Math is not physics.
Ignore electricity? During a storm, fly a kite made of metallic foil.

@yvilletom Ok. Show me the Physics

@jdubose Show a man what he will refuse to see?

@yvilletom Good luck.

@BitFlipper The Steady State theory was rejected, which left only the Big Bang Theory.

Years later NASA started sending instruments into space. These instruments have returned data NASA doesn’t know how to explain and hopes they will someday be able to explain. The story has not ended.

If you happen to know any electrical engineers, ask for their explanation.
.

Yes, the Observable Universe might be "expanding" but the Universe has infinite space.
The Big Bang Theory is so flawed its amazing that anyone believes it.
The truth is that the Universe has always been here.

Anne, taxpayer-provided salaries have helped keep the secret from a few people here. The secret is that the Big Bang is a big fraud. Like religion, it lacks evidence.

The super collider that was partly built in Texas before Congress stopped the funding would have been six times bigger than the large hadron collider in Europe, which is the most expensive scientific experiment ever built. Where did you find that “different ones have been used to discover ... the Higgs boson”?

Which math, Bob? Which contention?

@yvilletom Check toolguy response

@bobwjr Bob, I’ve been researching the Bang for twelve years. I want you to put some effort into your comments.

No, Stephanie. The trip to the moon took our attention from the high cost of space defense and offense. Always follow the trail of money. It really pisses off the people who are spending the money.

@Pedrohbds I'm a skeptic. I read what others publish and find where they fail to supply evidence for their hypotheses. Today's cosmologists are mathematicians. They do no laboratory work and test their equations for elegance.
There is no evidence for the Big Bang, for dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, inflation, CMBR, gravitational waves and more. In that respect, the BB is like religion: millions of words but no evidence.

@yvilletom That's where you are wrong.
Theoretical science is just creating or modeling hypothesis, the hypothesis needs to be confirmed by experiment.

he big bang, or, better, theory of cosmological inflation is very well rooted in experimental data, including calculations (with improving precision) of the cosmological constant.

So show me a scientific article, not a magazine or internet one that shows the mistakes of this.

Of course as all theoretical areas, is a lot cheaper to use pen and paper (computer models, etc) than build experiments. That is why we have many disputing hypothesis waiting someone to develop an experiment to test, but the roots of the observations shoes that there was a "big bang".

Plus, astronautics and cosmology are not that related. Astronautics is more an engineering challenge more than a theoretical science one.

Giving a more earthly example. To understand the chemicals, reactions and the fundamental forces that act in the atoms of metal is something, but to build an industrial method to produce it, have some relation but needs a totally different set of skills and knowledge.

@Pedrohbds The big bang, or, better, theory of cosmological inflation is not rooted as you say. It's rooted only in Lemaitre's use, motivated by his intent to support Genesis, of one of Edwin Hubble's two hypotheses regarding what's called red shift (and is better called tired light) and the Doppler effect.

Your third paragraph explains why the BB is not supported by evidence. Cosmology has no evidence for many hypotheses because only imagination supplies the mass its gravity-only equations require. For instance, its 80-year search for evidence for an imagined dark matter will continue to fail.

Your "more earthly" example describes how chemistry differs from chemical engineering. It does not support cosmology's inability to design the experiments that will supply the required evidence.

@Pedrohbds Pedro, I found your bio interesting. Besides our shared interest in learning, your April 18 birthday was significant in my early home. Two reasons are that on 04/18/45 my kid brother was born and Ernie Pyle, our mother's favorite WW2 war correspondent, died in the battle for Okinawa. If you'll stop BS-ing me about the Bang, we could be friends if time permits.

@yvilletom science denial is a no go for me in case of new friendships XD

@Pedrohbds Then stop putting imagination in science’s place.

Few if any conspiracy theorists do graduate work in their fields. I did.

@yvilletom

One aspect of Occam's Razor, besides the obvious take away, is that the more conditions, "if statements" one interjects to justify conditions, the further from the the real truth one moves. As, "if statements" mount, the burden of meeting all those conditions become impossible to realize. The increased complexity of meeting those conditions makes the explanation untenable.

Add in the human factor and the need for so many to bear the burden of silence for the secret to be kept on order for the conspiracy to work, and you find the weak link for most conspiracies. The more people that are involved, the less control exists for maintaining the necessary secrets.

Knowledge is power, and owning knowledge of information that others do not have gives the holder a certain degree of power over those that do not. The only way to realize that power is to let others know that you have something that they do not, aka. knowledge of secret information.

The further away one is from the primary source, the less reliable one is to realize the necessity of the significance of their knowledge. Therefore, the more one is tempted to "leak" their knowledge. The only way to realize their power is to share that knowledge to prove that they indeed owned such information. At this point the conspiracy breaks down. This is the problem with most conspiracy theories. People directly involved may keep their secrets. However, the more that are involved and the more marginal those people are, the less likely that the secrecy needed to maintain the conspiracy is realized.

@t1nick Besides your two well-stated comments above, a few days ago you wrote of the research you did on a science-based UK periodical. I would have liked having you teach some of the science courses I took.

In the early 1970s I did much research on spending in Arizona by the Bureau of Reclamation in the US Interior Department. Land ownership decided much of the spending.

I did little more than incidental research on the US government’s 19th century spending on railroads but it was enough to allow a conclusion that land ownership decided the routes chosen.

Ditto for the US government’s mid-20th century spending on interstate highways. And ditto for the spending on high-speed rail transit between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area.

While land ownership may have decided some of the spending on the gravitational wave detectors here in the US, on the short-lived SCSC in Texas, on the LHC in Europe, and on Japan’s neutron detector, I haven’t written of land ownership here because I’m sure some people here will charge me with saying land ownership decides Big Bang spending.

What all that supports is a conclusion that it’s not easy to start gov’t spending and it’s also not easy to stop it.

@yvilletom

I don't think I referenced any work on a UK periodical? I have done work for the Army Corps of Engineering on exotic water sources in Arizona, and the Arizona State Museum in Archaeology. My main concern is addressing the concept of conspiracy theorists and their tendency to be false. I do agree that funding is hard to acquire, and on large civic related projects hard to get, and I'll take your word about their difficulty in ending.

I am aware of how property taxes are used in New Mexico for a multitude of government sponsored projects, but never did any research on the subject.

@t1nick I clicked on your screen name, and on the bar menu clicked on “Comments”. I scrolled down the page and saw your lengthy comment about a UK periodical.

Airizona? Surely you learned of the Central Arizona Project. Property taxes and other fees were to pay for it. In the early 1970s I was working at the Honeywell computer plant in what was then north Phoenix. I was a Sierra Club member and on my own time worked with a self-employed civil engineer who had contacts at the Corps of Engineers office in Phoenix. In 1974 I ran in the Republican primary for the state legislature and the June 1976 car bomb murder of investigative reporter Don Bolles persuaded me to leave Arizona. The comments here about conspiracy give me a few chuckles. Innocence usually dies painfully.

@yvilletom

I'm still vo fused on the UK periodical. I hot my first degree in Archaeology from I of A in 1978, but worked for Arizona State Museum as an archaeologist from 1976 to 1980. I worked on several Central Arizona Projects. I never looked in the funding for the CAP. I was too concerned with getting the soft money contracts to keep working.

I hope I'm not naive or innocent. I know nefarious things happen in politics and finance. Plus I am aware that things begin with one context, but may evolve with time due to unexpected benefits.

@t1nick I was in my early 40s when the CAP broke my “youthful” innocence, years after a teacher prep course at the U. of Fla. circa 1958 said such innocence usually ends during the teens. I did get an adult teaching cert and in the mid-1960s while working for GE in Daytona Beach taught science report writing evenings at DB Junior College. In 1965 I married a teacher and we moved west: Houston, Austin, then Phoenix. We divorced there and with no kids to support I was free to do risky stuff. A UA professor of agricultural economics wrote criticizing the CAP.

The silliness here doesn’t bother me. I’m on the side of electrical engineers and their IEEE, a rather large professional organization. The criminal conspiracy idea is all mine.