It can't be good when someone attempting to discuss these issues needs to have really
basic algebra explained to them.
I'm reminded of when I was doing my A Levels at school (the last two years of high school, for you tax dodging colonials). When we wrote essays the idea was to be descriptive (rather than analytical).
It was an exercise in showing the teacher that you had put the work in and covered the body of knowledge appropriately.
As I did social sciences this boiled down to some variation of "Dr X suggests that 'X, Y and Z' is true, however Professor Q challenges this idea by saying 'A, B and C' is true".
That shows teacher you have done your work to learn (but not necessarily understand) the various conflicting theories.
I would suggest that all this quoting people saying 'X, Y and Z' and debating what was said (as opposed to debating the evidence) is indication of an absence of analysis going on, in a couple of threads recently.
This can be done without actually understanding subject to any great degree.
Kind of like the difference between A Level essays and post grad essays. This thread is a good example, I think, of this issue.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.