Replies

["Actually, what you gave me was a textual explanation that was incorrect and made assumptions that are incorrect."]

So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...

Just about all of it, actually. You just made a lot of claims you didn't even attempt to support (apparently they're just based on your own presumptions, which you mistake for established fact), and revealed a lot of basic misconceptions you have about physics.

But since all attempts to get you to "show your math" have been met with your usual brand of evasions and excuses and insults (in all my time watching you on these threads, that's *all* I've seen you do when asked to do any mathematical at all -- I have yet to see you produce any beyond basic arithmatic), here, let's turn it around -- feel free to explain, "textually" or otherwise, where the following might be in error (since it must be, if your "textual" ramblings are correct): The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems.

(Now *that's* math...) Feel free to explain how, why, and *specifically* where, you find a flaw in it. Because it makes sense to me.

Also, feel free to explain why, exactly, when most people encounter something counterintuitive in an established field of science, would think to themselves, "hmm, that doesn't make sense to me, but since thousands of physicists have worked on this over the past decades and don't seem to find a fundamental flaw in it, maybe I'm just misunderstanding it and should ask some questions to clarify the matter", instead *you* consistently and reflexively think, "hey, I don't see how that could work, so without any doubt, 'THE THEORY IS HOOEY'..." Really, please explain this to me -- what sort of mental state leads to such public exhibitions of ludicrous presumptuousness?

Or -- and I ask this in all seriousness because I often consider it a very real possibility whenever I see you participate in a physics thread and I'd really like to know -- are you just trolling?

So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...

"Just about all of it, actually." - Ichneumon

My whole point above was that the other poster couldn't just wave a magic wand and exclaim his dislike of my analogy with a Mozart-esque "too many notes" complaint about the opera.

...Precisely the same error that you replicated above.

If you have a specific complaint about my textual analogy, then succinctly quote the precise words that displease you, and point out in black and white your problem with said words.

But just tossing around non-specific complaints such as "all of it" won't cut it. Show the sentence or sentence fragment, then identify your precise problem with said sentence or fragment.

This is of course something that you personally fear doing because you know that I will destroy your specific complaint in my response.

You'll have to live with that cravenness.

"But since all attempts to get you to "show your math" have been met with your usual brand of evasions and excuses and insults (in all my time watching you on these threads, that's *all* I've seen you do when asked to do any mathematical at all -- I have yet to see you produce any beyond basic arithmatic), here, let's turn it around -- feel free to explain, "textually" or otherwise, where the following might be in error (since it must be, if your "textual" ramblings are correct): The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems. (Now *that's* math...) Feel free to explain how, why, and *specifically* where, you find a flaw in it. Because it makes sense to me."

Post #381 does the math, while posts 388 and 392 expand upon the specific, itemized flaws...all 3 of those posts combine to send the paper that you linked in Post #317 to History's trash bin alongside the discredited and disproven Inflationary Theory.

since thousands of physicists have worked on this over the past decades and don't seem to find a fundamental flaw in it, maybe I'm just misunderstanding it and should ask some questions to clarify the matter", instead *you* consistently and reflexively think, "hey, I don't see how that could work, so without any doubt, 'THE THEORY IS HOOEY'..." Really, please explain this to me -- what sort of mental state leads to such public exhibitions of ludicrous presumptuousness?

My guess...one or more of the following: megalomania, hubris, narcissism, conceit -- in combination with ignorance, anonymity, and a need for attention.