No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper

I don't really need to do that. We have intuitive notions of "small" and "big", and those are sufficient for what I wrote in Message 67. It seems that you have no difficulty using intuitive notions of relative size.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

I think cavediver is not as troubled by my skepticism as you are. No doubt he disagrees with me, but he doesn't see great reason for concern.I'm still mystified as to why you are so troubled by my skepticism. A scientist should be skeptical, and my skepticism is no threat to science.I think you have not recognized the significance of what I wrote in the last paragraph of Message 41. My ideas about science, and how it works, are different from yours. Until about 15 years ago, I used to think of science in about the same way that you do. I have since come to recognize that way of thinking as a mistake.A scientific theory brings with it empirical methodology, which may include methods for making testable predictions. It also brings an explanation. My skepticism is only toward the explanation component. For maybe 200 years, the luminiferous ether was the accepted explanation for light. This had been thoroughly tested, and was better confirmed that BB cosmology. Yet we have now rejected the luminiferous ether as non-existent and part of a flawed explanation. Newton's theory of gravity reigned supreme for even longer, and was more thoroughly confirmed. Yet we have rejected the Newtonian explanation in favor of GR. In both cases (the ether, and Newtonian gravitation) we continue to use much of the empirical methodology, but we no longer accept the explanations.I have a higher threshold than you for adopting explanations.Edited by nwr, : spelling correction

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

That's not a difference. That's a similarity. The claimed recessional velocities (measured as rate of change of distance) of distant galaxies has never been experimentally verified. There seems to be something wrong about that. The idea of aether waves apparently goes back to Christiaan Huygens. Maxwell's equations began the downfall of the ether, for they suggested you could have waves without a medium.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

There are problems with Son Goku's response, as I have pointed out in Message 79. "Seems based on" is part of an expression of opinion. Maybe the problem is in your opinion. That comes pretty close to a violation of rule 10, and I do resent it.I'm a relatively humble person. I don't go around boasting of my knowledge, particularly when I am aware of how much I don't know. However, your characterization of me is quite wrong. Then what is this discussion all about? I have no disagreement at that level, and I seem to recall having posted as much in another thread. My objection to BB is that it also "explains" a lot that has not been tested, and makes predictions that have not been tested. That's why I think acceptance is premature. I have no objection to discussions with cavediver. But I don't have an opening question/statement, so it would be up to him to start it. This subject has come up in other threads, and cavediver has not felt any need to challenge my view (unlike the way he challenges RAZD). I really don't think we have all that much to discuss.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

To say that the cosmos is expanding, is to say that the distance across it is greater today than it was yesterday. When has this measurement been carried out?

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

No, it isn't the same thing at all. There is plenty of evidence of evolving. There is zero evidence that the size of the cosmos has measurably increased during the time man has been measuring it.I'll be blunt. You keep accusing me of ignorance. However, it is your ignorance that prevents you from recognizing that my disagreement is a serious one.In Message 78 you wrote:Need I remind you that the topic is being discussed here because you requested it. It was not a matter of me popping up, I would prefer not to have had this discussion. It isn't as if I am pushing my views on other people. I have made thousands of usenet postings over the years, including some on sci.physics. I'll bet you won't be able to find any evidence that I have been popping up with criticism of BB.

Okay, I missed that, probably because I was not trying to suggest they were similar. I was simply providing two examples where we have since rejected what was accepted explanation, though we continue to use much of the associated empirical methodology.I'll grant that previous acceptance of the aether was never more than casual.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

quote:

---

nwr writes:

​

There is zero evidence that the size of the cosmos has measurably increased during the time man has been measuring it.

​

This is identical to creationist objections that we can only know what we can directly observe.

---

No, it is not at all similar.You have made it very clear that you do not understand my objection. I'm done explaining it. This has already taken too many hours of my time.

quote:

---

On the contrary, you demonstrate your ignorance at every turn. Your inability to raise a single scientifically valid objection makes it clear that you're as qualified to have a private opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution.

---

I think you are totally out of line here.I'll remind you yet again, that we are having this discussion only because you solicited it. I have been very clear that I am not making a public case against BB. I have been clear that I am not calling on scientists, or anybody, to reject BB.You have been delving into my mind to probe my private thinking. It was wrong of you to do that, but I obliged you anyway. And for that I receive repeated insults.If my private reason for not accepting BB is that I don't like the color of your avatar, that would be reason enough. I don't need to provide a public justification for my private decision. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what to think or how to think. You say "you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution". Sure. And I am as qualified to have an opinion about BB as you are to have an opinion about what color socks to wear in the morning. I am fully qualified to have an opinion, because it is my opinion. I am qualified to have a private opinion because all humans are qualified to have private opinions.I won't be responding to you further on this issue. I have had more than enough verbal abuse.

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus