Posted: Nov 14, 2010 12:29 am
Assertions quoth thus:
Why would I need to quote a scientist, when I am citing well-established scientific principles? Do you really need me to cite Einstein for the principles of relativity, or is it that you doubt the citation of the size of the cosmos? If you really need these principles cited, I am perfectly happy to bury you in empirical verification of the principles of relativity and the implications thereof.
Even if we were to take the size of the cosmos, for the sake of this pretty silly discussion (especially one conducted with somebody who purports himself to be a mathematical genius, such as yourself), as only being that which we can observe, namely 27.4 Gly across, that would still require that a radio signal that left the outer edge of the observable cosmos would have to have originated at the big bang for us to detect it. This is further based on the assumption that we are actually employing the means of communication that our hypothetical signallers were using.
This isn't scientific argument, but empirical fact, which your palindromic fucknuttery seems ill-equipped to deal with.
Perhaps if you stopped looking for connections between arbitrary values, you might actually learn something about reality.
your comprehension of what these arguments are is meager, to say the least, and you're demonstrably incompetent at making a good scientific argument
Why would I need to quote a scientist, when I am citing well-established scientific principles? Do you really need me to cite Einstein for the principles of relativity, or is it that you doubt the citation of the size of the cosmos? If you really need these principles cited, I am perfectly happy to bury you in empirical verification of the principles of relativity and the implications thereof.
Even if we were to take the size of the cosmos, for the sake of this pretty silly discussion (especially one conducted with somebody who purports himself to be a mathematical genius, such as yourself), as only being that which we can observe, namely 27.4 Gly across, that would still require that a radio signal that left the outer edge of the observable cosmos would have to have originated at the big bang for us to detect it. This is further based on the assumption that we are actually employing the means of communication that our hypothetical signallers were using.
This isn't scientific argument, but empirical fact, which your palindromic fucknuttery seems ill-equipped to deal with.
Perhaps if you stopped looking for connections between arbitrary values, you might actually learn something about reality.