Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverfly
When answering a persons questions, it is best to start with what is known.
We can outline what observation tells us and how Einsteins equations describe them as matched by observations.
We can demonstrate how this is told by BBT.
Speculation after that fact is just that- speculation. It must be noted in full and in bold that it is speculation and not 'alternate thinking' or 'scientific theory grounded with evidence' that is rejected by meanie poopoo head mainstreamers.
|
It is reasonable and responsible to answer questions from a mainstream perspective first. Some questions that can't be answered by mainstream science still linger. Suggesting speculative answers to those questions should be properly identified as speculation that cannot be proved or falsified from the available evidence.
This thread about the
cause of the expansion of the universe is an example of how I have handled that issue.
The failure of that thread was that it quickly got into too much detail and required new physics. I suspect that any questions that are beyond the ability of science to answer will be just as complicated and will require new physics as well. That is the nature of reasonable and responsible speculation. It is not very interesting, it is usually complicated, it requires made up new physics so that what we observe can be explained, and it can't be proved.
If I can sell my speculations to anyone who is not saavy enough to know that they are just speculations and nothing more, then I have a used car for sale if your interested. This is not dangerous stuff and no one is likely to be misled. It is for the benefit of those who have given the subject much thought on their own, have found maintream answers lacking, and are interested in discussing
speculative alternatives (bold per Neverfly's suggestion).