By cutting and pasting all you included was text, not links. A simple link to the The Spacetimer's Page would have been sufficient.
There was so much material in Spacetimers that I felt the need to specify which material to post after a read of much of the Spacetimer material.
Wrong. They are not all scientists in their own right. A couple of these links are to articles by actual scientists, but on topics that have nothing to do with science, such as Schaefer's article on the existence of God. The rest are *not* by scientists. You could argue that they're by science writers, I suppose, though I think pseudoscience writers would be more accurate since they're writings are not about views current within science. But definitely not scientists.
"Pseudoscience" writers seems to be your opinionated evaluation of the ideological perspective of the writers as they interpret what is observed, i.e. redshift, et al. It may be considered "pweudo," in that it is minority opinion, but I suppose if some of these writers were to appear on EvC in debate, they could at least give you a
run for your money, so to speak, to the extent that their arguments are not simply
whistles in the wind.
An eloquent Letter to the Editor: No start, no end of universe, by Joseph Curran
I could find no evidence that Joseph Curran is a scientist. I suspect he's just the author of a letter to the editor that this website's owner decided to post a link to.
But his position on the eternal universe is shared with, for example, the aerospace scientist (forgot name) I quoted in my GD op who invented the first radio telescope.
Chapter 15 from The Cult of the BIG BANG by William C.. Mitchell
According to the author's own bio:
Its author, the mother all big bang bashers, is a retired aerospace engineer with a lifetime of scientific background, who has spent several years in research, study and writing a book that might very well precipitate the demise of a thoroughly discredited cosmological paradigm.
In other words, he's not a scientist, and his field was not cosmology.
Isn't that being a little disingenuous, Percy? Are you fully apprised on what all his "lifetime of scientific background" involved?
By the same token, I suppose Eta Carinea (spelling) is not an ocupational physicist because his occupation is that of a physics professor, and by the same token, what science he posts here might not then really be credible for debate. Then there's Sylas and others here on the forums who debate science. Is his/their occupation that of scientists? I don't know and don't remember whether Sylas specified occupation or not. My point is that likely there's people who've made a lifetime study of science who could even concievably be more knowledgeable on certain aspects of science and cosmology than some folks whose occupation perse is that of a
scientist or more specifically a cosmologist.
Why the Big Bang is Wrong by John Kierein
John Kierein is an employee of KinetX, which describes itself like this:
"KinetX, Inc. is an innovative engineering, technology and business consulting firm providing complete systems solutions. Our engineers have an established track record of applying and integrating business applications that operate on the forefront of technology."
It is therefore likely that Mr Keirein is an engineer, not a cosmologist or scientist. He believes the red shift can be explained by the Compton Effect. Wikipedia tells us that Kierein is not proposing anything new and that it is already known to be questionable:
"The Compton Effect has on occasion been proposed as an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of the Redshift by opponents of the Big Bang theory, although this is not generally accepted because the influence of the Compton Effect would be noticeable in the spectral lines of distant objects and this is not observed."
Rebuttals (actually more like "just pointing out the obvious errors") can be found around the web, for example,
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3809&vi... and
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html.
Yes, but just last evening I was reading another website which cited three alternatives of the redshift mystery, one of which was the Compton Effect. Another was the The Anti-Matter Hypothesis, introduced by Hannes Alfven in the 1980s as per his Plasma Universe conjecture. The third was the Photon Energy Loss theory.
Did the Universe Have a Beginning? by Tom Van Flandern
Flandern is not a scientist. A quick web search reveals that he rejects Einsteinian relativity, believes in UFOs, and argues that the face on Mars is an artificial construction. According to the Salon article Did Einstein Cheat, Flandern "once worked for the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington,...conducts eclipse expedition tours and runs a Web site with a newsletter that promotes interest in scientific ideas 'outside of the mainstream of theories in Astronomy'".
I see you made no mention of the seven point test of Van Flandern. I had hoped that might impress you a tad, in that folks here in town seem to have regard for tests.
Janus-Faced Cosmology by Robert L. Oldershaw
Here's a link to Janus-Faced Cosmology. Oldershaw is a real scientist, but he isn't advocating any wacky pseudoscience here as are Keirein and Flandern. In this article all he does is encourage scientists to keep an open mind, concluding:
The characteristics of the microwave background radiation, the apparent expansion of our galactic scale environment, and abundances of light elements suggest that the Big Bang model is a good approximation, far better than many previous models. But let's hold it there for now. Scientists do not struggle towards a "final theory." We have seen the folly and/or horror of "absolute certainty" often enough to know better. Cosmologists should remain restless, questioning, unsatisfied -- openly admitting current weaknesses. Good scientific theories, like the Big Bang model, are stepping stones in a widening and deepening understanding of the cosmos. Undoubtedly there are exciting new paradigms that have yet to be dreamt of or explored. Science evolves.
In other words, while Oldershaw encourages original and new thinking, he definitely understands the evidence does not support Keirein's red shift ideas or Flandern's rejection of Einsteinian relativity.
Nor, as I understand him, does he insist that others shouldn't question the established concensus. Were he in your place, imo, he'd be more tolerant of counterpart input than you appear to be.
By the way, get used to finding crackpot challenges to relativity. Relativity is probably the favorite target of cranks, right after perpetual motion machines. Don't make the mistake of thinking where there's so much smoke there must be fire. Think of it like, where's there so much hot air there must be a windbag.
Well, my friend, you may consider most of Spacetimer's stuff to be "crackpot" material, but imo, it's not and it's the best that I could come up with as per Sylas's request and challenge so far, though, there's more and I'm searching out and learning as I go. True, I have a dogged biased viewpoint/hypothesis, but so do you and the majority of my counterparts. I came to town believing by your forum title that expression of dogged alternative views were not in violation of forum guidelines, even though they were inconsistent with majority science thought, but that seems not to be the case. If space in indeed expanding, the views of mine and most of those cited in Spacetimer's is indeed erroneous, but I happen to believe that much of what I read in Spacetimers and elsewhere makes more sense than the majority view which you, Silas and others espouse.
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death and A New Non-Doppler Redshift by Paul Marmet
I couldn't get a good handle on Marmet, maybe Silas can. He's a retired scientist in Canada. He's fairly prevalent on the web, but I'm not sure about the technical literature. I'm inclined to think he's a quack because he believes some things that are contrary to what science already has a pretty good handle on, such as that the speed of light is not a constant in an inertial frame, that the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed, and that the Big Bang never happened.
This's an example of your own dogged bias, imo. Without a thorough evaluation, you're inclination is that this
scientist is a
quack for not agreeing with your majority views.
Was There a Big Bang? by David Berlinski
Not a cosmologist. His biography cites a number of areas in which he has worked, but cosmology is not one of them.
......And again, how much do you know of his experience and scope of knowledge? Probably not a whole lot. But then, neither do I, so I guess all either of us has to go on is what we read of him as cited.
Summing up, how well is your claim that these are all "scientists in their own right?" Pretty poorly. Of the few that were genuine scientists, none were cosmologists, and none supported anything you're advocating about cosmology. Of those that were writers, their writings are not based upon science.
Again, imo disingenuous of you.
1. The writers at least implicated a good measure of scientific knowledge in their works.
2. Most supported my advocation that space is not expanding due to the BB; some supported my advocation that the universe had no beginning: some implicated the recycling of things within the universe and some implicated a boundless spaced universe, as I understand them. These were major tennants of my GD hypothesis, were they not?
If I could once again waste my time by giving you advice, the best way to proceed is to understand the science behind a claim before advocating the claim yourself. Check if the website is making any claims you know to be false. For example, Mr. Sauv, the website's author, has a link that says, "Adolf Grunbaum and Paul Davies line up on the side of creationism". Would you believe any of us here if we said that Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind had lined up on the side of evolution? Of course not! It would instantly make you skeptcal of anything we tried to tell you. Well, by the same token you should be looking for such warning signs at the websites you frequent. When you see such characterizations then you know that the website is only interested in convincing people who want to be convinced more than they are interested in accurate information.
I, like you and others in town, don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hopefully we learn from the good and throw out the
bathwater. I never claimed to ascribe to all that I read in the Spacetimer's Page, nor that it was all totally relevant to my position.
I'd also like to point out that I invested far, far, far more time than you did. Every point that was associated with a name, I checked it out, spending about 10-15 minutes on each.
Yes, I appreciate that, Percy, but it appears that you had one thing in mind, i.e. that of illigitimizing my modus operendi in these forums because I fail to ascribe to the BB singularity theory in that modus as an ID creationist.
In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
™ Version 4.2