JEROME - Life and Linear Time

[joobz]

Pages of personal insults and no rational defense of BBT.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Pages of personal insults and no rational defense of BBT.

Okey dokey ...

Perhaps the problem is that no one (other than yourself) understands what you mean, when you write "rational defense of BBT"?

It's abundantly clear that you have your own, personal, view of what "BBT" means, and what "rational" means, and what "defense" means.

However, I suggest that it's almost as clear that almost no one who's posted in this thread agrees with your personal, private meanings of these key terms (assuming that they even know what these meaning are, which I very much doubt).

Maybe you could save a great many more pages by providing for us, all readers of this thread, with what you, JEROME DA GNOME, mean when you use the terms "BBT", "rational", and "defense"?

And while you're at it, how about answering my earlier questions, about "evidence" and "fusion"?

 

[Reality Check]

Jerome:
In summary, 1 poster accidently states that BBT predicted the precise temperature of the CMB. But there were various predictions of the temperature of the background temperature of the universe. You leap on this and say that BBT is wrong because it did not predict the exact temperature of the CMB. The original poster has said that they were wrong and BBT predicted the CMB but that there were various estimates of the CMB temperature.
This is support for BBT and any other theories that predicted a CMB.

So what is your issue?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes. I'd be interested to know what Jerome would consider a "rational defence". I've seen lots of evidence for the big bang theory posted to this thread - supported with links to journals and reputable sources. So I have this additional question.

Jerome - what kind of evidence would you consider to be sufficient enough to convince you? I understand that our mere say-so isn't enough. Peer-reviewed articles are apparently not enough either.

If the only way to convince you is to physically take you back in time so that you can watch it happen, then please say that. If you're that convinced that only direct observation of the event would convince you, then I and others can stop bothering you. Because in that case nothing would be sufficient and our efforts are futile.

Please Jerome - what would you like us to do?

 

[CriticalThanking]

Pages of personal insults and no rational defense of BBT.

Pages of posts and still no ability to admit a mistake.

Pages of hand-waving and still claiming (implication of statement, even if you somehow claim you have made no claim) that the majority of scientists are irrational or lying.

Pages of misrepresenting mathematics and Phil's statements on BBT, and still no willingingness to back them up.

And now you are stuck in a rut, claiming that you are being insulted and refusing to answer the simplest of questions.



CT

 

[aggle-rithm]

If the only way to convince you is to physically take you back in time so that you can watch it happen

Mmmm....I wouldn't recommend that procedure...

Besides the fact there there would be no space to sit in to watch it, I wouldn't imagine that the environmental conditions would be very compatible with human life.

 

[Upchurch]

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.

He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I still don't understand. Your only justification presented on this point is that he confused fission with fusion, of which ample evidence has been presented that he did not.

How, then, did he fail? What is your reasoning?