What you fail to realize is that without an understanding of the mathematics, you have no basis with which to comprehend, analyze and critique modern cosmological theory.
It's not that I don't understand the math, it's that I believe the math is contrived, much like the math's related to planetary epicycles when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Math alone tells us nothing. Without physics, empirical physics, those maths really mean nothing. They are essentially slapping math to the side of a metaphysical pig, much like numerology. Our human ignorance should not be "covered up" by "making up" stories about magical forms of energy and matter that have never been seen on Earth. That's pure rubbish with nice looking math.
As I have often said, I am a layman with enough mathematical training to generally follow the these subjects, but I lack the specific training to totally grasp them.
There is a distinct difference between "grasp" and "believe". It's not that I don't grasp the concept, I simply lack belief in these mythical forms of matter and energy much like the epicycle example. Sure, *IF* these mythical forms of matter and energy existed, it would be fine. The problem is *IF* magic existed, it too would be "fine". There's no empirical distinction between magical forms of matter and energy, and the contrived ones that prop up mainstream cosmology theory.
Consequently, when I have had discussions (debates) with the experts on this forum,
Ah, you played right into Tim's hands then and bowed tot he high Phd Priest of the religion, not based on demonstrated cause/effect relationships, but due to some feeling of mathematical inadequacy within? Hmmm. Interesting.
although I may retain some scepticism,
IMO it's been awhile since you've shown any skepticism toward mainstream theory. Their trio of unseen mythical forms of matter and energy are at least as impotent in the lab as any religious deity. What's the empirical difference?
in the end, I have no choice but to yield to those with a superior understanding of the subject.
Ya, and many "sinners" simply accept the words of clergy for exactly the same basic rationalization IMO.
It would be bizarre for me to retain and attempt to defend some alternative theory which more comfortably fits my limited knowledge. How could I challenge a prevailing theory if I do not thoroughly understand it? It would be just plain silly -- but that is precisely what you are doing!
That's not true. I simply lack belief is some form of mythical "dark energy'. I'm sure we are fundamentally unaware of the sum total of energy inside the universe, but it has nothing to do with "dark energy", just "human ignorance". This crew won't even accept the fundamental principles of physic and electrical engineering. What hope do they have of "understanding" an electric universe with that attitude? Everything they don't don't "understand" the chalk up to what Alfven called "pseudoscience", or some mythical form of matter or energy. The whole thing reeks of "religion" and requires absolute faith in the "unseen" and some bizarre emotional need to put the magnetic cart before the electric horse.
Sorry PS, I really wish I shared you "faith" in mainstream theory, but the more papers I read, the less "faith"" I have in any of their impotent forms of matter and energy. Our ignorance is what makes most of the universe "dark", not mythical forms of matter and energy. We don't even apply the physics we *DO* understand properly to objects in space yet. What's the point then of making up stuff on a whim and slapping on some math?
!
