Steven good morning sorry I frustrate you it is not my intention.
You asked "Why this fixation on Inflation? Your beliefs fly in the face of Science in general so you might as well add SR, GR, QM, and Newtonian physics to the list to name a few".
I thought my fixation upon inflation was clear but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "It's an unfortunate situation that to understand physics (and not just Inflation) one needs to understand the mathematics behind it". and certainly I am in the situation you cover when you said "Otherwise one is forced to accept a theory on "good faith" or throw one's hands up in the air and say it can't be right because it is misunderstood it or found to be counter-intuitive".
Maybe, almost certainly, there is much that I misunderstand.
Leaning all you know from the net means one follows no specific direction and ones knowledge becomes an accumulation of bits from here and there and certainly also one often has no way of knowing if the apparently reasonable site one has found is entirely correct.
AND yes for me it is a matter of reading all I can on a subject and either accepting it on good faith or rejecting it because "I dont buy it"... however I do try with my limited knowledge to think about the propostions I read about...which is certainly different to accepting the math and therefore the premise.
I find no difficulty in rejecting something even if that goes against the math ...
I have a non science background where one becomes sceptical and trained not to accept all things as they are presented.
Again this touches on belief and it is my belief that although math is infalible it may be that the premise that the math seeks to support could well be wrong.
As I understand the history (and my understanding may be absolutely wrong and I have no difficulty in accepting that may well be the way of it) the big bang notion arose from an observation that space was expanding... by Mr Hubble (an ex lawyer and potential contender for the boxing heavy weight world championship) and that from that observation the math went into play reasoning and supporting the notion that if it is expanding it must mean that at somepoint it expanded from a "point"... In my view such an observation does not entitle the extrapolation in support of a point where the Universe "started" . AND I realise there was much much more work before the big bang idea fully evolved.
AND my fixation upon the big bang generally comes down to the grabbing of any observation and fitting it into the big bang picture... and I am not the only person who thinks that way ...and clearly the big bang has well earned support... and I do similar..every new fact I fit neatly into the Push Universe and although I get labled as morosophic I consider that condition may well exist in the big bang camp... and I dont want to frustrate you or cause you to point out where I am wrong as I am outlining mere beliefs which is bad because this is a science thread..
No one needs to be reminded that the "big bang theory" is a "theory" and I guess my concern is that those who support it simply now exclude any alternative ... prior to the background radiation discovery we also had a steady state model so if the interpretation of the background radiation is flawed I see no reason why steady state should not be on the table.
Yet big bang is treated as fact until now it is proved incorrect... given the difficulty in absolutely proving anything how could one prove its "incorrectness"...
AND Steven I am not presenting this to argue any point with you. I find all you say covers whatever we discuss and like to think you are someone who knows their stuff.. your input has always been helpful and informative and I thank you for the time you take when I know I must frustrate you .... as I said I do not seek to argue when I raise these matters that has all pulling their hair but to merely express my concerns and lack of preparedness to surrender to the math if the premise seems wrong... to me.
You also said..."Sorry Alex we live in a world where our technology confirms the existence of space time as reality from widely different perspectives such as the SR correction of time in GPS satellites to nucleur energy where E=mc2 is based on the conservation of energy in space time". I have no problem with E=MC^2 or our science other than
...well you know my beliefs about "attraction", dark matter etc.
I see myself as others see me
... a fool that has tried to learn too much about too little having a teacher who has to look it up on the net (me in both cases) and deprived of knowing everything as others do.
You will be happy (or alarmed) that I have been trying to relate my push thing to a math base.
I would like to post my ideas and run it by you and the other wonderful folk here but in truth I feel very uncomfortable as I have had little meaningful feed back from my mates at the site Ron set up... but if I can I will post something if I can if for no other reason to show those who encourage me to use math see I do listen.
Have a great day I really enjoyed reading your reply
alex
Steven[/QUOTE]
