Changes

We could answer those two question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering those 2 simple questions virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with small faith in scientists like us (properly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

We could answer those two question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering those 2 simple questions virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with small faith in scientists like us (properly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

Luckily I know for sure that the universe isn't expanding a bit, and what's more, it never did. It was forever like that. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why I may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that I fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known also as ''never being sure''.  

Luckily I know for sure that the universe isn't expanding. It was forever like that. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why I may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that I fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known also as ''never being sure''.  

===So how come then, the lack of expansion, is science?===

===How come the lack of expansion is science?===

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in and can't be fit into the old frame. Science works only on faith that what one ''knows'' from other people is true. Then one has to evaluate the knowledge. How sure it is. It turns out to be a matter of probability that what one '''knows'' is true.  

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in and can't be fit into the old frame as it happened with the Big Bang hypothesis. Science works only on faith that what one ''knows'' from other people is true. Then one has to evaluate the knowledge. How sure it is. It turns out to be a matter of probability that what one '''knows'' is true.  

And always there may come someone and ask: ''"How do you know it is true?"'' And then one has to tell the whole story of it starting with Adam and Eve (or just ''"ab ovo"'' if one prefers Latin).  

Always there may come someone and ask: ''"How do you know it is true?"'' And then one has to tell the whole story starting with Adam and Eve (or just ''"ab ovo"'').  

In some cases the probability is so high that one assumes it as being a ''sure thing''. That's why I say that the universe is not expanding. And that it is still science. I simply have a reason, about which other people, who think that the universe is expanding, don't know. And I know what other people don't know since some article that described this ''truth'' aren't published yet. Had they been published everybody would ''know'' that the universe is not expanding since their high school years, and that there was no reason for the universe to expand except misinformed folks who took the illusion of expansion for real expansion.

In some cases the probability is so high that one assumes it as being a ''sure thing''. That's why I say that the universe is not expanding. And that it is still science. I simply have a reason, about which other people, who think that the universe is expanding, don't know. And I know what other people don't know since some article that described this ''truth'' aren't published yet. Had they been published everybody would ''know'' that the universe is not expanding since their high school years, and that there was no reason for the universe to expand except misinformed folks who took the illusion of expansion for the real expansion.

This part is called ''"checking your data"''. I happen to know since I ''checked my data'' to a sufficient degree to tell what is not true. [[Science]], not being able to present positive proof of its assurances is quite able to reject what is not true. And so it is the main mode of its operation: rejecting what's false so what's left is [[science]]. That's why what I know is [[science]] (since I know which part is false that can be proven with simple math. In which math is good: in rejecting ''false reasons'' for something being true.

This part is called ''"checking your data"''. I happen to know since I ''checked my data'' to a sufficient degree to tell what is not true. [[Science]], not being able to present positive proof of its assurances is quite able to reject what is not true. It is the main mode of its operation: rejecting what's false so what's left is [[science]]. That's why what I know is [[science]].

I'm supported in my ''faith'' by Richard P. Feynman whose ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' I read and believed. So I'm a kind of ''believer'', at least in the existence of ''objective truth''. That's why reading characterisation of [[relativists]] whom I know from various encounters I have no reason not to believe Feynman.

I'm supported in my ''faith'' by Richard P. Feynman whose ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' I read and believed. So I'm a kind of ''believer'', at least in the existence of ''objective truth''. That's why reading characterisation of [[relativists]] whom I know from various encounters I have no reason not to believe Feynman.