Oddly enough, the above text was the only part of your post that had anything to do with
@sjastro 's challenge, off topic thought it may have been. (Don't worry, you don't get anywhere near the topic of this thread in the rest of the post.)
For some reason you want to argue (poorly) about astrophysics. So let it be...
That's a bit vague and for some raisin brings this clip to mind:
You think we don't know who Henrietta Leavitt is? Seriously? If you want unsung, try Cecelia Payne. Not knowing Leavitt is like not knowing Salpeter or Jansky.
Everything is science is provisional, you know that. But what change in the calibration of the Leavitt relationship are you expecting to make the astronomers all look like fools for using it?
That was Albert Einstein's postulate. The consequences (relativity) are clear and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be accurate.
Perhaps you should read up on measurement theory, calibration ,or systematic error. These vague accusations are getting you nowhere. (Technically, they are at rest with respect to your local reference frame.)
So you have claimed before, but I am awaiting empirical data that fits your proposed model of you.
"Distance a variable"? What is this jibber jabber. Your random keyboard spasms don't make sense without context, Mike. We don't read minds. (Like other things in the paranormal zoo, mind reading is bunk.)
I hope your professors don't see your posts here.
It's Fred Hoyle and he really didn't like the whole "finite expansion" model. He hated it so much he gave it a mocking name "the Big Bang" and invented his own "steady state" expanding cosmology where new matter continually kept coming into existence. Part of that was force by his *own* work on the origin of elements and demonstration of how heavy elements could be generated by stars from H/He -- A result that is perfectly compatible with the BB itself. Hoyle's idea wasn't exactly popular (nor was Alfven's "plasma cosmology") and fell apart as more evidence was collected, particularly the CMB and comparisons of abundance measurements to the results of "Big Bang nucleosynthesis" (the initial composition of the Universe's stars). And here we call back to Cecelia Payne who demonstrated that stars were mostly hydrogen and helium. (Sure Feynmann laid the basis for QFT in his dissertation, but Payne figured out what stars are made of in hers.)
Albert Einstein was not comfortable with the expanding/contrating spacetime solutions so he included a new term that didn't interfere with anything else GR did. Was it needed? (No, not at that time.) Was it counter to evidence? (No, it was not.) Parsimony required no cosmological constant in contructing GR, but the lack of evidence for expansion or contraction of space meant it probably wasn't the best thing for space to go around expading or contracting willy nilly.
Yep, that's right, when Einstein added "Lambda" to the GR field equations in 1917, there was no data that the Universe was expanding. Hubble was still a Ph.D. student at Yerkes, and would not discover the recession of the spiral nebulae for another decade and after moving to live on a California mountain. (Perhaps you did not get to this in your study of model building, yet. Keep up the study. You'll get there eventually.)
That was a bit incoherent. The Universe *is* expanding. Recent measurement of lambda do leave open the possibility of oscillating models again, but "the Big Bang" is still happening.
I wish you people would learn that "observer" in QM is not a thinking agent. It is just another system that is interacted with.
Projection.
You claim vast experience in "math modelling", but your long history of posts does not match those claims.
LOL.
I've read hundreds of his posts and only seen those replies when the other poster is obnoxious, arrogant, and obstinately ignorant.
Why is that relevant? Did your wife run off with an astrophysicist? Does
@sjastro confuse you? He's not an astrophysicist, but an amateur astronomer and works (ed?) in industry.
Speaking of claims I don't buy...
So are they arrogant or humble, pick a lane.
Don't care. Niether poety or theology are based on facts. They are irrelevant.
This is just part of your petty fight and not interesting.
Have you never heard the proverb that "Thou shall reap what thou hast sown."? I thought it was more common, though it arises from an obscure bit of Greco-Judaic writing you may not be familiar with. Perhaps you also know "An elephant never forgets" or "Once Bitten, Twice Shy". The latter comes from you island 50 years ago, but was made more popular (as is often the case) by Americans.
