Alfred Maddenstein writes:
"Given the new perspective provided by the ideas presented herein, observations imply that the universe does not have an age; 'old' does not even begin to describe it. The Universe is apparently a rational, observable and understandable physical manifestation of eternity, which is a newly emergent scientific fact that has profound implications.
So now we have Mayer's assertions rather than your own. At least that is an improvement. But these are still not leading to any discussion that allows us to accept or reject Mayer's conclusions.
As far as can gather you are insinuating that Mayer is somehow a cryptic supporter of the Big Bang hypothesis and I am failing to reflect his truly moderate views
Well, no. I'm trying to draw you out into a discussion. There is no question that Mayer's hypothesis is different from the standard theory. The question is whether there is reason to believe Mayer is not a crank.
But the first step is to get you to discuss Mayer's position, and the arguments for that position. We're over 50 posts in, and as best I can tell, you aren't planning to present anything other than assertions.
Otherwise, NoNukes, my assertions may become demonstrably false like you allege they are only after yourself have conclusively demonstrated the possibility of nothing existing in any physical shape. Pending that, they are demonstrably self-evident. Pending that, they are demonstrably self-evident.
Nobody here owes you any refutation. You haven't even presented any evidence for Mayer's conclusions. Further, you've presented distorted descriptions of current theory.
If you are simply satisfied with your own belief, then you needn't have bothered starting a discussion thread.
™ Version 4.2
