[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;352123]Your post #34:
...
The first sentence looks like sophistry to me, not argument let alone proof. The rest of that paragraph and the following rely entirely on it. The third paragraph is speculation -- admittedly, probably an improvement over the word-games of the first two.[/QUOTE]

Sophistry and word games, not argument let alone proof? It's true that
the rest of paragraphs one and two depend on that first sentence of
paragraph one, which is not sophistry (plausible but deceptive) but the
first fundamental fact about time, that it is within the universe (it's a
measure of something within the universe) and not something in which the
universe is embedded. This is a starting point for the rest of paragraphs
1 to 3.

And paragraph three is less speculative than the BBT, as it indicts
the BB as making a major unwarranted assumption (that if it's
expanding now then it alway has been).

Bandying about words like sophistry, wordgames, and speculation,
is not any kind of logical refutation of the basics of a non-BB
steady-state-like description of the universe.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;352083]What more could you expect? You haven't provided proofs, models, or evidence, just statements of what you believe.[/QUOTE]

But, If I may...

This is a good example of why Science has such bad representation...

We who follow the Scientific Method ask questions. It is, almost, our job description.

Some don't like asking questions. Nor, answering them.

Shouldn't the challenger get first crack at answering
the chalangee's return volley?

[QUOTE=davar55;352331]Shouldn't the challenger get first crack at answering
the chalangee's return volley?[/QUOTE]

Ya snooze, ya loose!

[QUOTE=davar55;352154]Bandying about words like sophistry, wordgames, and speculation,
is not any kind of logical refutation of the basics of a non-BB
steady-state-like description of the universe.[/QUOTE]

If you can't even [i]see[/i] the gaping holes in your arguments -- let alone repair them -- I don't think it's worth my time to respond. If at some later point you have a coherent argument I'll let someone else check it.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;352361]If you can't even [I]see[/I] the gaping holes in your arguments -- let alone repair them -- I don't think it's worth my time to respond. If at some later point you have a coherent argument I'll let someone else check it.[/QUOTE]

OK. Only you can decide where your time is best spent.
Calling my argument(s) incoherent and claiming they're
full of gaping holes, without indicating where or which,
is about as scientific as disputing relativity because one
cannot explain the traveling twin paradox. Someone
else can.

Someone else might try answering my posts @ #34 & #56.

The Score so far:

Creationism -- 1
Big Belly Theory -- 41
Big Bang Theory -- 35
New Cosmology -- 17
Other -- 6

The Universe is complex. Trying to describe it in its entirety
requres taking a cosmological viewpoint. This means starting
with the nature of the Universe ih its totality (space and time),
and then getting down to the nuts and bolts of its substance
(matter and energy). Creationism, which no one here advocates,
starts with a supernatural force that simply brought all into
existence - via a process, but by no explainable means. The
big bang theory, unfortunately, amounts to the same thing, at
least at its temporal origin.

The new cosmological viewpoint begins with one line:

The Universe contains all that exists. It has always existed. It will always exist.

The first sentence is basically by definition and comprehension,
and precludes multiverses, alternate universes, parallel universes,
and empty extra universes. All of whcih are highly speculatve
and science fictiony.

The next two sentences are argued for (not here), and while the
infinite regress and future of time may be a sticking point to one's
cmprehension, especially if one believes there was a beginning,
the idea that time goes back infinitely and forward forever is not
contradictory and can be explained (not here).

The real point I'm making is that this is the only logical way to
begin a cosmological excavation -- with basics.

Initially I too considered an axiom of totality. Unfortunately, further extrapolation ponders a potential leak of mass from the system: The Udder Catastrophe.

[QUOTE=only_human;377817]Initially I too considered an axiom of totality. Unfortunately, further extrapolation ponders a potential leak of mass from the system: The Udder Catastrophe.[/QUOTE]

Hence the difference between the Digestive System Postulate of
the Big Belly Theory and the New Cosmology's argument that
"there ain't no more." The Udder theory allows for leaks, as
certainly discovered by observation and experiment . The New
theory says the big Universe can't leak, there's no place else to go.

[QUOTE=davar55;377819]The New
theory says the big Universe can't leak, there's no place else to go.[/QUOTE]Spelunking leads to truly unspeakable knowledge outside of proper canon. Lovecraftian purists may delve into a trail of hideous truth disguised as fiction in: The Endoscope of Terror.

I realize that there is a thread devoted to Sci-Fi/SpecFic, but there is a direct connection in my suggestion. Given the ramifications of this thread, I recommend reading "Anathem" by Neal Stephenson. I prefer not to play the spoiler beyond saying that the question of universe/cosmos versus multiverse/polycosmi is pivotal.