I am not saying it is not. I have no way of knowing that. — Hachem

Well actually you do if the predictions of the models match the experience of the observations.

All my threads attempt to show that this is far from obvious and beyond doubt. — Hachem

That is why they are crackpot in the sense of just not understanding the nature of scientific claims.

You are always aiming your doubts at the apparent intuitive content of scientific theories, when it is only their theoretical structure that counts. That is the very definition of tilting at windmills.

That is why they are crackpot in the sense of just not understanding the nature of scientific claims. — apokrisis

That is why there are cowards that only choose what seems to make them sound right, and refuse to look at alternatives.

That is why Einstein said to his audience of scientists " yesterday you all believed in the ether".

You belong in that audience. You are not a scientist but a bigot.

That is why there are cowards that only choose what seems to make them sound right, and refuse to look at alternatives. — Hachem

Perhaps you could justify your approach based on an actual philosophy of science argument? Science is happy to consider alternatives. But they do need to be scientific ones - some formal proposal, not simply angry arguments aimed at apparent intuitive content.

If you have a formal alternative, I've certainly missed it. But then I quickly gave up reading your posts after responding with care to your first and finding you seemed only interested in manufacturing bizarre interpretations of existing successful models.

nope. I am done with your ( you and the Friends) evasive maneuvers. Let us talk empirical facts instead of theoretical generalities.

The "empirical facts" are the product of theoretical systems of measurement. So if you want to question them, you actually have to offer a better theory that could question them.

As I say, you are just making half-baked attacks based on your own intuitive beliefs. That is not how science works. It is how psychoceramics works.

@MikeL

Sorry for this side show. I will refrain from further off-topic comments.

In my continued reading on the discussion topic, the following caught my attention as being of relevance:





(From Seven Briefs Lessons On Physics by Carlo Rovelli).

As one can tell from these pictures, according to these models, a smaller-sized ball of the universe would contain stars with a shorter distance between them than those of a larger-sized ball of the universe. The smaller-sized balls represent either an earlier stage in an expansion or a later stage in a contraction, and vice versa with regards to the larger-sized balls.

This was my earlier point.

(Off-topic anti -science polemics will be deleted. Please do not reply to them, but flag them instead.)

If we are contracting in all directions we would have disappeared in a moment. I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here.