faith based science?

No is no good. You need to back it up with reasoning.
How many? Twenty three. Silly obstinate Panda's Thumby.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

There might be a gap but it is not as great as the gap those who believe that the whole of existence could be possibly squeezed into a pea have. That kind of an abyss only collective madness can put between you and reality.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

That is self-referential, silly. Each integer expresses a quantity. So you are asking what is the quantity of quantities.

All your insinuations are irrelevant. The cat may be a brain in a vat or a rat on a mat. Irrelevant. None of that is going to save your bigbangist faith from rational scrutiny and make it less idiotic upon examination.

Irrelevant. You insinuate the integers are infinite according to your garbled sets ideas. Count sheep instead, silly. Integers start with 1 killing the infinity in the bud. What they physically represent could be extended in the other direction. Infinite means without border, end or limit. If you start counting, that is a limit already. Never reached to be expressed with a number. Counting could be assumed to be incessant. That's all.

Irrelevant, Vatican. What evidence is that you examined? The same as for Jesus walking on water? All you've got is authority to parrot, my friend. Face it.
Big bang is incompatible with the necessity, relativity and the rest of good sense. That's all.
Gaede's ropes is a good idea that could have replaced waves and particles. It's like giving physical architecture to Mach's principle. You are too brainwashed to consider that or something similar. You are happy with what you've got. Evolution is a local phenomenon. It's obvious. Change over time. It's abiogenesis that is in serious doubt, not evolution. The mechanism is likely to be not what you imagine.
Anyway try this. He is anti-relativist every relativist needs to read.
index

That's not good enough, Vatican. Very stale rumours and as evidence is even less tangentially circumstantial than what we've got for Jesus turning water into fishes.
Hubble himself was not so sure about any of that. He wrote about apparent receding motion and so on. He had no good explanation and was in no hurry to spew nonsense about expanding distances, demons accelerating the existence into nowhere, etc.
Bill Gaede is as rational as it gets. Just not devoid of a sense of humour. Read on. Don't be shy. You might learn a thing or two.

Unlike, you, Inadequate, Einstein might have loved the site. He loved good humour and would have enjoyed discussing mathematics with Bill as much as the feline does.
Bill got a different approach. He assumes no observers and inside that framework his is a good model. I do not discard the observer so time as an alternative measure of static distance is still used without re-ifying that concept into arrows and stuff.
Otherwise, Albert had no time for big bunks, singularities and the rest of the articles of your faith. If you are not aware of that.

Vatican, what Bill's adventures got to do with rationality of his analysis and explanations? Irrelevant. You are just interested not in science but a good reputation and consensus only.
You asked for a good alternative to particles and waves and the cat directed you to the best one to date he is aware of.
By the way waves are not totally discarded in the hypothesis. Maxwell's wave is given the physical medium in it. With real architecture of a double-helix thread. Space-time is not such a medium. It is a map of motion. Bill discards the idea of space-time altogether, the cat dumps only its re-ification into a medium of motion.Map-making as such is not going to be abandoned. Humans are measuring animals and they will not stop to try and measure the cosmos. Poor distorted maps currently used need to be thoroughly corrected. Warping, dilating and expanding are but metaphors and everybody but the gullible public knows that. It's all descriptions of trajectories and measurements. Space and time as such have no physical properties whatsoever.

That is curvature of a light signal's path, Sub. Invoking curved space explains nothing. It's a tautology, not an explanation. Space is a geometrical abstraction. A relation. If you don't believe me, take a meter of distance, go with the meter to the bathroom and try to curve it. Send the curved meter to the feline for inspection by the morning post. Call the press with cameras to record the occurrence first. Don't forget to fix the curve before packing lest it straightens back in the post. Don't use the Royal Mail. TNT or UPS would do the job better.

Try this, Sub, and see how your faith is doing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7e39D-tVag

No, Sub. The faith based claim is yours, not mine. You should try it on Jefferson in your signature. Suggest to Jefferson that space or space-time, as Nukie's correction goes, is a causal agent of interaction with physical objects and see Tom's reaction.
It is you who needs arguments to support such an unintelligible proposition in any literal sense. Remember metaphors cannot be causes.

Nuke, is that entity you call space-time a physical object that is literally curved like a shapely breast or is it just that you have no idea what you are talking about?

I understand that, NWR, but those given by you are all examples of mathematical objects. For instance, all that space-time really is a co-ordinate map of motion of objects. Fields are a bunch of vectors, tensors and suchlike with magnitudes, scalars and so on. All that represents relative directions of motions of physical objects and imaginary forces supposedly acting at a distance for mysterious reasons. Itineraries of moving bodies. The same maps and no hint at any territory.Attributing to any of those mathematical objects causal powers and physical properties such as an ability to bend or stretch is cheating and abuse of language. It is cheating because no causes are explained at all and the public is left to clap and imitate comprehension. Highly pernicious because the pretence at understanding nips in the bud any attempt to look for the causes unexplained.

Bill was asked in one of his hubs what would have happened if chemistry was done in the fashion the mathematical physics is.
His answer was: "Scary. They could have reactions between concepts."
Like a kilo of acidity meeting a vector of fluidity to result in a mole of bonding. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.