Strange

You need to show, in mathematical detail, that your model produces the same results as the experiment (and therefore as quantum theory). Without that, all you have are baseless assertions. And there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously.

You are still talking nonsense. "The space-time model" IS relativity. So one cannot be right and the other wrong. You either need to justify this claim, with mathematics and/or evidence, or you need to admit you are wrong.

Quantum field theory incorporates (special) relativity.

He has pointed out that there is no real basis for myths, that you have little knowledge of the Big Bang theory (an objective fact) and commented on your behaviour (coming to a science forum and making emotional accusations about the inadequacy of science). Nowhere did he say, or even suggest, that you are an idiot. For someone who has come here to attack scientists, atheists and materialists, you are remarkably sensitive to perceived but non-existent insults.

No. The only description of space-time that I am familairwith is that from relativity. Now, where is your EVIDENCE that relativity theory is wrong?

No it doesn't. The concept of "now" (and before or after) depends on the observer. I am not asking you for maths and evidence for relativity but for your own personal theory. You are the one who is claiming that space-time and relativity are different things.

Doh. Of course it is. I knew that. Honest. I would have given you a +1 on both posts if they had remained separate!

This is correct. But Lemaitre did publish an estimate of the expansion rate, based on the red shift data, a couple of years before Hubble’s paper. (There is some interesting history around this. I can’t remember the details but part of Lemaitre’s paper was omitted in the translation for some reason)

And what evidence is there that confirms your idea and falsifies previous theories? What does your model say about light propagating in a vacuum? What evidence is there that should make us accept this concept? What are we supposed to do with that information? Can you provide a link to where your idea is published?

Maybe you should start a thread here (in the cosmology section) to ask what the Big Bang model actually is, how much we can be sure of (and why), what we don't know, etc. For example, the Big Bang model starts with the universe in a hot dense state. It says nothing about how we arrived at that state, it says nothing about "creation", etc. Because we have no scientific theories that work beyond that initial hot, dense state.

I am reminded of this, whenever I see this post:

Science can perhaps tell us how much fear is useful and when it becomes destructive.

In the movie Bridge of Spies, Mark Rylance's character, Rudolf Abel, is repeatedly asked things like, "Aren't you scared?" to which he always replies, "Would it help?"

Scientists, eh. Always concerned about the details!

In my case, it is the other way round. I have worried less about it as I have got older. I probably haven't worried seriously about it for 30 years. (Apart from the odd medical worry.)

Is it? What do you base that on? I know plenty of atheists who are thoughtful, kind, modest, ... I don't find that at all surprising. There might be a tendency for conservatism to be associated with religiosity, particularly in the USA perhaps, but it is not an absolute rule. I'm sure there are left-leaning fundamentalist religious types as well. There are many atheists where the "a" seems to stand for "anti"; they can be very strongly anti-religious. Richard Dawkins is one, and I despise him for it. There are also several on this forum (who I occasionally get into arguments with because of it!). My attitude to religious belief is similar to my attitude to golf: it is incomprehensible and of little interest to me. I don't disapprove of people who have faith and I certainly don't despise them. Faith has prompted great acts of human kindness, the creation of beautiful music, etc. (And, obviously as the anti-theists will rush point out in their usual whataboutism, has also been used to justify inhuman acts.) What I will argue with is people trying to use evidence or logic to justify their belief (or lack of belief), or saying that science/evidence must be wrong because some book says so, etc. Hello. Nice to meet you.

And I suppose I can't really understand why anyone would think it wasn't. But we should all be tolerant of each others' beliefs. I'm not sure why anyone would argue that. It sounds a bit like the argument that "atheists must be immoral because they don't have a god telling them what is right or wrong".

So? Science isn't going to help you anyway. And there are plenty of scientific people who are religious. And most major religions accept the conclusions of science. It is only a few fundamentalist crackpots who create a conflict between science and religion.

How do you know that? (I have, and I have no idea if it is better or worse to believe in an afterlife or not. Maybe believing that gives you some comfort.) Only one of those is a science! Maybe you need a priest or a psychiatrist. Or both! I don't know. But I certainly don't think science (or arguing against science) is going to help.

I don't mind you down voting this. But I do want to say that it wasn't intended as an insult. You have made a number of claims about science which are clearly either false or demonstrate a serious lack of understanding. As I have said before, I think you should learn more about the scientific theories you are criticising before criticising them. Being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant to varying degrees. There are many people here who know a lot more than me about a lot of things. (And I doubt there are any subjects where I know more than anyone else.) We can all learn. And one of the great things about science is that there is always more to learn. Including, sometimes, that what we have learned before is now wrong! There have been several major paradigm shifts (like revolutionary changes) in science just in my lifetime. And I can't wait for the next one. I don't care if it is that consciousness IS a function of the brain or proof that it ISN'T. Just bring it on. I gave him an upvote for that! He did manage to express it better than me.

Pensrose has always had a problem with consciousness arising in the brain (see his "Chinese Room" analogy for example; it is fundamentally flawed but in quite subtle ways). As such, this is just his attempt to find some "non-mechanistic" explanation. I'm not sure how quantum theory helps as it is still deterministic, even if probability plays a larger role than in macroscopic reactions. He should know this, but this is driven by his personal beliefs. Hence it is not good science.

I have seen no evidence that you have learnt much, if any, science at all. So your reading may be very broad but it also seems to be exceedingly shallow. So shallow as to be useless for making any judgements about science.

So someone made it up. And you are repeating it. Why? Why don't you learn what the Big Bang model actually says. For example it says nothing about the "creation" of the universe.

Of course

I see no reason to think of consciousness as a (possibly illusionary) emergent phenomenon of the activity of the brain. As such, it just ceases to exist. Other will have other opinions/beliefs. It is pretty much impossible to prove that consciousness doesn't continue but, on the other hand, no one has ever produced any compelling evidence that it does. Why? Quantum mechanics says nothing about that. There are all sorts of fake "thinkers" who claim there is some connection. But that seems to be on the bass that "quantum theory is mysterious" (in other words they know nothing about it) and "consciousness is mysterious" therefore they must be related. Which is a total failure of logical thinking. People are enormously varied and have very varied beliefs.