Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

It's not a religion because if a better model is discovered, scientists will be ecstatic at the idea that they've refined their knowledge and tossed out the old. Science is a constant work in progress that is open to change. The opposite of a dogmatic religion. Sometimes flawed and wrong, but the best standard we have for converging towards truth. How can you not see that?

Heliocentrism is the most dogmatic "religion" on earth - in my opinion.

Your opinion is the most dogmatic religion on earth, in my opinion.

we are all told we live on a ball before we can even think for ourselves - and then never questioning it for the remainder of our lives - that is a dogmatic belief!

That hasn't worked re. the Big Bang ...... according to Elroch, that has turned into steady state. A lot of physicists were telling me it was heading that way over 15 years ago ... yet ...

According to the steady state theory of Hoyle/Kapp c. 1959, it's the result of entangled space and mass reaching the end of its half-life.

I think it's the only reasonable explanation ever put forward. Steady state of course.

It's a completely brilliant hypothesis.

Complete nonsense. There is no excuse for you not being able to understand my multiple comments that the fact that the state of the Universe is observed to have changed dramatically over its history proves wrong the steady state theory (whose definition is that the large scale description of the Universe is independent of time).

This scientific conclusion is not a recent one - it has held since Hoyle's ideas were first found to be untenable. The Universe has changed enormously as it has aged and will continue to change enormously more.

I have explained to you how an intelligent person can correctly INFER that we live on a ball.

What I can't do is get you to infer this, but that is irrelevant to the facts.

Is being able to calculate the paths of cannonballs a "religion" to you as well?

How about doing arithmetic?

The truth is you haven't got a clue what any of science is: it is beyond you, and you ignore the relevance of the fact that you can't do it and others can.

Let me underline that point to you - scientists have an understanding of the real world that enables them to accurately predict how it behaves in a huge range of examples. Your crackpot nonsense doesn't enable you to do that. That means they are right and you are wrong. That's the scientific method in action.

I might understand your comments better than you, since I'm more familiar with relevant aspects of steady state.
You are referring to visible portions of the universe having changed.

You would do well to learn not to talk down to people. The universe has aged enormously but so have some theories of universal progeneration. Hoyles ideas were full of flaws, as was the initial Big Bang idea. Kapp improved greatly on Hoyle. Their ideas were only found untenable if the Big Bang were accepted as true.

The dubiousness of your beliefs is illustrated by your reference to "Kapp", someone who didn't collaborate with Hoyle at all.

I read his book around 1968. He was accepted as one of the world's leading experts on hypothesis formation and this was his test piece.

"He didn't exist" and you're laughing at me?

Sorry, you're funny.

I clarified that by saying there is no Kapp who collaborated with Hoyle.

It took me a while to identify an engineer of this name who posted philosophical musings of no great significance relating to cosmology, but he had no connection with Hoyle, nor was he a cosmologist, astronomer or physicist. You are probably referring to his "Towards a unified cosmology (1960)" which apparently has some following against eccentrics on the Internet, but has no scientific standing (as a work by a non-expert with no involvement in the field).

Remember anyone can write a book and give it any title.

Oh. They didn't collaborate openly, so far as I know. But since they were physically located only a few miles from one another and since Kapp mentioned Hoyle ....

Yes, Hoyle was emminent and famous. Everyone knew of him and his somewhat eccentric views.

His scifi novel, the Black Cloud, was a great read.

A work of great brilliance. I read it and found some mistakes in it but the basic hypothesis is astoundingly brilliant and the rationale for accepting it which he gives is first class. I think it's correct because it's so perfectly devised that it's difficult to imagine that it is mistaken. You ought to read it before judging, although I accept that it appeals to minds that perceive the big picture.

Reading it wouldn't necessarily lead you to accept it or agree that it's brilliant although maybe flawed. But if you don't read it, you cannot form a judgement.

Elroch - we all have our own little bits & pieces of heliocentric info.

some of the "greatest minds" on the subject e.g. Michio Kaku etc. have come up with all kinds of theories as you well know and the imaginations of others is limitless when it comes to books, movies, documentaries etc. etc. as I mentioned already - Anything Goes !

no one can know everything .

In the book Kapp predicted acceleration of universal expansion and dark matter, both before they were dicovered. It also gives a quantum explanation for gravity which I find appealing.

One of the best things Hoyle did was to dare to say Jocelyn Bell should have been one of the recipients of the Nobel Prize, not just her supervisor.

Maybe I'm just an eccentric. But I tend to agree, against my better judgement.

That's a good example of the conservatism in the field. There's a big difference between an expert, say in maths, and an intellectual who is also creative.