Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Hi origin.

Sad to see you haven't learned anything by your last faux pas which I called you on about not just parroting facile 'explanations'.

It's a well observed phenomena that the troll mentality is overly fond of the cowardly cheap shot once his target has left and the troll thinks won't be coming back in the room just because he was finished with the existing conversation in that room.

Well, mate, you didn't disappoint. You came in 'on cue' as it were, the troll and his cheap shot.

So, since you still post facile 'explanations' which indicate you have no real understanding of that which you are pretending to 'explain', then one must conclude that you either didn't pay attention in class or that what they taught was framed/demonstrated in such a way as to only fill you with the minimum of understanding of and a maximum of ASSUMPTIONS. Obviously your facile 'explanations' are useless when it comes to actually explaining all the ASSUMPTIONS you were filled up with 'by rote' SUBCONSCIOUSLY sufficient to 'pass the exam' designed based on those very same 'by rote' ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, since you have nothing but ASSUMPTIONS which you cannot explain without making facile and useless 'explanations' that do not explain anything but are circuitously arguing those very assumptions you are so full of, then it is safe to say that the silliness is of your own 'bringing' into any thread where you troll and/or pretend to be 'explaining' anything at all when it comes to the deeper explorations and challenges of all those 'by rote' assumptions built into your 'explanations'.

Enjoy your cheap shot mentality, assumptive troll....because that's all you've got apparently!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: bye-bye!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi

Which one was that? I will look back if I get time.

Cheap shot? you were the one that said we are taught by rote. Cowardly? It would seem that way to a moron I suppose.

You don't want explanations you have your own ideas and they are unaffected by any information that goes against your beliefs.

You frame your questions like a lawyer designed to abfuscate and attempt to shut down discourse so that you can cling to your preconcieved notions that are demonstratedly wrong.

Here's to hoping..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was exactly my impression of him too. The whole cheerful Aussie attitude is just a there to keep us off balance. I found it difficult to even read his arguments. It was like there was a fog in the way. You could never quite pin down what he was saying. And if you tried to he would just claim he never claimed that. Just like how he argues his ideas, but has never released his TOE, so he can always just fall back and disclaim anything he says as just openmindedly supporting other people's TOEs. Very slippery fellow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi.

Please read my latest to your latest in the AE&C section thread under "Centre of Universe". It's demonstrated there how and why you are wanting and not always quite the one qualified to judge and opinionate as you do.

So, double standards again? You swan around and drive-by and troll and insult and ridicule even when you are not even in a position/qualified to explain/correct something/someone, and now you complain that someone has called you out about your parroting and repeating unthinkingly your obviously uninformed and out-of-date 'learned-by-rote' so-called 'explanations which are nothing of the kind in fact? Oh dear.

And the 'cheap shot' is where one drives by and posts insults about someone who has said they had posted their last post in a thread and LEFT. You came by and took a cheap shot when someone said they were GONE, and you thought they would not come back to defend themselves. What do you call it, when someone does that, so necessitating the other guy who had left to EITHER come back to defend himself against your cheap shot, OR not come back and leave your cheap shot 'hanging there' unanswered? Honourable? Hardly. It is the hall mark of the troll and cowardly to engage in bagging the other guy when he has been banned of is not able to come back and reply to your trolls/insults, especially when a thread has been closed and he is prevented from responding. That is cowardly and cheap shot behaviour, all there in your and your 'troll gangs' posting records. Too easy to tell who the cowards and cheap shot rolls are. Just follow the pattern in the record.

I ask questions. You have not been able to answer properly. You kneejerk and troll and ridicule but do not actually address the point made, but just ASSUME conveniently that I do not want an answer so that you can 'justify' evasions and insults and trolls to no end except to boost your ego and entertain 'the gang'. You are no scientist if that is what you 'default to' in lieu of honest engagement of the matters actually under question/discussion. So the problem is yours, not anyone else's. Do better.

That is a proven LIE. It is just your 'rationalizations' and 'generalizations' for justifying your laziness and biased reading (if you bother to read at all what I have tried to point out when questioning). Just because you are NOT qualified to understand subtleties and complexities which my questions are directed to treating/discussing, you default to pretending I am at fault and etc etc. Blame the victim of your laziness and prejudicial way of 'doing science discourse' like a troll and immature ego-tripper. Not a good look, mate. Correct it.

Again, go check out the latest exchange in the AE&C section "CMB Photons" and "Center of Universe" threads and you will see why you should LISTEN PROPERLY in future if you are not to confuse and troll discussions like you and your 'gang' do in preference to actual exploration of the contentious and subtle questions that STILL REMAIN in the current INCOMPLETE and sometimes SELF-CONFOUNDING so-called 'explanations' such as you and your gang like to parrot without any real understanding of the IMPLICATIONS of what you are repeating so glibly and predictably in lieu of actual engagement with the complexity and subtlety involved in the questions/discussion points raised AS raised and NOT as 'misrepresented' by your lazy/malicious attitude/reading.

...that you'll wake from your troll/silly nightmare personna and actually THINK before you 'correct' something/someone when YOU haven't a clue what's what about the subject matter you are pretending to 'explain' from self-confounding assumptions and interpretations which explain nothing about the matter under discussion.


Good luck and good thinking (eventually, I hope) to you, origin; and do better.

RealityCheck.

 

Just because it's all over your head too, as it sometimes is for origin et al, you are in no position to judge. Avoid 'herd mentality' and peer pressure to 'conform', especially pressure from trolls and opinionated incompetents pretending to 'know' or 'explain' something from an out-dated and ill-informed and ego-based biased reading/interaction which does nothing for advancing science discourse in areas where it involves subtle and complex matters NOT YET SETTLED in the current orthodoxy. Don't trust anyone who pretends to explain as origin and brucep have 'explained' in the "CMB Photons" and the "Center of UNiverse" threads. Read the latest exchanges there and see for yourself the feet of clay of these much self-vaunted 'resident experts' who childishly offer facile and self-confounding 'explanations' which 'explain' nothing but their incompetence when it comes to DEEP CONSIDERATION of the IMPLICATIONS of the subtleties and complexities I and some others have pointed to for proper discussion. They fail and pretend they are not the problem.

Mate, before you fall into line with the gang/troll mentality of 'resident experts' who are nothing of the kind except in the incestuous mod-troll circles they move in across the internet, take time to read EACH person on their own merits and posits/questions, without preconclusionary and biased reading influenced by these gangs who are ego-trippers pure and simple, and care not a whit for exploring those questions which still remain in the unsettled professional theories extant.

One must have integrity and take the risk of troll/mod silliness and biased double standards if one is to do anything original on internet forums like these. That should not stop one from trying to think and discuss things through FOR THEMSELVES. Else what are these forums for. Just 'blogs' for troll gangs"?

Anyhow, no hard feelings or grudges; it's already water under the bridge; for I have more important things to do with my time than to worry about trolls and silly ego-trippers (like some I could----and have-----mentioned) who go round pretending to be qualified to judge anything important that is way over there 'learned-by-rote' level of comprehension/understanding. Try NOT to become one of these, Cheezle; I trust and hope that you'll prove to be better than that in the end!

Good luck and good thinking to you, Cheezle, everyone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

RealityCheck,

I think I've been consistent so far and I've been trying to give you the simplest of logic to guide you away from error. Why won't you answer the question I asked you? Until you understand the difference between EM wave propagation and acoustic wave propagation, you are hopelessly mired in a "medium" theory. EM waves are fundamentally different. I set up the problem to teach you the difference. Think of it as a learning experience and give it a shot.

I set out my definitions as soon as I entered into this nutty dialogue. Normally such definitions would not be necessary. It's the naive remarks you've made that encouraged me to do so, to help you discover your error. I defined space as the absence of any matter, the absence of aether and the absence of anything that interacts with matter. This is really a specialized definition of "outer space" rather than space in general, but I'm using this one to accommodate your skewed thinking.

Here you will have to reflect back on the more generalized definition of space given in your primary school math books. You may recall that space has all kinds of properties.

One of my favorites is the Euclidean distance. It's great to know that several hundred years BCE, the question that's stumped you was already well developed:

\(d\quad =\quad \sqrt { { ({ x }_{ 2 }-{ x }_{ 1 }) }^{ 2 }+{ (y_{ 2 }-y_{ 1 }) }^{ 2 }+{ ({ z }_{ 2 }-{ z }_{ 1 }) }^{ 2 } } \)​

I'll stick with actual science since pseudoscience is utterly bogus. Speaking of differentiation, that's another intrinsic property of space. A point integrated over one dimension yields length. A line integrated over a second dimension yields area. An area integrated over a third dimension yields volume. Pi is an intrinsic property of space. The rotation about an endpoint (in two dimensions) of a line segment of length r traces out a circumference of 2πr. This intrinsic property of space has great significance to the magnetic permeability and to the path loss of a field or wave over a distance r. And so on.

Is this a parody of Groucho Marx? That's actually funny.

In other words instead of simply relying on the laws of nature, you've decided to legislate what nature must do.

Sure they do. You would know that if you attempted my sample problem above. You'll never get anywhere with this until you can speak to similarities and differences between acoustic and EM waves. It's your fundamental flaw that you're avoiding this discussion.

I understand your reticence to face the music and come clean. Denial is the leading characteristic of pseudoscience. It's also accompanied by delusions of grandeur, to the point of believing you have your own TOE. You don't even have a theory of space on par with a primary school math text. That puts you thousands of years behind the curve.

Since you're running from the simple problem I put to you, I'd like to go ahead and offer a consolation prize. Here's the property of space that confers path loss in fields and waves:

\(\frac { 1 }{ 4\pi { r }^{ 2 } } \)​

It's the fundamental property of space that projects the strength of a field on any surface from a point source of mass, charge or dipole, and it applies to the gravitational, electric and magnetic sources. If you're looking for your projector, there it is, not needing any medium at all. Notice how π enters as a fundamental property of space, projecting the energy of a point source to the surface. Until you can grasp this, you're stuck in a mindset of Aristotle's Prime Mover (acoustic) theory, only without Euclid's theory of space to help you differentiate between EM and acoustic waves.

 

I do try and think for myself. And I will give an example. But first let me say thinking for yourself does not preclude agreeing with orthodoxy and disagreeing with more radical views such as yours. ( Or vice versa.) Newton said he stood on the backs of giants. I am not as picky. Us beggars can't be choosers.

Now for the example. Perhaps you can help with it. I watched the link to the video you wanted people to watch. It seemed pretty standard fare. Been there, done that. Then the video got into the idea of conservation of momentum with the billiard balls. Showed how the pythagorean formula was involved. But then I thought, hey wait. In the vicinity of a large gravitational object, the space is not exactly euclidian. The balls if idealized would transfer their momentum in an euclidean way since any curved surface is euclidean in the infinitely small region of the ideal collision (I think, need to take topology class). But the momentum would carry the balls on curved trajectories through the non-euclidean space. If their speed was above escape velocity then they would fly off into flatter space and the directions of their momentums might not add up and conserve momentum due to the non-euclidean space they had been in. I don't know. Sometimes like the case of gravity and center of mass. Things cancel from the equations and you get a very interesting answer, like Newtons Shell Theorem (inside). Now being the skeptic that I am, I was not willing to accept this ball collision idea (either way). Momentum is supposed to be conserved, as you said. I know that I am no expert and not the first person to think of this. The answer could be that if the balls momentum was not conserved then perhaps the gravitational object absorbed some of it so it really was conserved. I don't know. It is another question I can write in my "question" notebook. Maybe someday I will look into it, after I learn more. So as you see, I am a born skeptic. I don't accept anything without a very good argument. So I do think for myself.

I often have these questions but am not going to make a pest of myself by constantly sidetracking threads.

But I also know that sometimes when a person says "think for yourself", what they sometimes mean is, "ignore the orthodox expert and think like me." Odds are that is not a great idea.

 

I decided to try and find some point relative to the thread or even any science in the above post, by just deleting the parts that didn't.

What you see in the above quote is only there to provide a beginning and ending. Even they speak nothing of any science.

I am in no position to complain about long winded over talked posts. Even posts where the intent is not always clear. I do run on and ramble.

But there was nothing I could find in the above referenced post that was anything other than a reflection of what apears to be anger and contempt.

When posts like the above come to dominate any discussion of science, or really any discussion, the discussion is over and all that remains is name calling and insults.

Even a discussion on a subject like the luminiferous ether, in the Alternative Theories folder, which would get little real consideration by the scientific community today, doesn't deserve.... And the really sad part is that it seems to represent something rooted deeply in the poster's purpose here. Even where one can find some discussion of science it seems there is always some shadow of this darkness.

 

Aqueous ID,
You seem to be arguing that a medium is unnecessary.

Acoustic waves are longitudinal waves that propagate via the compression of a medium made of molecules.
EM wave propagation is a transverse electromagnetic wave that propagates at a speed set by the properties of the vacuum \(c = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}\).

Aether is the medium that sets the constants (c, permittivity, permeability); without those then there is no light. In your space, nothing interacts with matter (including light), so E=mc^2 doesn't exist. In fact the standard model doesn't exist. Such a space has not been observed. Why would you define such a space?

The mathematics describes physics just fine. Nobody here is arguing otherwise. All were saying is that mathematics does not cause anything to exist. It only describes objects that behave mathematically.

Accoustic waves propagate by compression of a particulate medium. Electromagnetic waves propagate at the speed permitted by the characteristics of space-time.

Mathematical space.

The medium of space does indeed behave like \(e^{i \pi}\). One could make the argument that nature is implemented by the physical manifestation of math. Such a physical manifestation of math would simply be a medium with that characteristic.

 

Hi Cheezle.

What video I wanted you to watch? I posted no link/video for my perspective. Did you read where my perspective differes from Mazulu's and other's, including the orthodox one? I only mentioned some differences in general, and said you will read all about it as soon I am published. Whatever you and others discuss here will be between yourselves and the science/logic to determine the merits/possibilities of one way or the other, but your post/comments have no bearing on my perspective as such.

See your when I get back from my imminent absence for a few weeks to finish my work.

Thanks. Bye.

 

It was in reply to the comments and attitudes expressed to me by others. I was urging more courteous and TOLERANT (like people are of YOU) treatment of people and ideas and discussions. Can't you see that?

You appear now to have become part of that problem. You keep not only misconstruing others' posts/points on the science side, but also biased read others commentary in response to OTHERS' commentary and troll attitudes.

You have now become a joke, bumbling into and across others threads spreading cross-purpose confusions and mealy-mouthed posts like that above which makes you look like you are pandering to the worst kind of peer pressure from those whom you say 'tolerate' you and don't ban you for some of the silly things you have posted while other genuine posters who only wish to discuss without the trolls and spoilers get banned for it and you remain 'immune'.

Stop appeasing the troll-mod brigade, mate. You are losing your integrity and whatever objectivity you began with before your recent slide down the path of appeasement and join troll-mod brigade.


For further proof (again) that brigade exist and flourishes here, just take a look at what prometheues and origin have been up to in the Center of Universe thread in the AE&C section while I was away overnight (here).

origin said 'he tried'. But all he tried was to again misconstrue the facts/questions/points, and insulted again.

When I pointed out how and where he misconstrued and failed to answer, he posted another evasion and insult. Then prometheus came along (so obligingly, as usual) to CLOSE THREAD before I could point out where again origin failed and evaded.

But before that could happen when I came back this morning....THREAD CLOSED to protect the incompetent 'resident expert' and trolls.

Familiar pattern? You bet. Undeniable.

What's the bet that before long the CMB Photons thread will be closed after another mod-troll combo farce to protect the 'resident expert' caught out in making wrong and unthinking 'explanations' which raise more questions than they answer? Wait for it; because neither Syne nor brucep et al have any sensible/consistent reply to the questions asked of THEM to support THEIR claims without further insult and evasion. Guess who will get banned for THEM not being able to support THEIR claims? You guessed; the one asking the questions they cannot answer properly. That's what one has come to expect with prom and his troll pals pretending to be objective scientists/mods while acting like that. What a joke!

And now you want to become a part of that? Good luck to your conscience and integrity, OnlyMe.

 

You are conflating my fundamental energy-space perspective 'universal medium' with the various other higher order "aether" media differentiations of it. So most of your arguments refer to others' 'media', not mine. So I leave you and others to argue politely about those other perspectives while I proceed to complete my TOE. Thanks.

And please note well: the 'gravity spread/diminution behaviour' "property" of 'space' which you mention is only mere abstract geometry description which is MUTE as to the actual underlying physical propagating mechanisms in reality, so it does not even pretend to address the question of what's at root of reality in actual physical energy-space features/medium/properties terms. Apples and Oranges. You keep to the apples approach; I follow the oranges approach and we'll meet somewhere in the fruit salad bowl when I finish my TOE!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is a gulf of difference between mere mathematically described 'geometric spread' radial VECTORS and 'propagation process' physical energy-transfer FEATURES and MECHANISMS. Until you get that, you keep posting stuff about abstract LABELS instead of actual physical MECHANISMS which underlie those abstract labels.

And the vacuum is not space. It is a higher order differentiation of that more fundamental energy-space in my more complete and consistent TOE perspective. You seem to flit back and forth between such concepts, and still bring abstract labels rather than the underlying reality you have abstracted and have stopped looking for.

But that's OK. You keep the abstractions and labels approach, I shall proceed with the reality and mechanisms approach. Live and let live, I say! And no hard feelings.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good luck and good bye for a few weeks, Aqueous Id.

 

I followed your advice to origin and read the Center of the Universe thread. The first post in that thread was about the video. As I said I don't get much out of your posts since they are foggy. So the thread's idea was forefront. You keep telling us that we don't know your position and won't until the big unveiling of your theory. Hard to follow an argument from a man who will not state his position. Anyway, it was late, I had just completed a problem set for class and was exhausted. (I think I spouted another TOE thinking about the change in non-euclidean space and momentum.)

 

You do realize that you just complained about a property of space being just mathematics and then turned around an bragged about a mathematical property of the aether frequency wave. Consistency ... Oh wait, never mind, you are using that non-linear space alien logic again. My bad. Please continue on about your mathematical medium.

 

Talk about long goodbyes.

 

Yes, yes, I know. It is reasonable to complain that I've said many times that the universe is not implemented by mathematics. And that is still true. After all, nobody measures minus signs, matrices or equal signs. The Hadron Supercollider doesn't slam protons together in a shower of derivatives and linear algebra symbols. However, as I've been saying all along, the space-time continuum (empty space) is made of waves; waves that are described by wave-functions.

So do experimental physicists measure waves? Sure. I was just looking at a sinusoid on an oscilloscope 5 minutes ago. So I will have to concede that the universe is made of sinusoids and wave-function -like objects. But those same waves that cause EM fields, particles and gravity to exist, are also made of aether. Aether refers to a substance that bears light (provides the necessary components for light to exist). Energy can then be expressed as light because the aether makes properties of light available.

I know this is a very subtle point, so I'll say it again. Math does not make anything exist. Aether makes light exist. Aether exists as waves. Waves are mathematical by nature.

 

Let me walk through that argument to see if I have it correctly.
Mazulu: your 1st point: waves exist (citing examples, personal and second hand evidence)
Mazulu: therefore: the universe is made of waves.

Hmmm. That does not compute. I don't really see the connection. Not a complete syllogism. Could you fill in any missing ideas here? I mean, cats exist but the universe is not made of them.
I have some more questions but will hold off until you improve your argument. You might be able to supply a single simple statement that will connect your 1st point to the conclusion. But try and make that statement supportable.

I think I will stop there. No need to try and follow your argument further until you clean up that first part. Just trying to help you flesh out your theory. Then you can do a realitycheck and publish a paper. or something.

 

Oh, I see. No problem. As long as everyone's clear that some of your comments to me were not about my stuff per se. That was not my thread; I only asked origin et al to answer wiminex's logical scientific question when brucep claimed that CMB Photons don't interact electromagnetically since the 'big bang' hypothesis 'last scattering'. When Syne tried to pretend he knew all about it and tried to use the 'neutral' matter glib dismissal, I had to point out to him that the universal features/processes had since then produced much NON-neutral environment. He and brucep were obviously working from long-outdated data/view of the cosmic environment EVOLUTION since then (it's all there in the recent literature). They still haven't bothered to answer in that more informed context. I only just now in that thread asked prometheus to ask them to either support their contention about CMB electromagnetic non-reactivity or to admit they were wrong to trot out glib and out-of=date 'explanations' which are nothing of the kind but actually entrench incorrect and inconsistent arguments to the person who opened the thread. Let's see if for once the insulting trolls and evasionists are banned and not the genuine questioner! Where there's intelligence there's hope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have always made it clear that I am here to question/re-examine unusual/contentious aspects from people irrespective of provenance (be that from lay persons, amateurs, professionals, orthodoxy). I use this as a sounding board exercise to compare what others perspective and mine coincide or diverge...and why. That's it. I am not interested in selling anything. Nor am I interested in politics and personal disparagement. The observed pattern of mod-troll combo antics make it hard to just have a decent discussion/question canvassed in open forum because the ego-tripping and power-silly intrusions and biased readings/insults just make any real fair discourse almost impossible when it 'threatens' the glib and learned-by-rote 'explanations' which engender more questions than they answer. Hence all the fuss. If it wasn't for these mod-troll combo antics, I wouldn't have to waste my time in trying to get the problem solved in a reasonably amicable manner. But as the "PM the admin" does not work; nor does "PM the mod-troll concerned" route, because the mod-troll IS the problem, then what chance any amicable attempts to get them to see reason? Hence the closing of threads to protect the incompetent and the trolls is the usual response from people who purport to be scientists and objective moderators. Joke.

Had he been presenting for discussion his earliest musings and gedanken ideas/perspectives etc today on the internet (without the current knowledge base of Relativity gained since his day), Einstein would have been appalled to meet the mod-troll denizens infesting the internet today. His contemporaries were bad enough for log enough; but these new-age immature so-called 'scientists' infesting the internet forums as would-be ARBITERS of what's "correct" or not would have had him despairing of the silly ego-tripper trolls and biased readers/moderators which masquerade as 'scientist' intellects today!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A goodbye should be as long as it must be for completeness' sake. No more; but certainly no less. If only you and ceratin other would stop posting to me all those misconstrued takes on what's what as far as I and my discussion points are concerned, then the goodbye will be shorter because I won't have to keep coming back to set you and other straight again. Let's hope and trust it will not be necessary for me to return and prolong my goodbye in this thread, hey Cheezle?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!....and good luck and good thinking and bye again!



PS: Unless and until we detect 'virtual' cats appearing and disappearing in the vacuum; or until we actually detect 'real' cats being 'exchanged' by matter/particles, your analogy does not even enter the ballpark, and is therefore a non-sequitur for 'establishing' a common understanding basis for discussing what Mazulu posits. Do better. Less humour-and-biased-reading, and more logic/science, mate. Cheers....and I hope I won't have to come back again to point out where YOU fail to 'get on the same page' with Mazulu! Bye!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, my point is not a non sequitur. I was showing an example of how mazulu's argument is invalid. Cats are not the point here. Perhaps I should have used p and q instead of cats and universe. Mazulu's proposition, the one and only proposition is p exists (where p is waves). From that he concludes that q (the universe is made of waves). Talk about non sequitur. I think what he was going for was a modus ponens. p => q, p. therefore q. He left out the implication (p=>q). His argument makes no sense, and is hence a non sequitur. I have asked him to supply it some more propositions to support his logic. If only you were half as smart as you think you are... This is pretty basic stuff.

 

Have you considered stopping a minute and asking yourself how smart you are? Consider: Mazulu presents prima facie evidence that waves are ubiquitous as part of the conventional theories. QM and the wave-particle duality thingy, remember?

So how 'smart' is it to construct your P and q logic construct/argument which would have you deny that there is prima facie starting point which by-passes your p and q construct/arguments before you even sit at the table to discuss Mazulu's posited take on what already is demonstrable by conventional theory which YOU also tacitly accept as the starting point for any 'understandings' you bring here?

Try to actually discuss without reaching for non-sequitur (AND a non-starter) 'argument' which belittle both the discourse and the discussers. He has answered your last post to him. There is no p&q logic violation. His logic train begins and ends with the OBSERVABLE FACT of UBIQUITY of WAVE PHENOMENA in nature, and NOT with any abstract ASSUMPTION p OR q etc etc. Your counter-argument based on that is a non-sequitur in THIS discussion even before you start your p&q logic train 'framing' of it. Read it without looking for ways to misconstrue and ridicule without cause. Thanks.

You know you CAN always AGREE TO DISAGREE and leave it at that? There is no need to try to belittle someone/idea with lame 'counter-arguments' and tactics which do not help anyone, including science.

End it gracefully and politely if you still aren't 'on the same page' where Mazulu is coming from in his initial 'prima facie' body of conventional scientific observations/knowledge for making those posits in the first place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good luck and good thinking, Cheezle, Mazulu! Bye again.