"Bruce is our Forum relativity expert. I am not.
However, I have now read it more carfully. I cannot say for sure that it is all correct, for lack of training in relativity. My training is in EM and QM only. But I do have some comments."
For many topics shall we allow Ruquist to appoint this forum's "expert?" If Ruquist is not an expert, how can he evaluate Bruce's expertise? Who is Ruquist to determine for us that Bruce is our relativity expert? I am inquiring as to how the title of this forum's "relativity expert" or "expert" in anything is conferred.
Ray and Dr. Dick each have last names and websites
dealing with issues related to relativity.
Bruce has no last name shown nor a web site with his papers or resume'. * He stated, as I remember, that he does not work as a physicist. He has been very hostile to several persons on the forum, including Ray, Dr. Dick, and myself.
Sure...writing long paragraphs about a topic is no more proof of expertise than the same ability in Aristotle's day should convince us their ideas should hold up today. This is as true of Bruce as it is of Ruquist, Harv, Dr. Dick or Ray.
This is not bickering and if anyone says it is, they are the "rat of the day" in my opinion.
* (I would be willing to go into more detail about my readings, coursework and experiences in science and God issues if anyone really cares. But it will be a value-for-value exchange. You tell a story and I'll tell a story,
alternately. I can post some papers too.
Our topic on this forum is God and Science, not just astrophysics. Authority in God and Science topics does not proceed directly from work history and degrees in space science until it is proven those are sufficient to claim authority outside space science itself. Certainly there are forums for discussing such topics, unfettered from my comments.)