Andrew Cummins discussing "Space, Time, & Energy- B" with me...
 AC>> I've never been clear on what Big Bangers believe as they seem to
 AC>> always change their claims based on the evidence that they're trying to
 AC>> avoid.
 RT>> Where is this "evidence" that "scientists are trying to avoid" that you
 RT>> speak of? Please post it in here and let us make our own minds up.
 AC> Uh, dipsh*t,
 AC> don't treat "Big Bangers" as interchangeable with "scientists."
I'll treat them anyway I wish thanks.
 AC> Anyway... Consider the considerable evidence that quasars
 AC> are much closer than Big Bangers,
Illiterate.
 AC> such as quasars that appear to be
 AC> gravitationally bound to closer galaxies,
Appear? You would have to provide evidence that they are actually 
gravitationally bound first. Can you?
 AC> the jets that otherwise appear
 AC> to be faster than light,
If the jets are moving faster than light then they would be invisible ergo 
they're moving at sub-c speeds if we CAN see them. We CAN.
 AC> or the virtually impossible degree of sustained
 AC> energy output that quasars must have if of such a distance.
Impossible? Their existence clearly refutes this.
 AC> The Big
 AC> Bangers response to scientists finding such things is to censor their
 AC> papers and deny them telescope time.
I hope you have some evidence to back up this serious allegation? I'm not 
going to accept hearsay. Especially from someone who is trying to discredit 
science for their own purpose.
 RT>> While you're at it, maybe you'd like to post the "scientific theory of
 RT>> creationism"?
 AC> I would be most happy to post the "scientific theory of ceationism". 
But you don't have one. I know. That's why you're prevaricating on the issue.
 AC> However, because I want to most fully satisfy you, I need you to provide
 AC> an example by posting the Scientific Theory of Evolution(ism).
I don't have time to copy out that many books. Maybe you'd like to go to the 
library instead.
 AC> I will
 AC> reply in kind in terms of such things as supporting evidence and scope.
IOWs you have no intention of posting a scientific theory of creationism.
 AC> Now, fascist loser, put up or shut up.
 RT>> The difference between science and your religion is that science bows
 RT>> to observation. If experiment/observation disproves your theory then
 RT>> your theory is just plain wrong.
 AC> If that is not a lie, then show that it is true.
Read a history book. 
 AC>> But, it seems popular to believe that there wasn't anything close to
 AC>> enough gravity to hold things together (obviously, the mass of the
 AC>> universe is less than that of a Black Hole).
 RT>> Who is this "popular belief" held by? I've never heard of it. It
 RT>> certainly is not the belief amongst scientists.
 AC> Well, dipsh*t,
 AC> tell me what it is that "scientists" believe.
Go read a science book.
 RT>> The mass of the Universe is less than that of a black hole.
 AC> So, like the mass of a jar of marbles is less less than the mass of any
 AC> of the marbles?  If you're going to make such incredible claims, the
 AC> least you could do is provide some explanation.
This was your claim. The above sentence was preceded by this sentence:
Not only that, but let's look at your statement:
*You* made the incredible claim, and as you rightly say, the least you could 
do is provide some explanation. I'll expect one in the reply to this message. 
I won't hold my breath.
 RT>> Firstly, which black hole? Without stating the size of the black hole
 RT>> we have nothing against which to measure the Universe.
 AC> How did you move from mass to size?
If you are comparing the masses of two things then we usually measure their 
respective masses to attain their _sizes_.
You have a problem with that?
 RT>> Secondly, how big is the Universe? Without stating the size of the
 RT>> Universe we have nothing against which to measure the black hole.
 AC> You tell me... at the time of the Big Bang, what do "scientists"
 AC> believe  about the size of the universe?
Strawman. You made this statement:
The mass of the Universe is less than that of a black hole.
You did not specify the size of the mass of the BH nor of the Universe. How 
is one to test your assertion without these basic requirements?
 RT>> Thirdly, seeing as a black hole is WITHIN the Universe itself then the
 RT>> mass of the Universe includes the mass of the black hole and therefore
 RT>> the mass of the Universe is GREATER than the mass of a black hole, ANY
 RT>> black hole, and ALL black holes.
 AC> Make up your mind.
See above.
 RT>> From this I conclude that you haven't the first clue what you're
 RT>> talking about or of what you even say.
 AC> Thanks for the laugh.
I'll take that as an affirmative.
    Relatif Tuinn
... "Bother," said Pooh as he saw his friends dressed in black robes.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------