As I see it, you guys are severely lacking credibility in that you cannot follow logic.
As I see it you are severely overestimating your knowledge because you cannot proffer a coherent explanation of your ideas.
Science is more than having the ability to pass tests that show you follow the curricula.
Passing tests to show you can follow curricula is called education. Do not confuse this with science.
And repeating that I lack the understanding of any of the science doesn’t make it so.
No, but your rambling, convoluted and just plain wrong expositions about your attempt to improve Einstein’s ideas demonstrate ignorance of advanced physics and math.
You guys have not even attempted to present what or where you presume that I err in my arguments.
Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge your errors does not make you right.
Instead, you have focused your attacks on irrelevancies. You have dictated to me that I do not understand the present science. You have not established that my knowledge is lacking anything in the present arguments. You have not explained the relevance of requiring me to present knowledge beyond the scope of this area. You have not reduced my arguments to an absurdity, via reasoning.
Well, if you would give us something coherent to examine we might be able to refute them precisely, but what you have written to date is so far off base it isn’t even wrong. GdB has done an admirable job of wading through your babble and pointing out errors, but instead of countering with clear explanations of why you think you are right you fire back with emotion laden accusations and more layers of convoluted reasoning.
You have shown that you prefer to insult me for not supporting your common belief. I suggest you abort skepticism and atheism since I am more than certain that we are in the vast minority. You’re clearly hypocrites. Provide a reason why I must place my faith in you. You have not shown your superiority of reasoning but demonstrated your abilities to attempt rhetorical diversions.
Easy there fella. You’re getting close to the deep end.
You have shown that you do not respect logical argument…
No, we have shown we do not respect someone who starts off saying one of the foundations of modern physics, which has passed every test for the last 100 years, is wrong and then presents a simplistic, naive and unsound hypothesis.
... and especially that obtained by premises of observation, something you only pretend that you adhere to.
You repeatedly ignore observations and then turn around and accuse us of ignoring them. Can’t have it both ways, Scott. Unless you are referring to the crackpot idea that the premise of observation is science’s first mistake.
For instance, besides your own ignorance to the Cosmological Principles (both Perfect and Non-), you haven’t addressed how or why you would hold to the belief that time itself does not require consistency against our empirical capabilities to determine it.
This is why I asked you to explain how GPS works. Our little car units would send us off course in a hurry if GPS did not take time dilation into account.
If it is your view that the popular view in the present paradigm is to hold, your trust in it holds the same accountability to justify it as a Christian is to their positive presumptions.
For the one-billionth time, the present paradigm is a paradigm because it has been tested repeatedly and found to work. Religion fails every empirical test.
If you were so much wiser than me, you should be responsible to justify your particular understanding by addressing the premises of the very contemporary science you believe in and for which I referred to in my arguments as a basis for the skepticism.
Science works. Deal with it.
By your current attitudes and behaviors, you have demonstrated that you are no different than cyber-bullies who can hide behind anonymous display names and gang up with popular supporters. I only feel sorry for you and will not be beaten just because of it. My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable.
No, your logic is not impeccable. Your logic is deeply flawed.
Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don’t engage in conversation with me.
We have addressed your logic or, more precisely, your lack thereof. Your obstinate refusal to engage in honest give-and-take does not support your hypothesis. Don’t forget, you are the one claiming Einstein was wrong and you can develop a better theory than one of the great scientists in history, all without benefit of academic training. As you’ve pointed out, your lack of academic credentials does not in itself mean your hypothesis is wrong. However, the explanations you have offered are very wrong on many levels, and demonstrate only a superficial knowledge of physics. If your hypothesis turns out to be correct you will be hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time alongside Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Planck. I’m betting on crackpot.