I promoted your thread because you said the were a science and big bang buff who wanted some help clarifying a few things, such as the infinities. Now that we know you would actually like to discuss alternate cosmologies we have some bookkeeping to take care of that would normally have taken place before promotion, namely, what is to be the central focus of this thread. We like threads to have a strong central focus.
I am therefore declaring that the topic of this thread is the tired light model and how well it fits the available evidence as compared to the big bang model. I'm changing the thread's title accordingly.
Anyone who would like to discuss other cosmologies should find a different thread, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
Please make it clear which words are yours and which words are not. You can use quotation marks, the discussion board quote codes, indentation, text color, boldness, font or italicization, or anything else you wish that is easily recognizable.
Also, please do not include lengthy excerpts. Make the points in your own words and provide links to the source as a reference. Without this rule we find that some participants have a tendency to quote passages they do not understand and cannot defend.
Will do to the best of my ability not being a scientist.
Yeah, they teach a lot of classes in how to use a discussion board at scientist school.
More helpfully, when you're typing in a reply, look to the left of the textbox you're typing into. There you'll help links for HTML code and dBCodes. The latter are formatting codes - they're the most useful and the ones I would recommend using.
You can also click on the "peek" button that appears at the bottom right of every post to see the actual text that was entered to create the post. Try it now on this message and you'll see how I created the quote at the top of this message.
OK. I see the message box showing your post but how do I post including it in my answer?
Just use copy-n-paste on text in another message, or on any text in any window on your computer.
Also useful when replying to a message is "Peek Mode". After clicking on the "reply" button you'll see a radio button for "Peek Mode" at the top of the message you're replying to (it's displayed in an area beneath the text box you type into). If you select "Peek Mode" then you again see the mark-up that produced the message. This is useful for copy-n-pasting text that has markup codes. For example, in if you select this word, italicized, and copy it all you'll get is the text. But if you first click on "Peek Mode" when replying to this message you'll be able to also copy the [i] and [/i] codes that encompass it.
I also notice that you sometimes edit a message many times. There's a preview button you can use before posting to see what a post will look like before you submit it.
To TheRestOfUs: Given that LaViolette has over a number of years written entire books and a number of papers, it is easily possible to dump more cut-n-pastes into this thread then could ever be properly discussed. Please keep cut-n-pasting to a bare minimum. Describe your position in your own words and provide links to the sources on the Internet. This is rule 6 from the Forum Guidelines:
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
To some others: Please keep the heat to a minimum and the light to a maximum. In other words, make the cold light of logic central to your efforts and leave out any heated emotions.
A question for everyone: I tried to make tired light the central focus of this thread, but the natural course of discussion has taken things toward red versus blue supernovas. Would anyone object if I made that the central focus of this thread. Or maybe more generally the topic could be genic energy. Naturally anyone can propose threads to discuss other areas of LaViolette's ideas.
Don't bother to ask me anymore questions as this has clearly become nothing more than a shouting match.
Moderator if you want to ban or suspend me for refusing to take being insulted by this clown go right ahead. I guess I thought this would be civil place. My mistake.
I don't see anything in Jon's post that seems like shouting, nor does he say anything insulting, nor anything that deserves calling him a clown. By Internet discussion board standards Jon's message was fairly sedate. The request that you support your claims is standard operating procedure here - it's in the forum guidelines. People are expected to support their claims with evidence and argument. His noting that you have been and are still using old and superseded data seems correct as far as I can tell, but if he's wrong about that then you need only correct him.
I recognize that it is many against one, so if you're feeling pressured then please realize there's no time limit on replying. Take as much time and be just as relaxed as you like.
I can tell you feel unfairly put upon, but recall your claim from earlier messages that you're quite capable of dishing it out, and I think you may be failing to recognize that you're displaying this ability to a greater degree than you're aware.
I've been moderating this board for quite a while and I'm pretty good at it, but I can't force people to follow my advice. The only stick is temporary suspension, but it's a two-edged sword because those suspended frequently cite it as evidence of moderator bias, so I try to use it sparingly (spammers ("Get a Date Tonight!") are suspended immediately and permanently).
You can argue any position you like here. If anyone doesn't like your position and uses anything besides evidence and argument against it then I am here to defend you. But if you insist on defending yourself and in the process antagonize others then, well, my experience has been that it's a downward spiral about which moderators can do little.
This thread has a topic, and you're not on it. Criticize evolution all you like, but please, not in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. In this thread you don't claim, "I'm no monkey's uncle!" You instead claim, "I am not made of star stuff!"
Religion, religiousness and whether TheRestOfUs is a creationist are not the topic.
If TheRestOfUs will please understand that he is advocating a position that in the past has only been advocated here by creationists, and that he himself has raised suspicions about the degree to which his religious views influence his scientific judgment (e.g., Message 48) and that's why it keeps coming up, then I request that everyone else please respect his declaration that he is keeping his science and his religion separate and to raise the issue no more.
That doesn't mean no one is allowed to mention religion or creationism in this thread, but please do not get into digressions on these topics.