I'm doing laundry, so I have some time to point out where your facts are off. Again, I am making this clear that
I am not debating you. Debates are about opinions, and I am stating where you are just blatantly wrong about science, which is factual in nature. My technical training is in physics and astronomy, FYI. If you are genuinely interested in cosmology, a good place to start for an approachable technical description is with Ryden's introductory text on the subject (calculus required).
If you love science and, it is the study of the natural laws of the universe, you can apply Darwins general theory of upward evolution to the principle of a infinite solid state universe.
No, you can't apply Darwinian theory to the principle of an infinite solid state universe. Darwin's theory of evolution
only applies to how life changes and evolves. The only place where Darwinian theory is both applicable and testable is on Earth, with life on Earth.
Also, the notion of a solid-state universe was an early hypothesis that got thrown out on the grounds that experimental data is wildly inconsistent with the predictions of what a solid-state universe would require.
This is a position I respectfully fundamentally disagree with, science is the discovery of hard laws in nature, said Newtonian laws are cited, and used to establish hard facts all the time. Unless you care to refute the law of infinite time, or the law of infinite conservation of the matterial universe, my argument stands. However you would cease to exist instantly if either law is overthrown, and you would be going against the standard scientific position on these laws.
There's a lot of wrong in this post. I'm not sure where to begin.
There is no law of infinite time. There simply isn't. There are valid solutions to the
Friedmann equations that have the universe be in existence for a finite amount of time, and the
Lambda CDM model, which is the most widely accepted solution of the equations, given observed data, requires that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. There's also no "infinite conservation of the matterial universe" whatever you mean by that. There is the conservation of mass-energy though, and that's consistent with the current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe.
It's simply wrong that science is the discovery of hard laws in nature and that Newtonian laws are hard laws of nature. The best that science can do is find a very precise approximation. Future discoveries that challenge the scope of certain laws of physics might, and probably will, uncover that what we thought are laws are only approximate in certain regimes. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent example of this, since it's only valid for objects with non-relativistic masses and velocities. I don't know what your level of math is, so you might not understand this next sentences. The current best picture of mechanics of objects of any speed who's mass isn't large enough to need general relativity is special relativity. Since that law is valid at any speed, and since Newtonian mechanics is valid at low speeds, then one can
Taylor-expand the laws of special relativity about the
small parameter v/c and recover the Newtonian laws in the low-velocity regime. You can also do this with general relativity with the appropriate small parameters there as well. So while out current understanding of the laws of physics is incredibly powerful and useful, at best, they are just approximations.
Precisely science is the confirmation of what is known by studying what is. Big bang does not match the even dispersal of galaxies at all. And Red shift, (the proof for Big bang), is a joke, it's center point is earth, the odds of that are ridiculess, and where is the leftover massive black hole that would be floating out side your window. And the color of light traveling a long distance will always be red regardless of speed or movement. It is simply the unraveling of liner light bunches due to collisions with sub-atomic matter in deep space. I am not famillar with Hawings Radiation but was not impressed with his stance on the nature of black holes and he is a hardline Darwinist as was the creator of big bang. On the time, there is no such thing as time, what we call time is just the measurement of movement, and the presence of movement today automatically makes any interruption in the past impossible, (no state can create a dead universe rule). Wish I could go into the sub-atomic stuff... and new laws, but my stuff is so intertwined that showing one thing will show another.... Best wishes
There are a few things to address here, so I guess I'll do them in order.
"And Red shift, (the proof for Big bang), is a joke": No, it does not imply that the solar system is at the center of the universe. The most common way of visualizing it is a 2-D analogue of markings on the surface of balloon. If you take a balloon, mark it with a sharpie, and inflate it, the markings all get farther and farther away from each other. Since this analogy is talking about only the surface of the balloon as a 2-D universe, all points see each other expand farther away from each other, and no points are at the center, since such a 2-D surface has no center. The universe is like that, but with three spacial dimensions. That might not be the best way to picture it, but it is an incredibly useful tool to help understand how we can see everything expanding away from us (and yes, this is an observed phenomena) and not be at the center of the universe.
"leftover black hole": This is not a requirement of the big bang. It's possible for there to be smaller black holes that originated in the big bang that evaporated away via Hawking Radiation, but there's no data of that as of yet, and big bang cosmology isn't dependent on their existence.
"And the color of light traveling a long distance will always be red regardless of speed or movement.": Nope, this is blatantly wrong. Color is our perception of different wavelengths/frequencies of light. The speed of light is constant to all observers in all frames of motion. This is a
measured fact that the relative speed of whatever light is propagating from to an observer has no influence on the speed of light that the observer measures. In order to preserve the speed of light being the same in all frames of relative motion, intervals of
time and
length must change, which results in the
frequencies and wavelengths of light changing, hence color changing. These are observed facts, and the fact that this happens really isn't a matter of debate.
"Hawking is a Darwinisnt": Yeah, so? Like the overwhelming majority of scientists, he accepts the fact that evolution happened. No big deal.
I'm sure that if I really felt like digging deeper or spending more time on this than I already have, I could find many more scientific misconceptions that you have. Again, it should be emphasized that
this is not a debate. This is me, as someone who has had some technical training in the relevant fields of science, explaining that you don't understand what you are talking about. If you are interested in science, then I can give you recommendations of materials to help develop an understanding, but that's going to require an effort on your part to shake the misconceptions and misunderstandings that you clearly have.
