[PmbPhy]

agyejy - I’m going to go over reply #107 again because I recently realized precisely the nature of your mistakes. First of all everything that you’ve posted to date demonstrates that you have quite poor reasoning skills. That’s been clear since the point where confused the action of a field on an object with the objects potential energy of position. You’ve confused yourself with this stuff about “where” the field energy is when in fact there’s no physical meaning to locating energy as being at a place in space. We only use energy density and assign it a location to make things easier to think about and calculate.

You’ve also been completely unable to grasp the most simplest of all facts by which I mean that you couldn’t understand the example I gave to you, i.e. an electron placed in a uniform electric field. There is no physical difference between the electrons being at one position than at another. It’d be impossible to tell the difference. Therefore the mass of the electron simply cannot be a function of position such a field. However the potential energy of the electron varies as one moves along a field line. And that's what it means to say that the mass does not depend on the potential energy of position, i.e. the mass may change when placed in a uniform field but it won't change when moved to a higher potential. This is the part which you're unable to grasp.

You were unable to prove that was wrong so you changed to a straw argument, i.e. an electron in a strong magnetic field. First of all the potential energy of an electron in a magnetic field is zero so the fact that the potential energy not being a function of position is irrelevant. In the second place nobody said that the mass of an object won’t change when it’s placed in a field. That’s the straw here, i.e. you changed the subject from potential energy to field strength. They’re different concepts so your example is bogus. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever that, in general, the proper mass of a classical object will remain unaffected when placed in either an electric or magnetic field. So once again you’re confusing the issue. This time you confused the notion that potential energy of position is not part of the energy in E = mc².

Then you made some ignorant remarks about Rindler suggesting that just because he’s an authority in relativity it implies that he doesn’t know quantum mechanics, elementary particle physics or quantum field theory. In fact most people take those courses to earn a PhD in physics. One doesn’t get to be an authority such as Rindler by knowing only one field of physics. It’s a horrible mistake to assume that Rindler doesn’t know Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Gravity. Without that knowledge he wouldn’t know much about Hawking Radiation, etc.
Please stop changing the subject of conversion so that you’ll appear to be correct. I’m trying to help the folks here learn something, in this case what kinds of mass/energy are part of E = mc².

 First of all your absolute worst mistake is using a straw argument, i.e. you’ve changed the subject from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. You’ve incorrectly assumed that the subject was about elementary particles when in fact classical mechanics doesn’t address such entities. Relativity is the subject and that’s part of classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics. As such it can address such examples as radiation being absorbed or emitted by a macroscopic body just like Einstein used in his paper on E = mc².

It’s such a shame when people such as yourself get so confused and try to pass it off as someone else’s mistakes like you did here.

[PmbPhy]

Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?

Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.

[agyejy]

agyejy - I’m going to go over reply #107 again because I recently realized precisely the nature of your mistakes.

Kind of unfair of you to do this if I am on your ignore list.

First of all everything that you’ve posted to date demonstrates that you have quite poor reasoning skills.

Ad hominem.

That’s been clear since the point where confused the action of a field on an object with the objects potential energy of position.

Never happened.

You’ve confused yourself with this stuff about “where” the field energy is when in fact there’s no physical meaning to locating energy as being at a place in space. We only use energy density and assign it a location to make things easier to think about and calculate.

I guess Wolfgang Rindler is confused as well then. In case anyone missed it the first time:

In classical mechanics, a particle moving in an electromagnetic (or gravitational)
field is often said to possess potential energy, so that the sum of its kinetic and
potential energies remains constant. This is a useful ‘book-keeping’ device, but energy
conservation can also be satisfied by debiting the field with an energy loss equal to the
kinetic energy gained by the particle.

So is Rindler confused when he says classical mechanics says that the particle posses potential energy and that in relativity we should consider the field as having lost energy? Clearly something cannot lose energy that doesn't have energy.

You’ve also been completely unable to grasp the most simplest of all facts by which I mean that you couldn’t understand the example I gave to you, i.e. an electron placed in a uniform electric field. There is no physical difference between the electrons being at one position than at another. It’d be impossible to tell the difference. Therefore the mass of the electron simply cannot be a function of position such a field. However the potential energy of the electron varies as one moves along a field line. And that's what it means to say that the mass does not depend on the potential energy of position, i.e. the mass may change when placed in a uniform field but it won't change when moved to a higher potential. This is the part which you're unable to grasp.

See the funny thing about a conservative force field (and I've said this many times) is that in a conservative force field the sum of kinetic and potential energy doesn't change. Therefore when an electron moves along a field line under the influence of the field it loses potential energy and gains an exactly equal amount of kinetic energy. Since the total energy is unchanged the clearly the mass associated with it should not change. It is also important to note that you just admitted that placing an electron in a field may change its mass. Where was the electron before it was in the field? Clearly it was not in the field and thus at a different potential. Ergo a change in potential caused a change in mass. Now if you let that charge move freely under the influence of the field the energy does not change because as I said before potential energy is converted into an equal amount of kinetic energy and total energy doesn't change because the field you describe is conservative. If you force the electron to move from one part of the field to another part of the field (say by picking it up and moving it) then you have to account for that extra force you applied which does work and changes the energy.

You were unable to prove that was wrong so you changed to a straw argument, i.e. an electron in a strong magnetic field.

Not true.

First of all the potential energy of an electron in a magnetic field is zero so the fact that the potential energy not being a function of position is irrelevant.

As I said before it is well known the electrons have a magnetic moment and therefore even when stationary have a nonzero potential energy in a magnetic field. Further, a moving electron definitely has a potential energy in a magnetic field because there is a force acting on it. The force is applied in a direction that cannot do work so the electron stays on a line of equipotential but it still has potential energy. I did make this point very clear in another post but I guess you do have me on ignore. It is too bad really because this statement was a rather big error and it is going to be rather embarrassing for you if you repeat it to someone else that knows electromagnetism.

In the second place nobody said that the mass of an object won’t change when it’s placed in a field.

Clearly if the mass of an object changes when it is placed in a field the amount it changes by should be affected by the properties of the field. Certainly the magnitude of the field which controls the potential energy should have something to do with it. If we force a particle to move around a field to different potentials (i.e. not letting it move from place to place under the influence of the field alone) then clearly the total energy changes and thus the mass. This is analogous to taking a particle from outside the field and forcing it into the field. The reason the mass does not depend on the position of the particle in a conservative force field when that particle moves only under the influence of the field is simply because when undergoing such movement in a conservative field the total energy cannot change. This has nothing to do with the potential energy not counting toward the mass.

That’s the straw here, i.e. you changed the subject from potential energy to field strength. They’re different concepts so your example is bogus. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever that, in general, the proper mass of a classical object will remain unaffected when placed in either an electric or magnetic field. So once again you’re confusing the issue. This time you confused the notion that potential energy of position is not part of the energy in E = mc².

Potential energy is governed explicitly by field strength. In order to place an object in a field it must have first been outside of the field. If the object was outside of the field then it had a different potential energy after you put it into the field. Thus a change in potential energy related with position (outside the field and then inside the field) has caused a change in mass. At this point I should note this is different than the changes due to mass renormalization and only occurs if you move the particle in a way that does not conserve total energy. For example, an electron and a proton forming a Hydrogen atom after the electron emits a photon and thus changes its energy.

Then you made some ignorant remarks about Rindler suggesting that just because he’s an authority in relativity it implies that he doesn’t know quantum mechanics, elementary particle physics or quantum field theory. In fact most people take those courses to earn a PhD in physics. One doesn’t get to be an authority such as Rindler by knowing only one field of physics. It’s a horrible mistake to assume that Rindler doesn’t know Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Gravity. Without that knowledge he wouldn’t know much about Hawking Radiation, etc.

To be clear I didn't say he doesn't know any of those things. What I said was he is less of an expert than say Matt Strassler. I said that because Rindler has never published any peer reviewed articles on particle physics, quantum mechanics, or quantum field theory. His faculty website lists his expertise as "Basic problems in General Relativity, Relativistic Theoretical Cosmology". Meanwhile Matt Strassler's faculty page lists his expertise as "Particle Physics, Quantum Field Theory, String Theory". Now which one of those two people do you think knows more about quantum field theories? Which one of them should be considered an expert on quantum field theory?

It is also important to point out that a degree (even a PhD) in one field of physics does not make you an expert in every field of physics. This is one of the many reasons I don't rely on my educational qualifications to support my arguments. I support my arguments with citations from people that are clearly experts and that themselve provide evidence for their statements. This is how one should present an argument.

Please stop changing the subject of conversion so that you’ll appear to be correct. I’m trying to help the folks here learn something, in this case what kinds of mass/energy are part of E = mc².

Haven't changed the subject at all.

First of all your absolute worst mistake is using a straw argument, i.e. you’ve changed the subject from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. You’ve incorrectly assumed that the subject was about elementary particles when in fact classical mechanics doesn’t address such entities. Relativity is the subject and that’s part of classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics. As such it can address such examples as radiation being absorbed or emitted by a macroscopic body just like Einstein used in his paper on E = mc².

The subject was the nature of energy. Classical mechanics does not have sole dominion over the concept of energy. Furthermore, it is well known that classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all approximations. In fact if you polled physicists I bet most are of the opinion that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental and therefore the closest to reality of the three. This is why the majority of attempts to fully unify relativity and quantum mechanics are focused on quantizing gravity not on doing what would be the reverse on quantum mechanics (I'm not sure if it even has a name).

It’s such a shame when people such as yourself get so confused and try to pass it off as someone else’s mistakes like you did here.

That's quite clearly not what is happening.

Now since I guess you've got me on ignore you won't be reading this reply. Personally I feel it is quite rude to attempt to refute a person's arguments while doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "La La I can't hear you!". If you wish to ignore me than do so. It is perfectly within your rights to do so and honestly I can live without the insults. However, I ask that you cease responding to any of my posts because it is very rude to talk to/about someone and then refuse to hear that person's response. My only hope is that either I'm not actually on ignore yet or that at least this part of the message will somehow find its way to you.

[IAMREALITY]

"If we go further than even the Big Bang into the very depths of the fundamentals, we come across Brane and String Theories that might ultimately give the answer as to the origin of all the energy in our universe (My comment Alan)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-where-did-the-point-of-energy-come-into-existance-frm-for-the-big-bang-to-occour.206466/

Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.

The Strings that make up the graviton are open ended. So they may not be confined to the brane that contains our universe. They can seep off in a higher dimensional space. However String Theory is presently untested. The Strings are too small to be dected by the present day accelerators. The Large Hadron Collider which is much powerful than all previous accelerators will primarily search for Something called 'sparticles'- the superpartner of every fundamental particle.

Yes... I touched upon this earlier when I gave a few theories on where the universe originated

[IAMREALITY]

Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?

Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.

Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Pete I looked it up that was IAMREALITY answering my questions and not me responding to you?

Quote
Where did energy come from="no one knows?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
When did Energy come from = "Energy is eternal?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
What is Energy = "no one knows?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was there always energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there always be energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there be an end to energy="no?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was energy created="No?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Can you touch energy="No"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
How much energy exists ="Infinity?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)

Alan

Ummmm, where did I say these things exactly?  I literally have no idea what you're talking about or why you're quoting me as having said these things.

[IAMREALITY]

Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?

Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.

Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Pete I looked it up that was IAMREALITY answering my questions and not me responding to you?

Quote
Where did energy come from="no one knows?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
When did Energy come from = "Energy is eternal?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
What is Energy = "no one knows?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was there always energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there always be energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there be an end to energy="no?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was energy created="No?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Can you touch energy="No"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
How much energy exists ="Infinity?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)

Alan

This is the history of the post at hand:

Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?

Where did energy come from=no one knows?
Obviously

When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
Our energy came from the big bang

What is Energy = no one knows?
No one knows for certain, but there's a big thread on here detailing what many bright minds believe it to be. 

Was there always energy=Yes?
Ours came from the big bang.  Was there energy to be found external of our Universe, or in multiverses, or whatever, prior to our big bang? Obviously no one knows that either. 

Will there always be energy=Yes?
Probably

Will there be an end to energy=no?
Probably not

Was energy created=No?
Our energy came from the big bang. You're getting repetitive.

Can you touch energy=No
Not a specific enough question, and you'll get a multitude of answers, since there is no definitive definition on what energy is to begin with. 

How much energy exists =Infinity?
No.

How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
No idea what you're even talking about here.  Source of energy? There's not like some energy creating pump out there. 

How long has there been energy = Eternity
In our Universe, since the big bang. 

Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
God lmao.  No, there's no magic man in the sky, that's just silliness.  But even if, I fail to see how the two are even remotely related enough in concept to be equated within a logical argument. 

Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Ummm... No.

You are making the assumption that the Big Bang was both the beginning and source of everything, however, logic tells me that there must have been a form of existence before the event of the big bang and this is what I meant by stating "Infinite Regression", remember the Big Bang event is just a theory, albeit the best one, of what happened at the very start of our universe. If there were a something before that it must be just be an assumption and that what is what I was doing in my last post on this subject, namely guessing or speculating as to what, where and how, etc, about the primordial source of energy, indeed if such a thing exists as a reality within existence before and beyond the confines of our universe?

I was making no assumption, but rather answering what was asked. Now if your question is what existed prior to the big bang, well that's a different question altogether, and more a philosophical one and exercise in futility more than anything else since no one knows.  But there are a million hypothetical discussions about what may or may not have caused the big bang or what may have existed before it, online for your perusal. You're free to explore. Www.google.com

As for my thoughts? I have several, depending on my mindset.  But generally, believe that either it all started with the big bang for reasons unknown, that this source of indescribable energy become unstable and burst into existence, and that the energy itself could be literally the energy of nothingness, but the concept still boggles my mind.  Or I may believe in the brane theory, that two colliding branes caused the rupture that on our end became the big bang, or I may believe it could be the product of some other universes black hole, or also what simply happens in the multiverse, that there's this soup of extro-universal state energy that our physics simply can't describe, and that its becoming unstable and bursting universes into existence is simply what it does.

Course, at times I might find myself tripping my friggin face off, I might instead believe that a separate universe had too much dark energy in a runaway expansion, which in time would cause that universe to tear, so an advanced race within it came up with a device that could suck in all the energy and direct it into a tight beam, and focused on a single sub atomic point of spacetime, and that once enough energy was siphoned and beamed into this point, it would cause a new external universe to be created, our big bang, thereby relieving that universe of the extra energy and giving it to ours, causing their universe to achieve a balance to where the risk of a spacetime tear was abated, and that all the energy within our Universe is from their excess that was given to us. And they repeat as necessary. Cause they figured out that any time a certain threshold of energy is crossed within a singularity type point in spacetime, that spacetime will rupture and the product will be the creation of a new spacetime containing the energy that caused the rupture, and that any time a new space time is created inflation will occur. This, like I said, is a theory reserved for when I'm tripping my face off, however.

But the awesome part about "what happened before or may have existed prior to the big bang?" discussions, is that even the wildest of wild theories can have credibility, because no one has a clue what the real answer to the question is. 

What I do know within me with as much certainty as an opinion can muster, is that no higher level consciousness, no theoretical "god", was necessary, nor will ever be found to have played a role. In the end, it is my strong belief, that when the answers are in fact found, that God will be relegated to nothing more than a field, a force that can create from nothingness.  Not because it bears any consciousness or can hear any prayers or any other gobblygook, but instead merely because it's what it does, and can do.

Yo dude, you asked the questions.  I gave my answers to them randomly.  But nowhere did I say the things you're attributing to me. Above is the short history around the post.  I would ask that you not call me out by name but if you must, please don't attribute quotes to me that are false.  Thank you.

[PmbPhy]

Pete - I do not understand the physicality of 1/square root 1 etc, and what this term relates to within the physical process.  m is mass, v is velocity, e is energy of various types, squaring is a mathematical process, where does the 1 originate from?  What is 1?

I don't think that it's possible to look at all equations in physics and be able to ask "What is the physical meaning of this exponent." or somethin

However in this case the presence of gamma factor in that expression can be traced to the derivation of the expression for time dilation. See: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/time_dilation.htm

In that derivation you'll noticed that the Pythagorean Theorem was used. As far as for the physical meaning of each of the terms in that theorem please follow the derivation. All you need to know is basic algebra and the Pythagorean Theorem. The resulting equation is:

(ct/2)² = (vt/2)²  + (cT/2)²

When you solve for t you get

t = T/sqrt{1 - (v/c)²}

Kinetic energy is then found to be K = (gamma - 1)mc^2[/sub].

Are you saying that the mathematical process of calculating KE changes above a certain velocity?

You cn
Not precisely. The definition of kinetic energy is defined independent of any theory. You can look it up under the Wok-Kinetic Energy Theorem. If you obtain the expression for kinetic energy in relativity then it becomes the value for classical mechanics as v/c << 1. You don't appear how this can happen. The rule that allows this to happen for such expressions is called the Correspondence Principle.

Consider how this works with time dilation. Recall the expression for it: t = T/sqrt{1 - (v/c)²}

In non-relativistic physics we have v << c (this is to be read "V is much less than the speed of light, c). When this is true the value v/c is negligible compared to one. When this is true the square of v/c is even smaller!!! So as a very good approximation we can set gamma  ~ 1 and therefore t = T and thus there is no time dilation. A similar thing happens with the expression for kinetic energy. Would you like me to work that out for you as well or would                         

[JohnDuffield]

...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.

I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   

[jeffreyH]

...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.

I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   

I have to agree with John on this one. Don't pass out John. String theory operates at a scale where tests of its hypothesis are not possible. If it were to start giving results applicable to larger measurable scales that would be different.

[IAMREALITY]

...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.

I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   

I have to agree with John on this one. Don't pass out John. String theory operates at a scale where tests of its hypothesis are not possible. If it were to start giving results applicable to larger measurable scales that would be different.

I'm not sure he was trying to say it as any sort of accepted science, but rather just informing what ST has to 'say' on the matter.  I'm confused how it can be said ST doesn't predict something because there's no evidence that branes exist or that there's higher dimensional space.  That's the whole point of something being a prediction; there's not yet any evidence of it.  I don't flip a coin, see it land on heads, and then say "I predict it will be heads".  And even if I didn't know coins exist at all, I could still say if there was a coin, and it had two sides, and I flipped it, I predict it will land on heads".  I don't see how someone could then say I predicted nothing.

Now granted, there has been a lot that has poked holes in ST in the last decade or whatnot, and most physicists no longer take it seriously at all (though most also never did).  But it's still a theory that exists that has details to it, and Alan was merely repeating those details.  I don't think he actually believes in ST, I think he was just trying to show us that he's heard of it and has knowledge of it, and posted it merely as a discussion point (I think it was more just a "hey look!  I know stuff!" kinda exercise than a "This is what I believe" one...).  I had alluded to it as well, as one of the many things out there that try and explain pre-Big Bang events.  But I don't believe in ST at all.  But there's nothing wrong with talking about what it has to say on the matter, even though I agree with both of your critiques that there's not a whole lot of meat on the bone insofar as evidence or legitimacy are concerned in respect towards it.