Richard Meic discussing "Time and Again        1/2" with me...
 RM>>> Well, I work for a living and do not have the time to post an entire
 RM>>> book on this echo. I will give you the source and you can read up on
 RM>>> it yourself and draw your own conclusions.  "The Big Bang Never
 RM>>> Happened" by Eric J. Lerner.
 RT>> I'm not asking you to post the entire book. Just start with his first
 RT>> point or his main point and we'll discuss it from there
 RM> Refuse to read it, if you wish.  I refuse to do your research for you.
Research? I thought you said you'd read the book?
 RM>>> Then you may wish to read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" to get
 RM>>> 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 and
 RT>> the scientific principles theorized (and evidenced) to be behind
 RT>> everyday existence. You'd have to read a lot more than one book to
 RT>> understand the subject of cosmology with any real depth
 RM> Hawking ALSO give a fundamentalist's point of view of the BB theory, 
 RM> "God" this and "God" that, why not just cut the crap about a mythical 
 RM> unprovable being and do the damned science?
I'm going to go out and get another copy of this book as I can't find mine. 
Which page does he state this on, because I don't remember it myself (and no 
I'm not calling you a liar I simply don't remember)?
 RM>>> Here is a tip, be critical of BOTH.
 RT>> I'm critical of everything. Here's a tip for you: read more than one
 RT>> book on a subject before you think you're an authority
 RM> I have read many books on
 RM> the BB theory.  On top of that, you will have  to show me now where I
 RM> stated I was an "authority" on the BB theory. Can't do it, can you? 
In order to refute the BB theory one would have to understand the concepts 
and evidence behind it. As you think you are in a position to refute the BB 
theory I therefore conclude that you must be an authority on it. However, 
maybe you're talking to the wrong person here. Maybe you should be telling 
the scientists themselves about their inadequacies. They'd put you straight 
far better than I can.
 RM> Know why?  Because you are a lover of the "strawman" argument.  Not even
 RM> a nice try,... you got to do a LOT better then that
On the contrary, this is no strawman and in direct relevance to your ability 
to refute a complex theory such as the BB. As I state above, one has to be 
well versed in the subject before one is in a position to refute it. You're 
not in that position.
 KK>>>>>> Yeah, but it's also done by human beings, who sometimes fall in
 KK>>>>>> love with hypotheses.  One of the great virtues of scientific
 KK>>>>>> methodology 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.
 RT>> What evidence have you of your assertion? What is the scientific
 RT>> method?
 RM> If you do not know what the scientific method is, then this
 RM> conversation (I use the term lightly) is ended. Talk about ignorance.
Strawman argument. You've carefully avoided giving any evidence for your 
assertion that BB theorists are not using the scientific method.
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
 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
 RT>>>> 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 here)...
 RT>> [ start quote ]
 KK>>>>>> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what they're
 KK>>>>>> saying,
 RM>>>>> Ditto here, man.
 RT>> [ end quote ]
 RT>> You agree here with KK that you don't read physics journals because you
 RT>> have no idea what they are saying
 RM> Physics Journals are not written the same as those books available to 
 RM> the common people.
And because you've read a couple of popular science books you think you're in 
a position to refute the BB theory? As I state above, you're not an authority 
despite your wish to believe that you are. As you're not an authority then 
you're in no position to offer valid evidence to support your assertion.
 RT>> Why do I think you're a liar Richard?
 RM> Because you just want to be as offensive as possible.  I understand,
 RM> really I do.  You feel you are inadequate so you must be unduly
 RM> aggressive to feel like a big shot.  It's not like I have NEVER run
 RM> into your kind before.
ROTFL. "your kind". ROTFL. What you mean is that you get upset by people who 
spot your inconsistencies and bar no holds in telling you so.
 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 "In
 RT>> Search of Schr”dingers Cat" by John Gribben, which you claim to have
 RT>> read in your next message to me. 
 RT>>  Why do I think you're a liar Richard.
 RM> Cut the garbage and converse peacefully with me or you will have no
 RM> more conversation with me.  I prefer ADULT people to converse with, not 
 RM> children.
I take that as an admission that you've never read the book as I asserted. 
You have offered no evidence to the contrary.
 RM>>> Of course, for I am a human, I have a free mind, and I am not afraid
 RM>>> to use it.
 RT>> But you have already admitted that you don't understand physics.
 RM> Strawman argument, it will be ignored.
Not a strawman at all. As stated above, one has to be knowledgable of a 
subject before one is in a position to refute it. You've clearly stated an 
agreement that you do not understand physics journals - a prerequisite to 
understanding physics that you admit you do not possess.
Your assertion that BB theorists are incorrect and/or are not using the 
scientific method is therefore an argumentum ad ignoratum.
 RT>> How is it that you think that you can refute something you don't
 RT>> understand                       
 RM> Strawman.
Not a strawman at all. As stated above, one has to be knowledgable of a 
subject before one is in a position to refute it. You've clearly stated an 
agreement that you do not understand physics journals - a prerequisite to 
understanding physics that you admit you do not possess.
 RM>>> If you wish to just accept what is told to you without any skepticism
 RM>>> at all, that is your choice, but do not expect me to have the same
 RM>>> habit.
 RT>> I'm not expecting you to do anything. Your life is your choice. All I
 RT>> would like you to do is outline why you think the Big Bang theory is
 RT>> incorrect as you have made that assertion. You do have a basis for your
 RT>> refutation don't you
 RM>           To bad you chose the aggressive mode to communicate.  You do
 RM> not  interest me, nor does your hounding.  Bye.
IOW's you've been caught out at the first hurdle.
    Relatif Tuinn
... Assembler Code: PIC: Permute Instruction Codes
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------