davar55's cosmo-autohagiography: Worth its weight in Dunning-Kruggerands

[cheesehead]

As has been rightly pointed out, two (at least?) other threads have been hijacked by discussion of davar55's monograph.

So, here's a thread for that discussion.

[cheesehead]

I'll start by posting my reply to two of davar55's posts in the "a theism" thread:

Originally Posted by davar55

Ok.

The Hubble Red Shift data supports another interpretation,
namely the existence and nature of the skin.
See the monograph, section INTERPOLATION.

I asked for (a shred of) scientific evidence, not just some speculation or evidence-less claim.

That there is "another interpretation" is your claim, not scientific evidence of any part of your theory.

Anyone can make a claim; providing evidence to support that claim is another matter. I can (quite easily) claim that I can bench-press 4000 pounds.

Again I wonder whether you even understand the concept of evidence and how evidence differs from speculation or hypothesis or argument or claim.

Originally Posted by davar55

OK, fine. WHich of my arguments do you wish supporting factual data for?

Since I know of no factual data that supports any of your arguments, my request would be satisfied by your provision of factual data that supports any of your arguments. Pick one, and supply supporting factual data for it.

[blahpy]

I read the original thread the other day and burst out laughing. davar55 is obviously a troll (although rather a persistent troll at that). He isn't going to provide you any evidence of his claims other than that "it's true".

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

...
That there is "another interpretation" is your claim, not scientific evidence of any part of your theory.
...
Since I know of no factual data that supports any of your arguments, my request would be satisfied by your provision of factual data that supports any of your arguments. Pick one, and supply supporting factual data for it.

It's your challenge, you pick one.

[TheMawn]

Davar: Your method looks eerily similar to the whole "You prove that my new claim is wrong" crap, versus "I prove that my new claim is right."

You're basically stalling. He is letting you pick whichever argument you want. This should make it very easy for you. Why are you wasting time?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

It's your challenge,

Your monograph is a challenge to mainstream physics. So, by your standard that the challenger must choose, pick one of the arguments in it, and provide factual data to support that argument.

(Refusal to make that choice and provide that data will indicate that you're trolling.)

[cheesehead]

Since davar has refused the common courtesy of asking me whether I've read the cosmo3 version of his monograph, and since his "Intellectual Dishonesty" thread shows no honesty on his part, my future responses to items in that thread will also be posted here.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

Davar: Your method looks eerily similar to the whole "You prove that my new claim is wrong" crap, versus "I prove that my new claim is right."
You're basically stalling. He is letting you pick whichever argument you want. This should make it very easy for you. Why are you wasting time?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Your monograph is a challenge to mainstream physics. So, by your standard that the challenger must choose, pick one of the arguments in it, and provide factual data to support that argument.
(Refusal to make that choice and provide that data will indicate that you're trolling.)

I was away from home, so I'll now try to satisfy your objections.

"Choose an argument and provide evidence/data to support it."

I can only do this by providing a context

What is cosmology? is the first question to be asked, and I
provide my answer to that in the monograph's INTRODUCTION
section. Just so we agree about what we're discussing.

INTRODUCTION


Cosmology is that branch of science that deals with and answers fundamental 
questions about the nature of the Universe -- its origins, its destiny, its shape, 
its size, its dimensions, the relationships of space and time, matter and energy. 
Cosmology examines the Universe as a whole.  It draws ideas from special
sciences such as astronomy, physics, and chemistry, and provides an integrated, 
fundamental understanding.  This monograph presents an overview of a new, 
(hopefully) consistent, integrated, scientific view of cosmology.  As scientific 
knowledge is always progressing, this paper, like the universe,  should be considered 
a work in progress.

This new view of Cosmology is based largely on simple descriptive concepts, with the 
more difficult mathematics left to Physics and Chemistry.  While it acknowledges and
incorporates much of classical and modern physics, it challenges some important 
concepts and introduces some new ideas that can be checked in the real world.  It is 
intended to be a "falsifiable" theory capable of being tested and confirmed.

A possible name for the cosmology presented in this monograph is: the Finite,
Steady-State Super-Hyper-Spherical Universe, or the Big Ball Theory.

Let's begin with some fundamental preliminary framework questions that cosmology 
must consider:  How did the Universe begin?  Is the Universe finite or infinite?  
What is the shape of the Universe?  Is the Universe expanding or contracting?  
Is the Universe steady-state or pulsating?  How will the Universe end?  These 
questions will be given answers later within this monograph.

This monograph presents and suggests an alternative view to the current 
predominant cosmological theories, namely the Big Bang Theory and Creationism.  
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is widely accepted as the most comprehensive scientific 
explanation of the origins of the Universe.  Nevertheless, support of the BBT 
ignores its inconsistencies and fundamental incompleteness.  Although the BBT 
has a great scientific standing, it suffers from some of the same flaws as 
Creationism, which has no valid scientific support.

The BBT fails to respect the dictum "nothing comes from nothing" because it 
cannot explain the origin of its initial conditions or what preceded them.  
Further, the initial conditions of the BBT are derived from modern observations 
and can never be corroborated, in that we can't go back in time to observe them.
Also, what the BBT says about the present Universe or its future -- the so-called 
expansion or accelerating expansion of Space -- is an unnecessary hypothesis 
that can be alternatively explained.

The strongest evidence used to support the BBT, namely the Hubble Red Shift 
and the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, are otherwise explainable 
within a suitable alternative scientific cosmological framework, such as the one
which this monograph endeavors to provide.

This only sets a context and introduces the later more specific arguments.
But you're free to pick it apart if you think necessary.

[only_human]

Analyzing the stomach, I may postulate that at some time the stomach may have been smaller. I may also postulate that at some time digestion may have been different or not even occur at all. Having some ideas but difficulty establishing how the stomach got there does not mean that the stomach must have always been there there.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Analyzing the stomach, I may postulate that at some time the stomach may have been smaller. I may also postulate that at some time digestion may have been different or not even occur at all. Having some ideas but difficulty establishing how the stomach got there does not mean that the stomach must have always been there there.

The Universe contains all that is. It is not comparable to
any one of its parts. Any such part may have had a beginning,
but not the Universe as a whole (the argument for this comes
later in the monograph).

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

The Universe contains all that is. It is not comparable to any one of its parts.

Have you considered that modern theory includes the possibility of multiple universes?