You can't debunk me, you just think you can. You are a believer with no original thoughts, pushing back at ideas that challenge what you have been told.

What can you say that proves ANYTHING one way or another? You have nothing.

Ah, yes, the descent into epistemological nihilism. "Can we really know anything for sure, man?" That was pretty fast, actually, it usually takes longer than half an hour.

Anyway, that's a great example of the kind of thing that, indeed, makes conspiracy theories very hard to debunk: at this point you've practically admitted you're not interested in reason. That's why it's not worth it to try. Hence, the existence of the downvote button.

Nice fake words, who cares Marxist? I'm absolutely the opposite of agnostic "We can't prove anything", I'm telling you that you can indeed know, if you stop believing the fake science pictures.

I'm not saying "we can't know" i'm saying YOU CANT KNOW based on your sophistry and unscientific beliefs. You can't think far enough to reason that what I'm saying INVALIDATES YOUR SCIENCE. Start from there. Validate your science against what I have said in these comments (you have to aggregate it across all the others I just debunked).

Out of morbid curiosity, I actually did read the rest of your comments. I still don't see anything besides "light could be refracted in ways that confound your model" and "infinity is non-physical". And also getting more explicit with the conspiracy rhetoric. I'm prepared to believe you didn't realize it, but that's pretty much exactly the epistemological nihilism I expected. I very much doubt whatever wacky theory you think replaces standard cosmology can survive the tests you're trying to apply here, where it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation. Which means by your standards, it's impossible to know anything.

Instead, in the real world, we go with Occam's razor until we get evidence strong enough to shake us out. It's not perfect, but it beats the crap out anything else we've tried.

FWIW, you're probably not completely wrong about infinity. I rather suspect singularities are not physical, and quantum gravity will erase them. I know there are some mainstream physicists agree. Cosmological distance and event horizons are here to stay, though.

Also, still not a Marxist. That only gets funnier every time you repeat it.

> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation.

> Occams Razor

Pick one.

My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. My goal is to bust the cosmology everybody is being told. I'm using examples from mine to invalidate the standard, because all I know is the truth, why would I make this up?

You think the cosmology in question satisfies Occam's Razor because it's simple to you based on what you have learned and been told. Sure the model does some neat things, and all of them down here on Earth. Yet the system is clearly anything but simple, it's AN INFINITELY OPEN SYSTEM allowing for a lot of "things that need to be explained". Occam's Razor is precisely why you should be suspicious.

If my cosmology is simpler you won't believe me still. You can't believe anything else until you you cease believing that any real science has ever been done on the cosmos. Observation alone not 'nuff.

FWIW, my cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Expansion is a mirage of light convolution, all the way until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor. (NOTE: The standard model does not prove "everything in the universe is moving away from each other", it extrapolates that from the appearance of redshift in all directions; expansion is not "observed").

A new cosmology doesn't have to explain everything that the standard model does, because most of that is black hole fiction.

The funny thing about my mention of marxism is that most of the cosmological pushback I got came under that comment rather than my first one. It was the marxism that that did it lmao.