> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation. > Occams Razor Pick one. My goal is not making you believe my cos

> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation. > Occams Razor Pick one. My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. My goal is to bust the cosmology everybody is being told. I'm using examples from mine to invalidate the standard, because all I know is the truth, why would I make this up? You think the cosmology in question satisfies Occam's Razor because it's simple to you based on what you have learned and been told. Sure the model does some neat things, and all of them down here on Earth. Yet the system is clearly anything but simple, it's AN INFINITELY OPEN SYSTEM allowing for a lot of "things that need to be explained". Occam's Razor is precisely why you should be suspicious. If my cosmology is simpler you won't believe me still. You can't believe anything else until you you cease believing that any real science has ever been done on the cosmos. Observation alone not 'nuff. FWIW, my cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Expansion is a mirage of light convolution, all the way until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor. (NOTE: The standard model does not prove "everything in the universe is moving away from each other", it extrapolates that from the appearance of redshift in all directions; expansion is not "observed"). A new cosmology doesn't have to explain everything that the standard model does, because most of that is black hole fiction. The funny thing about my mention of marxism is that most of the cosmological pushback I got came under that comment rather than my first one. It was the marxism that that did it lmao.