[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.