Changes

:::Lastly, I do not believe in UFOs and no rational person would. Considering the human brain's propensity to make mistakes when it tries to fill in gaps (especially at night or during stressful situations), no reasonable person believes that UFO sightings, seeing Bigfoot, talking to aliens, hearing the voice of God, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc. are anything other than a product of over-active imaginations, of course. Rather, I along with many others propose that the [[Star#Number_of_Stars|sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000)]], as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Lastly, I do not believe in UFOs and no rational person would. Considering the human brain's propensity to make mistakes when it tries to fill in gaps (especially at night or during stressful situations), no reasonable person believes that UFO sightings, seeing Bigfoot, talking to aliens, hearing the voice of God, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc. are anything other than a product of over-active imaginations, of course. Rather, I along with many others propose that the [[Star#Number_of_Stars|sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000)]], as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

First, I haven't forgotten [[Hubble's Law]]. Nor have I forgotten something that you have, or maybe you just never heard about it: Edwin Hubble deliberately rejected the obvious explanation for what he was seeing, namely that we are at the center of the universe, on no better ground than the philosophical. His "hyperballoon" explanation for redshift all around fails to account for the quantized redshift effect and, in general, is a clear violation of [[Occam's Razor]]. In short, I maintain that Hubble's Law, as you have stated it, is a dead letter.

First, I haven't forgotten Hubble's Law. Nor have I forgotten something that you have, or maybe you just never heard about it: [[Edwin Hubble]] deliberately rejected the obvious explanation for what he was seeing, namely that we are at the center of the universe, on no better ground than the philosophical. His "hyperballoon" explanation for redshift all around fails to account for the quantized redshift effect and, in general, is a clear violation of [[Occam's Razor]]. In short, I maintain that Hubble's Law, as you have stated it, is a dead letter.

In this connection I remind you that the Sun ''does not'' appear to revolve around the earth, not when you consider the phases of [[Venus]], the phenomenon that convinced [[Galileo Galilei]] to surmise, correctly, that the [[earth]] is in orbit around the [[sun]]. Edwin Hubble has no "phases of Venus" to convince me or anyone that "relative motion looks the same everywhere you look." So that last is just a surmise. And if you looked at Edwin Hubble's own words, as [[John Hartnett]] did, you'd know that Hubble was explicit that his objection was a philosophical one.

In this connection I remind you that the Sun ''does not'' appear to revolve around the earth, not when you consider the phases of [[Venus]], the phenomenon that convinced [[Galileo Galilei]] to surmise, correctly, that the [[earth]] is in orbit around the [[sun]]. Edwin Hubble has no "phases of Venus" to convince me or anyone that "relative motion looks the same everywhere you look." So that last is just a surmise. And if you looked at Edwin Hubble's own words, as [[John Hartnett]] did, you'd know that Hubble was explicit that his objection was a philosophical one.