Vacuum space set at an energy density of <0 with a wave function of zero (pages 2 and 3 opening perameters and step 6)
WTF? Where in the paper is the wave function zero? equation 6, the trivial pseduo-solution to the wheeler-dewitt equation? The solution explicitly ruled out later in eqn. 9? are you joking?
when I sit down and read a peer reivewed scientfic article - I ACTUALLY READ THEM. I don't just give it a currsory scan and then emphatically state "this doesn't have anything to do with what your talking about." Because had you actually done that - you wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position you're in right now desperately seeking some Red Herring to distract from massive blunder you've made.
lol, I think I touched a nerve here. Good on you that you ACTUALLY READ THEM. I am happy to be informed that I am in company with someone with a better grasp of QG than myself, however in that case i am happily looking forward to hearing your informed answers to my questions regarding the HV article. However what massive blunder are we talking about? the bit about pointing out you plagiarised someone elses work? yah that one is really massive.. totally a red herring. Please angrily lecture me some more about when to properly cite sources and when to plagiarise them.
CL: Please cite an elementary textbook in physics that shows quantum mechanics requires the existance of time.
Ah how nice of you to handily re-phrase my point. Let me explain. All elementary textbooks on QM I know of include the time-evolving Schrodinger equation which assumes the existence of time. The article you cited assumes the existence of space-time. No elementary textbook on QM SHOW that time must exist. The paper you cite --which is on a formal point about a particular geometry-- does not SHOW time must exist. Let us also remind ourselves that the geometry the paper you cite discuss may not be the geometry of our universe, but I am sure you are aware of that since it is stated in the first and last paragraph of the cited article which you "ACTUALLY READ" lol
WTF?!! I DID cite a Wikipedia article on cosmic infaltion! Serriously dude, what is your problem? Learn how to read.
... my point related to the instances where you did not cite wikipedia. Again you are just inventing a false context, this is really quite silly of you.
You're accusing me of having not read it? Wow, you are unbelievable.
I am sorry, but when a person write:
CL: I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF
and post a garbled version of the paper where all the equations are wrong one might be mislead to think he did not read it. This is my error, I now accept you did read the paper. Sorry.
CL Being logical and being a jack ass are not the same thing
I totally agree lol.