Richard Meic discussing "Time and Again        1/2" with me...
 KK>>>> I think Lerner overstates it somewhat.
 RM>>> Sure, but the refutational data that the Bigbagers don't want you to
 RM>>> know is there,... and on the internet if you are a persistent
 RM>>> searcher. ;)
 RT>> Maybe you'd like to post some of it in here so we can make our own
 RT>> judgements?
 RM> Well, I work for a living and do not have the time to post an entire
 RM> book on this echo.
 RM> I will give you the source and you can read up on it
 RM> yourself and draw your own conclusions.  "The Big Bang Never Happened"
 RM> by Eric J. Lerner.
I'm not asking you to post the entire book. Just start with his first point 
or his main point and we'll discuss it from there.
 RM> Then you may wish to read Hawking's "A Brief
 RM> History of Time" to get the other side of the story.
Read it. As to the "other side of the story" I think you must be jesting. 
Hawkings gives a non-technical overview of the Universe and the scientific 
principles theorized (and evidenced) to be behind everyday existence. You'd 
have to read a lot more than one book to understand the subject of cosmology 
with any real depth.
 RM> Here is a tip, be critical of BOTH.
I'm critical of everything. Here's a tip for you: read more than one book on 
a subject before you think you're an authority.
 KK>>>> Yeah, but it's also done by human beings, who sometimes fall in love
 KK>>>> with hypotheses.  One of the great virtues of scientific methodology
 KK>>>> is that science can correct itself.
 RM>>> Right, and my view is that they are not FOLLOWING the scientific
 RM>>> method.
 RT>> Who's "they"? Big Bangers? 
 RM> That is what I think.
What evidence have you of your assertion? What is the scientific method?
 RT>> I think you should read up on it a bit before you start saying
 RT>> scientists are deliberately ignoring things, or at least, post what you
 RT>> think they are ignoring
 RM>  I have read up on it a lot.
Which contradicts what you say below (which I have reproduced here)...
 [ start quote ]
 KK>>>> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what they're
 KK>>>> saying,
 RM>>> Ditto here, man.
 [ end quote ]
You agree here with KK that you don't read physics journals because you have 
no idea what they are saying.
Why do I think you're a liar Richard?
 RM>>> Hey, not being an astrophysicist and not having access to the time, 
 RM>>> money for the education, or the equipment leaves me with very little
 RM>>> to  work with,... I am left with logic.
 RT>> Have you read about the double-slit experiment? It DEFIES logic.
 RM> I have a vague recollection of it.
IOW's, you've never heard of it. It is one of the main features of "In Search 
of Schr”dingers Cat" by John Gribben, which you claim to have read in your 
next message to me. Why do I think you're a liar Richard?
 KK>>>> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what they're
 KK>>>> saying,
 RM>>> Ditto here, man.
 RT>> Yet, you think you're in a position to refute scientific ideas and to
 RT>> dispute the Big Bang model
 RM> Of course, for I am a human, I have a free mind, and I am not afraid to
 RM> use it.
But you have already admitted that you don't understand physics. How is it 
that you think that you can refute something you don't understand?
 RM> If you wish to just accept what is told to you without any
 RM> skepticism at all, that is your choice, but do not expect me to have
 RM> the same habit.
I'm not expecting you to do anything. Your life is your choice. All I would 
like you to do is outline why you think the Big Bang theory is incorrect as 
you have made that assertion. You do have a basis for your refutation don't 
you?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Just get your creationist bible out and save me the pain.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------