Fallible wrote:Then why don’t you just stop mentioning it?

I like to flex my muscles.

Is 'I've got a dragon in my garage' really flexing your muscles?

I would suggest that actually presenting the dragon would be the only way to make that analogy functional.

Spearthrower wrote:Is 'I've got a dragon in my garage' really flexing your muscles?

I would suggest that actually presenting the dragon would be the only way to make that analogy functional.

My muscles for debate. I made no mention of any thing other than the science until fallible and newolder brought up PM's.

Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Then why don’t you just stop mentioning it?

I like to flex my muscles.

Flexing your muscles is saying “I’ve got something but I’m not going to show you”, thereby prompting people to say “I see you are saying words”?

Destroyer wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Is 'I've got a dragon in my garage' really flexing your muscles?

I would suggest that actually presenting the dragon would be the only way to make that analogy functional.

My muscles for debate. I made no mention of any thing other than the science until fallible and newolder brought up PM's.

You don’t inspire much hope with things like this.

Destroyer wrote:

newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?

Projection.

Destroyer wrote:

newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?

Compared to the worthwhileness of what?

Destroyer wrote:I do indeed have a description of the universe that reconciles ALL fundamental forces.

but

Destroyer wrote:I am not ever going to publicize this knowledge

?

Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers, you're gilding the lilly, and you know that you're dishonest about it. This is indicated by your mention that ...even Einstein was working one [Steady State model] of his own before he died. but leaving out the details that he was working on it 24 years before he died, that he did no further work on the Steady State model and that he never even mentioned the paper in those 24 years. You did not leave those details out by mistake, and there's no way you were unaware of their significance.

You are making authority more of an issue than I am. I don't CARE whether anyone agrees with my take on it. What matters is whether the particular Cosmological Theory is or is not VALID or SOUND reasoning. And some of you think that one should default to whomever in AUTHORITY defines what is or is NOT ACCEPTED of a past Cosmological theory as 'rational' simply for stating it.

I am an actual 'rationalist' here and demand that if you believe some PRESENT theory, namely the Big Bang, is rational, AND that the Steady State theory is irrational, than I want PROOF of these in terms of all we could possibly argue on a forum.

ANY Cosmological theory is a religious theory if it is to be blindly believed. And I need YOU to prove that YOU understand the theory if you are to defend it as being 'rational' and why others of the past as being rejected.

Destroyer wrote:What really needs to be taken into account here is that whilst the steady state model has to be rejected because the evidence clearly supports an expanding and changing universe; reconciling this fact with the apparent infinity and constancy at the fundamental level is where the problem persists. So whilst it is safe to assume that no steady state model is ever likely to replace the big bang theory, I also predict that no big bang theory will ever be reconciled with infinity. In other words, demonstrating that the fundamental force of gravity is compatible with the constancy of the other fundamental forces - whilst seemingly logical because mass is after all just a composite of fundamental interactions, therefore for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd - will nevertheless prove to be a wild-goose chase.

The Steady State theory does not go against an expanding and changing universe. It came about in light OF expansion which suggests an apparent real origin to our Universe.

The Steady State asserts foremost that we cannot impose an ORIGIN by what we see HERE IN TIME because Science is ruled by 'observation'. It asserts that all we can trust of our observations are dependent upon how we observe NOW. As such, we can only infer ANY times of the Universe as though it the same physics as we see locally. Otherwise, it becomes a non-scientific appeal that defies the significance of 'observation'.

The Big Bang theory is specifically designated as an 'origin' theory. The errors lie in how one inteprets meaning into the observations as having a REAL different physics in the past. This is like how one might think the appearance of a magician's performance as actually 'magical' rather than SUSPENDING belief until one can find an explanation that is more LOCAL. Thus the Big Bang is FOUNDATIONALLY faulty for its irrational LOGIC, not the observations themselves!

Macdoc wrote:Religious = failure to require evidence so why should anyone consider anything you say worth listening to. Thought you were leaving.

That you can't be get by the logic nonsense puts you square in Jamest woo woo world. When you have some evidence ...bring it....otherwise...well....

Religious thinking == one who demands FAITH as the apriori justification upon the AUTHORITY of some claim or any institution based upon those claims.

ANY theory by anyone who isn't privileged to the 'evidence' of some stated STANDARD MODEL or to who is unable to PARTICIPATE in the observations, the interpretation of them, and the logic essential in deriving such conclusions, cannot blindly believe in it and be expected to disprove what is yet proven to them.

So please, if you don't like my expression of thought here, PROVE why my ARGUMENTS are faulty.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers, you're gilding the lilly, and you know that you're dishonest about it. This is indicated by your mention that ...even Einstein was working one [Steady State model] of his own before he died. but leaving out the details that he was working on it 24 years before he died, that he did no further work on the Steady State model and that he never even mentioned the paper in those 24 years. You did not leave those details out by mistake, and there's no way you were unaware of their significance.

You are making authority more of an issue than I am.

What? It was you who invoked Einstein. You did so knowing bloody well that he is among the most authoritative cosmologists, and you introduced him into the discussion in the hope that some of his authority might help acceptance of your views regarding the steady state model.

As if that were not enough, you mendaciously misrepresented the authoritativeness of his paper about the steady state model by mentioning Einstein was working one [Steady State model] of his own before he died, while fraudulently omitting that he worked on it 24 years before he died, never mentioned it to anyone and basically abandoned the idea. By representing the paper as more authoritative than it is, it was you who made authority more of an issue than I am.

I thought capitalization was passé.....so very 16th century

yes, macdoc. let's be modern and join the 17th. i am all for it.

I wonder when his pæmflɪt on the enduring universe will circulate ....the printing press is after all mature and sure to appear more.... of substance.....to his adherents. Perhaps lambskin bound on acid free rag paper. Sure to be collectable.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Destroyer wrote:What really needs to be taken into account here is that whilst the steady state model has to be rejected because the evidence clearly supports an expanding and changing universe; reconciling this fact with the apparent infinity and constancy at the fundamental level is where the problem persists. So whilst it is safe to assume that no steady state model is ever likely to replace the big bang theory, I also predict that no big bang theory will ever be reconciled with infinity. In other words, demonstrating that the fundamental force of gravity is compatible with the constancy of the other fundamental forces - whilst seemingly logical because mass is after all just a composite of fundamental interactions, therefore for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd - will nevertheless prove to be a wild-goose chase.

The Steady State theory does not go against an expanding and changing universe. It came about in light OF expansion which suggests an apparent real origin to our Universe.

The Steady State asserts foremost that we cannot impose an ORIGIN by what we see HERE IN TIME because Science is ruled by 'observation'. It asserts that all we can trust of our observations are dependent upon how we observe NOW. As such, we can only infer ANY times of the Universe as though it the same physics as we see locally. Otherwise, it becomes a non-scientific appeal that defies the significance of 'observation'.

The Big Bang theory is specifically designated as an 'origin' theory. The errors lie in how one inteprets meaning into the observations as having a REAL different physics in the past. This is like how one might think the appearance of a magician's performance as actually 'magical' rather than SUSPENDING belief until one can find an explanation that is more LOCAL. Thus the Big Bang is FOUNDATIONALLY faulty for its irrational LOGIC, not the observations themselves!

If the universe is infinite and therefore constant then we would not have the initial change to begin the inflation that we observe.

Destroyer wrote:

newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?

Where did Fallible mention PMs in this topic? (Hint: She didn't) Where have you discussed the content of the OP? (Hint: You haven't) Are my pedantic utterances worthwhile? I don't know. Will they cause you to post something relevant to the OP?

Scott Mayers wrote:...

ANY Cosmological theory is a religious theory if it is to be blindly believed. And I need YOU to prove that YOU understand the theory if you are to defend it as being 'rational' and why others of the past as being rejected.

The competing cosmologies of the OP have absolutely nothing to say about any steady state ideas because those ideas are of no further significance since observations of the cosmic microwave background and accelerated universal expansion pushed them firmly off the table. To continue with blind belief that steady state cosmology is relevant today butters no parsnips.

Instead, the first idea (let's call it HH after Hartle-Hawking) in the OP is "single sided" whilst the second contains a mirror image of the first. They both have the same issue of a big bang around t=0 but this is recognised in both and is under the "requires further work" umbrella in each.

To my question: As a "foundational thinker" ( ) do you calculate that the currently observed CP violation (i.e. the preponderance of matter over antimatter across the cosmos) is resolved by high energy physics processes near the big bang of the HH idea or by the mechanics available due to time reversal symmetry around the big bang of the second idea? What do ya think?

newolder wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.

Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?

Where did Fallible mention PMs in this topic? (Hint: She didn't) Where have you discussed the content of the OP? (Hint: You haven't) Are my pedantic utterances worthwhile? I don't know. Will they cause you to post something relevant to the OP?

I joined the thread only to support the fact that Scott Mayers was talking science. I am done with the rest of the nonsense.