Salutatio Relatif!
17-Mar-98, Relatif Tuinn wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again        1/2
 RM>>>> Sure, but the refutational data that the Bigbagers don't want
 RM>>>> you to know is there,... and on the internet if you are a
 RM>>>> persistent searcher. ;)
 RT>>> Maybe you'd like to post some of it in here so we can make our
 RT>>> own judgements?
 RM>> Well, I work for a living and do not have the time to post an
 RM>> entire book on this echo. I will give you the source and you can
 RM>> read up on it yourself and draw your own conclusions.  "The Big
 RM>> Bang Never Happened" by Eric J. Lerner.
 RT> I'm not asking you to post the entire book. Just start with his
 RT> first point or his main point and we'll discuss it from there
Refuse to read it, if you wish.  I refuse to do your research for you.
 RM>> Then you may wish to read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" to
 RM>> get the other side of the story.
 RT> Read it. As to the "other side of the story" I think you must be
 RT> jesting. Hawkings gives a non-technical overview of the Universe
 RT> and the scientific principles theorized (and evidenced) to be
 RT> behind everyday existence. You'd have to read a lot more than one
 RT> book to understand the subject of cosmology with any real depth
                                                                      
Hawking ALSO give a fundamentalist's point of view of the BB theory, 
"God" this and "God" that, why not just cut the crap about a mythical 
unprovable being and do the damned science?
 RM>> Here is a tip, be critical of BOTH.
 RT> I'm critical of everything. Here's a tip for you: read more than
 RT> one book on a subject before you think you're an authority
                                             
I have read many books on the BB theory.  On top of that, you will have 
to show me now where I stated I was an "authority" on the BB theory.
Can't do it, can you?  Know why?  Because you are a lover of the
"strawman" argument.  Not even a nice try,... you got to do a LOT better
then that
 KK>>>>> Yeah, but it's also done by human beings, who sometimes fall
 KK>>>>> in love with hypotheses.  One of the great virtues of
 KK>>>>> scientific methodology is that science can correct itself.
 RM>>>> Right, and my view is that they are not FOLLOWING the
 RM>>>> scientific method.
 RT>>> Who's "they"? Big Bangers?
 RM>> That is what I think.
 RT> What evidence have you of your assertion? What is the scientific
 RT> method?
If you do not know what the scientific method is, then this conversation
(I use the term lightly) is ended.  Talk about ignorance.
 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
 RT>>> what you think they are ignoring
 RM>> I have read up on it a lot.
 RT> Which contradicts what you say below (which I have reproduced
 RT> here)...
 RT> [ start quote ]
 KK>>>>> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what
 KK>>>>> they're saying,
 RM>>>> Ditto here, man.
 RT> [ end quote ]
 RT> You agree here with KK that you don't read physics journals
 RT> because you have no idea what they are saying
Physics Journals are not written the same as those books available to 
the common people.
 RT> Why do I think you're a liar Richard?
Because you just want to be as offensive as possible.  I understand,
really I do.  You feel you are inadequate so you must be unduly
aggressive to feel like a big shot.  It's not like I have NEVER run into
your kind before.
 RM>>>> Hey, not being an astrophysicist and not having access to the
 RM>>>> time, money for the education, or the equipment leaves me with
 RM>>>> very little 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.
 RT> IOW's, you've never heard of it. It is one of the main features of
 RT> "In Search of Schr”dingers Cat" by John Gribben, which you claim
 RT> to have read in your next message to me. 
 
 RT> Why do I think you're a liar Richard.
 
Cut the garbage and converse peacefully with me or you will have no more
conversation with me.  I prefer ADULT people to converse with, not 
children.
 RM>> Of course, for I am a human, I have a free mind, and I am not
 RM>> afraid to use it.
 RT> But you have already admitted that you don't understand physics.
Strawman argument, it will be ignored.
 RT> How is it that you think that you can refute something you don't
 RT> understand                       
 
Strawman.
 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
 RM>> have the same habit.
 RT> I'm not expecting you to do anything. Your life is your choice.
 RT> All I would like you to do is outline why you think the Big Bang
 RT> theory is incorrect as you have made that assertion. You do have a
 RT> basis for your refutation don't you
         
To bad you chose the aggressive mode to communicate.  You do not 
interest me, nor does your hounding.  Bye.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com) 
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------