OK, I'm moving there too, but first I can't let this go unanswered.
Quote:
IMHO, this is little different than what we see from crackpots all the time: "mainstream theories don't match observations, THEREFORE {my alternative} must be true." If you know of an alternative that matches (much, most, all?) good observational and experimental results, present the case for that alternative!
That the concordance model is less than 'perfect' is completely uncontroversial.
|
This statement you wrote is outrageous (partly with capitals, as if screaming). The facts are (regardless of whether I support QSSC, Arp, Segal, MacMillan, Millikan, the Einstein or De Sitter models, Weyl’s model, or any other non-expanding or non-big bang model, or even my own theory, which is based of GR, QM and the laws of thermodynamics), observations of the CMB, distant SN and the redshift-apparent magnitude relation, distant galactic metallicity, contradict big bang cosmology. You imply that Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Irwin Ezra Segal, Ellis G.F.R., and all the others who fought big bang cosmology as crackpots. I disagree and disapprove. I backup everything I write with observational data, and have all the applicable references. You defend, not with observational data, but with personal attacks.
Quote:
|
And here's the key aspect which I think you have overlooked, esp with regard to almost all the 'alternatives' which you can read in the AT section of UT (your thread aside - I haven't had a chance to digest it yet) - how well do they meet the most basic criteria of 'good science'?
|
Good question: though I have not had time to sift through them to any great extent. Good science should not lead to the break-down of physics anywhere or at any time. Good science should not necessitate the addition of hypothetical (unobservable, undetectable ‘stuff’ even in principle) non-baryonic dark matter, kooky dark energy, extraneous dimensions, spacetime singularities, false vacuums, the list is seemingly endless…Good science should be founded on empirical evidence (observational and experimental), and founded on natural laws (notably those of thermodynamics, which are not theory based, like the Hubble law).
I’m looking forward to some constructive debates.
Coldcreation
[Edited by Nereid: fixed mis-matched [ quote ] tags]