Typing on a tiny screen, so my response will be limited.psyreporter wrote: ↑June 19th, 2022, 6:59 am It was by no means my intention to suggest a conspiracy theory.
The active protection of the Big Bang theory is simply something that I have perceived to a phenomenon for which I have sought an explanation. The banning and questionable 'deletion' of a post on Space.com is simply an example. My posts were neatly written and not suggestive of a conspiracy theory. Also, the replies by dozens of users were serious and some shared the perspective posed in the OP. The post about the Big Bang theory seemed popular and a success (qualitative discussion).
@Astro Cat do you believe that the story about the history of the Big Bang theory and the questions that I thought to be applicable are indicative of the thought of a conspiracy theory?
It seems apparent that I simply seek an answer to the simple question what the motive of Albert Einstein has been to do certain things that - in combination - seem questionable in nature.
For example, when you look at the information in my previous post, there is this additional fact that Albert Einstein's profound critical stance with regard the expanding Universe theory - two years after the discovery by Edwin Hubble - was just a year before he 'suddenly' admitted to priest Lemaître that he was wrong.
Einstein then uses the public argument that he was convinced by 'listening' to a beautiful creation story, and then, which in my opinion is exceptionally questionable in the face of the preceding facts - for example the habitual misspelling of Edwin Hubble's name in a scientific paper that was mysteriously lost and found in Jerusalem half a century later - joins priest Lemaître on a tour across the USA to promote the Big Bang theory.
My last comment was referring to the post just above it that was filled with anti-Semitic myths, think I even saw Holocaust denial implied from the context (though I don’t know for sure).
My comment wasn’t directed at you.
I’ll be addressing your OP when I’m at my PC and have access to some images and plots I put together for a couple talks I gave on baryon acoustic oscillations and constraining the dark energy with high redshift supernovae.
To respond to your post I’ll have to establish several things about how we know the expansion is real (it’s not a Doppler effect by the way, for instance: the local motion of galaxies relative to each other, called peculiar motion, does give the Doppler effect but redshifting from expansion is not the Doppler effect).
I’ll have to establish how we know the density parameters of radiation and baryonic matter, then also of dark matter, then why the remaining density parameter is the dark energy.
I’ll basically walk through a refutation of most of the post and an explanation for why we use the cosmological models that we use: how we know it, and why these “problems” brought up aren’t really problems. It’ll be fun!
