H2O

[pavelcherepan]

How do these hypotheses qualify as requiring none of what you demand of me? How does the "unless it is mainstream" not constitute, dare I say it, hypocrisy? Your methods that apply to a test tube do not apply to a planet, let alone a universe, or any reality beyond its manifestation that goads the scientific mind to find its causes. In short, it may have a purpose, regarding the "observers". Close this thread, I've already said goodbye three times, and yes, rules have a purpose. Your site, your purposes.

 

All of those you mentioned have mathematical basis and provide testable predictions that have been observed, while your idea doesn't.

[Pymander]

Sure they do! The predictions failed and the hypothesis was NOT abandoned, but even more speculative hypotheses were added for everything since Albert Einstein told Hubble that the universe was expanding. He did NOT offer an explanation that contradicts General Relativity, no less than he would provide a scenario where matter came out if the twilight zone at greater than the speed of light (just as plausible). Hubble took it to the ridiculous, and its getting worse right to the present.

 

You will notice that I accepted the figures didn't add up and I accepted that my hypothesis should be suspended for the present pending unknowns. I didn't even challenge the 1.6 GA (directly) although it wouldn't be hard. But if at the end I have to come up with experimental data and mathematical proofs of my assertions, what's the point. It's not my purpose to 'prove' anything of such a nature because it can't be. Science grows out of ideas, and as with Einstein's contemporaries, many people collaborate on them to achieve the paradigms. You expect this from me on a forum, or to just answer science homework questions instead? If that's what a forum is, it will take science nowhere.