If you know some math, then what primary terms or axioms are you chalanging? Or you even challange logic?

Also maybe you are the only one alive and we all the rest are your dream? We can\t prove to you it is not true so if you are dogmatic about things then we are wasting our time trying to use reason here.

You have to read this whole thread now. Infinity is the main problem, Math wise. The standard model is not only incomplete science, it is totally mucked math. Infinity isn't real, but is being used as such in the model, so that's regress/tautology.

I already told another marxist i'm not arguing for not-knowing, I'm arguing against believing dogma, I'm invalidating your science first, then we can get to mine. You are arguing for your beliefs in the face of invalidation, so you come up with arguments claiming i don't think we can know anything. I didn't say that.

So, why not do something actually constructive/

Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?

Destroying modern cosmology is constructive! They can't lose their cosmology, because hundreds of years will come due if that happens. Because theirs spins whole fake world, but it really provides no meaning, only fantasies (aliens, black holes, worm holes, weird mathematical phenomena played out in the model).

The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth.

I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together.

You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars.

Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...

So you have shit, you read a blog about some mathematical paradoxes about infinity and now think you somehow are smarter then everyone else.

Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively.

I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.

Models don't predict anything about space or the universe. We can't do anything out in the universe, only down here in earth atmospheres. You'd rightly assume somebody daft if they suggested using economic models on the universe, but not quantum physical models.

I'm not pushing my models or cosmology, I'm destroying the lie of academic cosmology based on weak rational sciences. I cannot convince you of another cosmology if you can't disbelieve what you've been told. You believe science has actually been done on the cosmos, because measurements.

You believe big bang, black holes, entropy and heat death, and infinite space, rather than reckoning those are things that disprove. You believe thermodynamics is universal and eternal, despite the fact that life itself breaks with them, and is older than most of your "stars" in "space". You deny your own existence to believe in scifi universality.

No internet link is going to convince you otherwise.

My guess is that you think God created everything around 5000 years ago in 6 days right?

tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Science is ideological at the point.

That is cheap words, show me a better mathematics or a better science or a better model. Black holes were proposed by theory and thought experiemnts and then we found them, this tells me the model were good. Now your move, tell me what your model predicts and let's see if you can prove it.

You found a black hole? Show me the black hole, I want to see it! Is it next to the big bang? Is it closer the infinitely expanding edges of the universe?

If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe.

You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe.

I copied from another commend of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day.

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. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far).

Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.

Can you link to your super simple model? Does it have a name? I would read about it/ I read a book that was promoting the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton, I like interesting ideas but they must also have some inteligent stuff in it , even if our universe is not based on your cosmology maybe it is a valid thing that an universe could be based on.