[boxed]

> Yes, an expanding universe can help provide a means by which there might be an observable beginning to the cosmos, but the desire and need for such a beginning provides a mechanism whereby an expansion theory might quickly and easily become a preferred paradigm.

This sentence shows you don't understand the history of how we got here. When Einstein published the theory of relativity he added a constant term to an equation to enable the theory to describe a static state universe. This goes totally counter to your "conspiracy theory". In fact he missed a shot at predicting the big bang theory!

[Bradley_A_Pliam]

Your argument is not that effective for any who do not see evidence of a big bang. Steady state seems unlikely, perhaps a crude starting point, but it was closer to a model of the universe with sources and sinks, which are abundant and are everywhere.

Clearly Einstein missed his opportunity to lead the way in devising a theory of quantum mechanics, he was using his intuition and his method of thought experiment, and did not progress our understanding there. But when it comes to larger, more stable phenomena, I'm not so sure his intuition was so far off

[boxed]

I'm not arguing for anything really. Just pointing out that your interpretation of history is incorrect.

[Bradley_A_Pliam]

What part is incorrect? That there is a desire and need for an observable beginning? That I said it "might", in other words, could potentially have come into play? I don't think you know that this has not happened. How can you possibly know? You are entitled to believe what you like, but use the word "incorrect" when you know something is false. Something is not necessarily false just because it contradicts your beliefs!

[boxed]

> That there is a desire and need for an observable beginning?

Yes. That part. Hinduism doesn't have it. And again: Einstein explicitly added a constant term to an equation to make it so that his theory did NOT imply a beginning. He wasn't Hindu mind you. He was Jewish!

> You are entitled to believe what you like, but use the word "incorrect" when you know something is false

That seems a bit much honestly. It's like Christians saying "you don't KNOW there is no God!!!". But yea.. I do. I also know the fact about Einstein above.

Just because SOME people want to show there is a start of time, doesn't mean it's the prevailing scientific theory for that reason. In fact, again like I said above, we know this isn't so as a historical fact.

[Bradley_A_Pliam]

I'm not putting forth any "conspiracy theory". You should know that human preference can cause people to act individually and independently in ways that conform to that preference. This is not conspiracy, it is confirmation bias. Groupthink may be at play, but this is also different from conspiracy because there is not necessarily any deliberate plotting to control going on necessarily. So with all the gradations of stuff in between extremes, you've not only placed me in an extreme, you've chosen the wrong extreme.

[boxed]

Sure. But your stated idea of what the group think is, is counter to what it was historically. Einstein screwed up his most significant life work to conform to the OPPOSITE of what you think is the group think.