Quote:
|
The reason the topic keeps coming up is because of experimental evidence. I know my post was long, and no one reads long posts, but I used my uniform expansion of space-time theory to resolve the issue.
|
The section in bold essentially demonstrates the real problem with this, and indeed, other such ideas. One cannot use highly unproven theories as supporting evidence for other unproven theories...certainly not without more 'conventional' evidence. I'm sorry, but while I can understand your zeal and confidence in your ideas...which explains why you champion them so singlemindedly...I cannot support or find legitimate the results, or the 'policy'.
The supposed facts involved - such as the xenon - can more easily be explained via other means. For example, this statement:
Quote:
|
This conclusion is based upon the relative amounts of radioactive strange xenon found within samples from the moon, meteorites and the atmosphere of Jupiter. A star had to blow up to form these elements in the percentages detected and the only star close enough to explode is our sun.
|
Is so simpleminded as to be laughable. To focus on the xenon percentage, saying that it requires the process of an exploding star to create, when there are countless examples of heavier elements all around us - and far less 'strangely' so - that require the very same process...a process which is an accepted part of the series of events that has produced our entire local system, including the sun....it's a horrible twisting of fact to support your premise. The theory of expanding space-time itself is in fact far more credible - or at least, possible - when not used and promoted in this fashion...more deserving of discussion, than the outright dismissal that is the result of such a travesty of the scientific method.
As true as it is that we do not know everything about stellar phenomena, we are quite sure our sun did not, to use your quaint phrase, 'blow up' in the past. Sorry, but it simply is not true.
[/quote]