See, Paddoboy, I am not dishonest and I cannot be bulldozed, I have acknowledged your straight forward honest nature as many times as you have stated the near certainty of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB.
You posting this thread in science is the first indication of your dishonesty in my opinion.
The second aspect is your continious refusal to accept any and all answers given to you, and yet ignoring suggestions that you get expert opinion on those questions.
That will do for now.
Do you doubt the "near certainty" of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB?
If so, which ones and why?
I would not have responded to your earlier post, but I stated it very clearly that you made the post some kind of concluding type with explanation..hence my response. I get vindicated when you admitted that word 'Drowned' was not a right choice.
My only conclusion is that the standard cosmological model, is pretty firm [other then for a few issues like DM and DE], and that spacetime is expanding, and has been since the BB, and that this same spacetime is warped in the presence of matter/energy, subsequently exhibiting the phenomenon we call gravity.
This is what observational evidence supports.
Whenever there is some objection or deadlock with some theory, then the procedure is..
You know what happened in 1998 onwards, it was the step #1 which helped us in resolving the accelerating expansion of Universe.
Firstly, the scientific community in general, accept the model I have given above, along with its unknown aspects, simply because that's what the evidence shows.
Secondly, the accelerating expansion was "observed" and inferred by data from WMAP.
Logically and sensibly, cosmologists put it down to an unknown force....we call that DE.
Some think this DE is the CC that Einstein once exclaimed as his biggest blunder.
Of course accepted scientific theories are "added on to"as further observations are made.
That's why we also have Inflation....But knowing you [and your agenda] I'm not sure what you are getting at.
The following may help you with how the scientific method and peer review does apply.....
In my Opinion>....
Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:
[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:
[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...
[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:
[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:
[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:
[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:
[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.
[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:
[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:
[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:
[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.
[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:
With relation to all 10 points and any alternative theories, the incumbent model, in most cases will always logically be the default position....eg:
If someone does happen to come up with a theory that matches exactly what the incumbent theory does but no more, the incumbent theory naturally holds position.
Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point.
.
The above is from the "For the Alternaive theorists"thread in Science and Technology.
So we are on the same wavelength that anyone who wishes to disown or discredit the existing mainstream, must come forward and pass the test under Step #2. This is very honorable way of seeing the thing. My only objection with you is that let us not frustrate ourselves with the questions. You are responding and I am asking questions, there is nothing wrong in bringing out some of the difficulties or challenges, mainstream cosmology is not going to Step #3 without passing the Step #2. [in fact I do not like Mainstream before Cosmology...Cosmology is Cosmology, it is always mainstream.]
What more can I say ??
Yet you have refused to accept all answers and ignored suggestions made to rectify your apparent quandary.
From your many posts here, rightly or wrongly, I do see you as having an agenda, supported by your refusal to accept answers, and seeing supposed problems where they don't exist.
