In recent postings one of the new members Schneibster has given certain interpretations and asserts that the same are the prevalent mainstream views...since the views expressed by him are not held by many here and objectsions were raised, so it is pertinent that we all understand what is prevalent mainstream position on these points. [Moderator: You don't have the right to demand an answer. The named user has put you, according to recent posts, deservedly on ignore. In every case, you would have been better served writing a simple essay stating in positive terms what you believe and why you believe it rather than trying to tear down the position of another which you may not be fully equipped to understand.] I had requested Mods to clear the air, even Schneibster urged Rpenner to put forth his views on one of the points, but he is yet to make any comments. [Moderator: You don't have the right to demand an answer.] I would request Rpenner/James R to give their views and also if possible organize some authoritative responses; are we missing Tashja ? 1. Cosmological Redshift is Doppler Shift. [Moderator: Observationally, cosmological redshift is indistinguishable from Doppler shift or gravitational redshift. Theoretically, anything less than full treatment in GR is subject to attack. Rhetorically, anyone starting a new thread to debate someone's breezy pop physics analogy commits an error by not citing the original claim in context. Socially, to start a new thread makes you look like you lack maturity and are engaged in a campaign of harassment.] 2. Spacetime is a thing (in Physical sense), otherwise how will it have curvature etc. [Moderator: What is treated like a real thing in physics is the geometry and curvature of space-time just like the electromagnetic field was treated like a real thing in Maxwellian electrodynamics. But relativity shows what was important in old EM theory was not the description of the E field and M field in any one set of coordinates but the geometric description of the EM field in general coordinates. So provisionally (until a better theory of space, time and electromagnetism comes along) the geometry of space-time is treated like a real thing. Colloquially, this means space-time is real thing. Arguing about if that's true is specious, unimportant and the promotion of form over substance. Creating a new thread to argue about that without citing the original claim in context is a breach of civility and best practices.] 3. Big Bang happened after Inflation. [Moderator: Big Bang cosmology is the observation that the earlier universe was hotter and denser and more uniform without empirical limits. All times when the universe was too hot and uniform to allow stars to form are part of Big Bang cosmology, because such conditions were terribly at odds with the old competitor called Steady State. Inflation is a mechanism proposed to allow the early universe to be super-uniform. To rigorously address any hypothetical first event in Big Bang cosmology one needs a theory of physics which correctly describes such events, which has never been part of the conversation. But many aspects of Big Bang cosmology must have happened long after the period when any hypothetical inflation mechanism was important and therefore after the hypothetical first event. Therefore this sentence makes no sense bereft of original context. Inflation, if it happened, was important during part of the Big Bang early universe. So creating a new thread to argue about it as if it was another's simple claim is a disservice to the forum community and betrays either a misunderstanding of cosmology or a willingness to write nonsense.] I completely disagree on first two as his views are not the mainstream views, may be these views are held by a minority of Physicists but they do not represent the mainstream. [Moderator: Citation required.] Point # 3 is totally different from what is known to people at large, but this is a Hypothesis over Hypothesis, extremely speculative scenario leading to multiverse etc. So this cannot be termed as mainstream as yet. [Moderator: Nonsense.] I will take up one by one....not my opinion but the opinion of mainstream guys, educational institutions.....Schneibster has to prove them wrong or outdated....or retract. 1. Cosmological Redshift is not Doppler Shift..... List is endless...either these people are giving incorrect or outdated version of mainstream or Schneibster is pushing an opinion held by a few....He must retract or prove them wrong.