Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

Thanks to con for the response, though I do feel impelled to point out that neither is "quantist" a proper word, but I also very clearly pointed out in my response that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the support for Big Bang cosmology.On clarification:I appreciate the attempted clarification of the concepts used originally by con, however I feel that now we have taken simply another step down a pseudoscientific rabbit hole. To take the clarification of these "elemental spatial points" to be "shimmering juxtaposed elements, a setting which is self-enabled and which produces yaws amuong the points which are maintained through a cycling of configurational gaps which are shared by different points", presents to me a lot of large words that, whilst having meaning individually, seem reminiscient only of woo (http://rationalwiki.org...).Given my complete inability to be able to understand the idea being presented conceptually, I ask for the whatever mathematical background created by con to be presented to better aid my understanding and convince me that there is any substance in cons claims.I would also enquire about the "obscure informational source", as I feel an understanding of the background to cons ideas would be also be a useful tool in aiding my, and other reader's, understanding of con's position.On the purported quantum backgroundI have con again stating "quantum derived data" but then again does not justify this claim. Con simply continues to assert that observations like redshifting, large scale structure and the CMB all rely on quantum data, which is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, I cannot simply link to published articles showing how the evidence is used or why it is predicted without making this conversation too technical, but if con would like to explain on what grounds these hypothesis are quantum mechanical, or rely on quantum mechanical descriptions, I would be happy to go into more detail in my final comment.For a simple example, we can just look at redshifting. Redshifting is the process of measuring the "elongation" of light as space expands. This is directly analogous to how an object receding away from you sounds deeper in pitch (elongated) than an object coming towards you. The sound of a race car as it passes by, for instance. This is a classical prediction, and was well understood before quantum mechanics was discovered.Con also details the MMX experiment, which was an experiment that falsified static models of the ether. Of course, the MMX experiment is but one in a wide range of experiments having conclusively disproved all proposed aetheric theories. I have uploaded a scan from an old physics textbook detailing the most influential of those experiments (http://i.imgur.com...), to illustrate that every proposed athetic theory has been experimentally disconfirmed in multiple ways. I am curious why con believes his theory would not be so falsified.I would also be interested in having con justify his assertion that the results of QM experiments are not valid (they are "pseudo" effects) outside of the planet. At the moment, this is both unjustified, makes no theoretical sense (QM is not dependent on gravity being a specific strength to start working) and also completely contradicted by evidence. If QM was not viable outside of Earth, than we should not observe QM effects outside of earth. A common undergraduate level concept of quantised energy is that of atomic transitions - in fact, it was this discovery in 1905 by Einstein that earned him the Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If QM is not valid outside of Earth, I would ask then why we observe clear emission lines from atomic transitions in all stars and galaxies we observe? (http://astronomy.nmsu.edu...)Testing the modelI am glad con states he has an experiment to test the model he has developed. If this is so, can I ask for the mathematical relationship con is going to be comparing his model against to determine if it explains the data? I would ask more questions about this test, but just like the original clarification, I have no idea what the conceprs con is talking about are.ConclusionCon has so far failed to present a scientifically viable or rigorous model for his idea, and has instead resorted to woo to try and make his idea appear credible. Con has presented no supportive background for his idea, and is unable to present any mathematical framework supportive of it.Con's statements that modern cosmology is based on data pertaining to quantum mechanics is demonstrably incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of modern cosmology.Con's attack on the universality of quantum mechanics is logically unsupported, theoretically nonsencial and directly contradicted by both intragalactic and extragalactic evidence.In short, con has failed to make any form of convincing argument for the validity of his model, nor the invalidity of modern cosmological models.