[QUOTE=davar55;380953]Getting back to the Big Bully Theory ... I meant Big Belly Theory -

WHere again did the Belly come from if not its parent's DNA?[/QUOTE]The cow has always been there. The model breaks down though and starts drinking when forced to examine the udder. This is a no bull theory. How could the bull get there anyway? It makes no sense. For theoretical purposes an imaginary bull can be evaluated. That is called a bullworth. A boundary skin can as yet only be stochasticly simulated. Models with this simulated skin are said to be wearing pleather.

:missingteeth: :goodposting:
Why did the calf walk around the cow?
[SPOILER] To get to the udder side.[/SPOILER]
:missingteeth:

[QUOTE=kladner;380969]:missingteeth: :goodposting:
Why did the calf walk around the cow? (...)[/quote]
What is a cow with no legs?
[SPOILER]o ground beef
o udder disaster
o dragon' milk[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=davar55;380953]Getting back to the Big Bully Theory ... I meant Big Belly Theory -
Where again did the Belly come from if not its parent's DNA?
So there was a (fill-in-Belly's-correspondent-of-time) period before
the Belly existed (gestation, I guess). So the model must fail to
correspond to the cosmology, since time is time, an aspect of the
Universe with specific properties and unique importance.[/QUOTE]

IOW :

Despite some people's ridicule, ANC is better than BBT.

Echoes of the primordial moo can still be heard

[QUOTE=only_human;389970]Echoes of the primordial moo can still be heard[/QUOTE]

I prefer that the CBMR is the result of photons passing through the skin and
getting transported essentially randomly around space, with exactly the value
of the background that is measured, remaining essentially constant by the
steady state principle. The measure of this background may eventually be
used to determine properties of the skin and then this used to confirm its existence.

[QUOTE=only_human;389970]Echoes of the primordial moo can still be heard[/QUOTE]

The Big Belly Theory is overturned by the Big Heart Theory (BHT).

( New at 11:00 ! :smile: ! )

[QUOTE=davar55;390679]The Big Belly Theory is overturned by the Big Heart Theory (BHT).

( New at 11:00 ! :smile: ! )[/QUOTE]There are two postulated methods of resolving difficulties:
Very dark chocolate
Sausage

[QUOTE=only_human;390694]There are two postulated methods of resolving difficulties:
Very dark chocolate
Sausage[/QUOTE]

I like sausage on pizza, though it's not my favorite topping.

And dark chocolate is tasty.

But isn't there a third alternative on the menu?

Like maybe a bing cherry with artichoke hearts?

Now might be a good time to check out my alternative new cosmology.

[QUOTE=davar55;390705]Now might be a good time to check out my alternative new cosmology.[/QUOTE]
I did reread it. I'm a big believer in thinking about foundations and allowing space for mavericks but I didn't notice anything in it that I might have missed before.

Yesterday I listened to Lee Smolin's [I]Trouble with Physics[/I] on audiobook. I've read this before but like to experience things in different ways to round out my assimilation. I think I got more out of it this time. There is a very recent blog post on him in [I]Scientific American[/I]:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/"]Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics—and Its Laws—Must Evolve*[/URL]
By John Horgan | January 4, 2015

[QUOTE=only_human;391793]I did reread it. I'm a big believer in thinking about foundations and allowing space for mavericks but I didn't notice anything in it that I might have missed before.

Yesterday I listened to Lee Smolin's [I]Trouble with Physics[/I] on audiobook. I've read this before but like to experience things in different ways to round out my assimilation. I think I got more out of it this time. There is a very recent blog post on him in [I]Scientific American[/I]:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/"]Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics—and Its Laws—Must Evolve*[/URL]
By John Horgan | January 4, 2015[/QUOTE]

I won't comment fully on the article until I've completed it, but the idea that it takes cosmological evolution to
produce the measurable numbers that define the laws of nature is at odds with my monograph and its version
of the steady-state principle. LAWS of physics are eternal; such values as the constant vacuum speed-of-light
cannot have evolved; the (approximate) number of stars in the Universe remains (approximately) constant BECAUSE
of laws that remain eternal plus the (empirically discoverable) steady-state principle.

As to cosmo4.txt, its primary new value is the re-organization / structure of the argument / presentation.
There are, however, a few additions to the discussion which improve (but not complete) its comprehensiveness,
as basically a first step in a new direction.