and Lounsbury Foundation. It is one of the current protocols to classify ideas relative to the scientific method. Based on the Institute’s website which presents the CONPTT approach, I believe that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, i.e. as Protoscience, as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience. Application of the CONPTT approach covers five pages of material which I will include below. First, the question that needs to be addressed before I get into the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology is “so what”. As iWill posed it, what is it about my ideas that make them of interest or in any way meaningful to the scientific community? I was asked to remember that the community is composed of members who have devoted much of their lives and much rigor to advancing science. Why would I think that someone like me with nearly none of the credentials of a professional has any really interesting and meaningful ideas that members of the community have not already addressed and have either brought in under the scientific method or have already rejected as speculation that cannot be tested. My answer is that I don’t think that. What I think is that there are questions that science does not yet adequately answered like the cause of gravity, the cause of mass itself, the source of energy of the fundamental particles, the explanation of how our known universe began, what initiated the expansion, as well as the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. QWC proposes that these issues will be solved and unified when the tools of science are developed that can look deep into matter and energy and into the past and discover a single new force that makes everything work together. QWC predicts that there is an undiscovered force called “quantum action” at the quantum level that will unify the forces and that connects the quantum realm with the landscape of the greater universe. The protoscience of QWC is about what I hope science will look like when unification is acheived. What test do I propose that will allow the community to seriously consider QWC? None, unfortunately. Aside from discovering the unifying force, the test will be the fulfillment of the prediction that our expanding arena (our known universe) is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas. Eventually our arena will intersect and overlap some neighboring arena and when that occurs there will be cosmic collisions and gamma ray blasts to record the convergence. QWC predicts that when an arena convergence begins there will be an increase in the frequency of gamma blasts in a localized quadrant of the arena’s coordinate system over a period of perhaps centuries. I know that is not much of a prediction for the short term but the consistency of the ideas in QWC builds a plausible picture. I hope the community will be able to look at that physical picture and point out where my limited exposure has caused me to go wrong. Here is the application of the CONPTT approach that is how I think QWC qualifies as protoscience as opposed to non-science: WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"? False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525). Can Quantum Wave Cosmology be shown to be protoscience? WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"? Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology. For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience". NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy. Can we use the CONPTT approach to determine if QWC is Pseudoscience or Protoscience? HOW CAN WE TELL SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE? Concept: Following the discussion of "CONPTT", the student will be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific statements. Introduction: To summarize our previous discussions and today's ideas, let's list some criteria that might help us recognize the difference between what is science and what is not science, criteria that will enable us to recognize a scientific statement and a non-scientific statement. The following criteria were developed by science educators in Iowa and found acceptable by several Midwestern high school biology teachers (this was an Indiana initiative at the time). SCIENCE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA or THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE Six Criteria of Science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The sequence is not important, but the acronym "CONPTT" makes a good long term memory hook. 1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits. REALITY CHECK #1: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. Green plants will grow towards a light source. 2. Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck. Using the idea of "Consistency", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one? 2. Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation. REALITY CHECK #2: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. Some plants eat meat. 2. Extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth. Using the idea of "Observability", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one? 3. Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test. REALITY CHECK #3: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. Green plants convert sunlight into energy. 2. With a rod, Moses parted the sea so his people could cross to the other side.. Using the idea of "Natural", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one? 4. Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false. REALITY CHECK #4: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. Without sunlight (or comparable artificial light), green plants will die. 2. If you are a "Scorpio", your horoscope for today is "You'll be saying 'I feel rich !' Lunar position highlights back pay, refunds, correction of accounting error." Using the idea of "Predictability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one? 5. Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests. REALITY CHECK #5: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. The Bermuda Triangle causes ships and planes to sink and disappear. 2. Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life. Using the idea of "Testability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one? 6. Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events. REALITY CHECK #6: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement? 1. The number of human chromosomes was once "known" to be 48, but is now considered to be 46. 2. Living things were once grouped into 2 major groups, then 3, then 4, and now 5, because the criteria used for classifying living things have changed. 3. We know that the world began about 6000 years ago, and nothing will change that. 4. At one time, it was thought the heart pumped blood out of a large container as an "open system", but now it is known that blood "circulates" in a closed system. Using the idea of "Tentativeness", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one? To evaluate QWC and compare it to Emerging Science I followed the CONPTT approach. First the C in CONPTT, Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits. QWC is based on a wide variety of observations that are consistently repeatable, naturally occurring and well documented. Expansion of our observable universe as observed repeatedly by observation of the separation of galaxies moving away form us in all directions. The equivalence of mass and energy, e = mc^2, which is observed and confirmed as to its consistency. The permanence of energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed which is a basic in our understanding of nature. Increasing entropy of useful energy in a closed system which is also a basic consistent aspect of nature; open systems can defeat entropy by renewing the supply of useful energy. The arena process that renews useful energy by converting mass and gravity back into useful energy is predicted to be ongoing in QWC because arenas, if they exist, would part of an open system. The consistency test disqualifies observations that continually have differing or unpredictable results. Predicted mechanisms to explain observations and that are predicted to be consistent when tested are not disqualified. They can change the classification of the predicted mechanisms from science to protoscience until the predicted mechanisms can be tested and confirmed to be consistently repeatable. QWC is not classified as proved science but is not disqualified as protoscience even though it makes predictions of consistency that cannot be tested. For example, QWC includes aspects that are predicted to be consistent but that are not observed and not directly testable based on existing technology. The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observations beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena. All of these unobservable aspects of QWC are however consistent with existing observations in nature and consistent with each other. There are no two such aspects of QWC that are not dependent on each other or that are not compatible with each other. All of the aspects mentioned must be true and must work together in order for QWC to be the real cosmology so QWC passes the consistency test as consistently compatible predictions of natural mechanisms. Next, the O in CONPTT, Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation. All cosmologies include unobservable aspects if they attempt to fully describe the universe. Each of the aspects of QWC mentioned in the consistency section above that are unobservable fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the event’s occurrence. The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. We observe that gravity acts between mass and that there must be a medium across which the effect of gravity can be transmitted but we can’t observe the medium. The natural evidence of that medium is the nature of the relationship between mass and gravity which is continually observed in nature. The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. We observe that mass exists and has many observable properties like kinetic energy for example, but we cannot observe directly the force that causes mass to exist from the combination of elementary particles of which we observe mass to be composed. We know there is a way that nature makes mass exist and QWC predicts that it is quantum action. The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. These aspects of QWC are consistent with the way it predicts mass is formed. We cannot observe these waves or the trough/crest spherical wave structure predicted by QWC that would cause mass to exist but we observe mass and know there must be a cause. The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observation beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. However these aspects of QWC fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The evidence of observed expansion rolls back to an event 13.7 billion years from which expansion emerged. QWC, as any cosmology must, addresses initial events and predicts solutions that would cause the natural observation. QWC predicts that energy cannot be created and therefore the energy in our expanding arena and the energy that initiated the expansion pre-existed. The prediction of the burst of a big crunch is based on this combination of natural observation and basic law of energy conservation. The means of the burst, called “critical capacity of a big crunch”, is consistent with the nature of mass and the energy density thresholds within which mass can function. Are there other possible explanations, yes, but in QWC the burst of a big crunch would be consistent with the observed expansion and the conservation of energy. There is no evidence that quantum action can be stopped by compression in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. Like the other aspects of QWC mentioned above, this aspect also falls in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The implied big crunch and burst that QWC predicts account for the observed expansion must itself have a cause that is consistent with the other aspects of the cosmology. QWC predicts thresholds of energy density within which matter can form and function, and when the upper threshold of energy density is reached, mass ceases to function. The result is consistent with the observations that expansion exists and is consistent with the QWC aspects that explain the cause of that expansion. There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena. This group of aspects of QWC is quite similar to the process of nucleosynthesis that is predicted by Big Bang Theory. Nucleosynthesis is a phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments but that relies on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. Observations are being made that support nucleosynthesis and future data produced by the LHC will expand the data. Both BBT and QWC will be modified by LHC data as it unfolds. For these reasons, QWC passes the observation test based on the allowed range of application of the concept of observation. Next, the N in CONPTT, Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test. QWC was developed as a cosmology because the standard cosmology did not address the cause of the observed expansion and some professionals say BBT implies that there was no space or time before the expansion began. QWC sees those conditions would require something from nothing, a violation of the conservation of energy, or the intervention of the supernatural. QWC predicts that the conservation of energy is a natural law that cannot be violated. The intervention of the supernatural is not consistent with science and would cause any cosmology to fail the “natural” N of the CONPTT definition of science. QWC passes the Natural test. Next, the P in CONPTT, Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false. Predictability and testing are well established in the scientific method. As mentioned above, many predictions of QWC are not testable. However, each aspect of QWC does pass the Natural test within the acceptable meaning of “natural” in the CONPTT definition of science and so the natural causes and mechanisms included in QWC can be used to make specific predictions. There are categories of science that don’t completely pass the [predictability and testing aspect of the] CONPTT approach. There is Non-Science which covers religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics, False Science described as Pseudoscience, and Emerging Science described as Pre-science (or protoscience). QWC pass the predictability test which is intended to disqualify areas that do not now and will not normally be testable, not because of the limitations of technology, but because they are belief systems. Though QWC is not yet testable, its predictions do not fall into the category of belief systems. There is no reason to believe that future technological developments will not be able to detect quantum action, quantum waves, the energy background that transmits them, and the predicted thresholds of energy density which control them, i.e. the primary aspects of QWC that are not currently testable. Next, the first T in CONPTT, Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests. QWC does not pass the Testability test of the CONPTT approach. This does not mean that QWC does not qualify as science. The Testability test is defined to disqualify reference to supernatural events or causes, and other causes and mechanism for which there is no existing means of testing. The failure of QWC in this category demotes it into Pre-science because though no current technology can be used to test it, it is likely that future technology will be developed that can test it. If the LHC fails to confirm the Higgs mechanism, then the direction of science technology might be refocused on finding a unifying force, i.e. quantum action. Our current ability to detect gamma ray blasts will enable us to detect the possible future arena convergence predicted by QWC. Next, the second T in CONPTT, Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events. Any aspect of QWC that is tested successfully must be considered tentative and there is no reason for them not to be tentative within this use of the word. Non-tentative results are described as irrefutable, for example, “We know that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, and nothing will change that.” (A statement like that would fail the “tentativeness” test.) Based on the CONPTT approach, I find that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, referred to as Protoscience as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience when analyzed by the CONPTT approach.

That is a good place to start. While considering trying to bring my ideas to this forum I was thinking about how to put together many individual essays into a coherent presentation. Attempting to answer the "so what" question will be a good test of whether there is any merit to the ideas in the minds of the community. I'm going to see if I can answer that question adequately. How that answer is perceived will not only help your community decide what degree of a crackpot I qualify as, but it will let me get a taste of what your requirements are for me to be considered adequately responsive. The scope and nature of what I am contemplating will surely be viewed as audacity and will annoy many who think that speculation is the worst of all evils so I expect a ration of that. But I do operate on the basis that there is reasonable and responsible speculation, and then there is idle and wild speculation. If at least some in the community can make that distinction I still have some degree of confidence because my speculations aren't all that wild IMHO. But I know that remains to be seen.

I get that at home so why not here! Thanks for the warning . I will work up a short overview because the whole set of ideas hang together into what is my own personal cosmology and includes some speculated new physics that will be good for a few laughs. I think I'll be accepted if the "Have fun" is meant for those being mocked as well as for those who get to do the mocking. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I was feeling confident for a minute . Actually, I am thinking of discussing a multiverse cosmology, new physics at both the macro and micro level, an aether, quantization of energy, a new force associated with energy quanta, matter being composed of energy in quantum increments, a universe full of energy with fluctuating energy density, no voids, energy that has always existed, thresholds of energy density that are characteristic of the aether, that determine the point of matter formation, and that are reached in a big crunch formation, as well as events that lead to the burst of big crunches into expansion of dense dark energy, and an energy-to matter-to energy process that operates at the level of arenas that are equivalent in energy to our known universe, and more. I think that the lengthly chain of speculations would fail to meet the requirement of individual tests for each individual speculation. The prediction and test I mentioned earlier could be applied to many of the speculations if, in line with what iNow said, I could show that many of the speculations individually are like the many angels and that the pin itself is a key to a group of the supporting speculations. The key in this case would be that the multiverse would be tested by the prediction of gamma blasts over centuries in a localized direction. Would it be a mistake to proceed thinking that if that prediction proves out then based on that "test", the multiverse idea and many of the associated speculations would be redeemed by that evidence? I have detailed "word salad" about the physical pictures all along the way that I'm sure would be good for a series of hardy laughs, but I don't want to run afoul of the moderator by presenting a very broad set of ideas that are all linked speculations and that I think hang together as a whole. I know that it would take many posts to convey the ideas and the math would easily be considered childish when compared to the math of string theory, quantum mechanics, GTR, etc. Tell me not to waste my time if I am going to constantly aggravate you . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI didn't mean to merge those posts but I don't know how it happened.

I thought about doing that and decided I might be starting off on the wrong foot. But I think I might be able to navigate the waters here in Pseudoscience and Speculation based on your example of the need to take the time to specify the parameters of the pin, the characteristics of the angels, and how we might go about testing it. Before I jump in with both feet though let me ask another question related to testing. I have given a lot of thought to that in regard to my views. What if my speculations included talk of multiple arenas, all similar to our known universe. One idea might be that as our arena expands it would eventually intersect and overlap with a neighboring arena. One prediction would be that such convergences could be characterized by the occasional collision of stars and maybe galactic black holes. Such galactic collisions would cause gamma ray blasts and so the prediction might be that those blasts would eventually be detectable and the frequency of such blasts would be localized in the direction of the arena intersection. If a record of all such gamma blasts was kept over the centuries and if their location in the coordinate system implied such a convergence, then that would be supporting evidence. Would speculation and predictions like that keep me out of the Philosophy forum?

I just registered thinking I could post speculations for discussion. Then I read the rules and am not sure I am allowed to do that even here in the Speculations forum. I like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, but find there is a rule that speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. Does anyone beside me find this rule "just wrong"? How is it possible for there to be evidence of something that is speculation. What test can be offered for speculation that goes beyond where technology can presently reach. What if tests of the speculations would require huge advancements in technology? For example, am I correct that to speculate that space preceded the Big Bang would not be allowed because there is no evidence, no proof, and no currently feasible test? The Speculations Policy ends with the encouraging line, "Have fun". Am I being overly cynical to suspect that is said "tongue in cheek" ?