rationalskepticism.org

harleyborgais wrote:The One Simple Principle is as you say, very poor in grammar. It is too hard to read and respect. It seems to be an interpretation. I only looked briefly.

I wasn't asking your opinion on One Simple Principle at all tho. Pretty much everybody knows it's woobery, apart from the author himself.

The heating of Enceladus is not important to me because it does not seem like an important factor in progressive development of our reality.

It is important to however to OSP by the way of being claimed as evidence for it. Similarly, you will want to present empirical evidence and predictions supporting your theory. Start with the best observations that agree with your theory that aren't explained by the competing theories and work your way on from there.

The Geometrodynamics is very technical with all that jargon. I try to avoid such field-specific terms, but sometimes it is still needed.
Probably the only way I am going to tackle that theory is if someone shows me something special about it.

Dr. Pitkänen has provided numerous examples on his pages showing why TGd is the correct theory of everything. That should be quite special enough. Obviously, I'll have to accept that you can't be bothered to take a serious look at it but I'm sure you also understand that this leaves me confused as to why I should be more convinced of the explanative powers of your theory than I am of TGd -- both claim to be "it" after all and they don't seem to agree on all points

Oh and the triangle next to the Quote button is called the Report button. You can use it to report any posts you don't think are on topic or are otherwise against the FUA (which, I'm sure, you have at least cursorily perused) to moderators. HTH.