SkipCaptcha
708
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 146:
Line 146: + + + +
Talk:Big Bang theory (view source)
Revision as of 21:25, September 14, 2011
, 21:25, September 14, 2011→"even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions."
:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.
::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH). Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publisj this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with some extentions is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)