[EdwardSmith]

The URL below this paragraph contains the following
information that I have discovered: The reason that the
universe exists, the fundamental manner in which the
universe exists, the most likely reasons that the universe
exists exactly as it does in the semi-fundamental ways (i.e.
dimensions, forces, and quantum physics), and the reason
why certain people are blind to certain cosmological truths.
The information is deduced via a-priori mathematical logic.
All of that information in it's entirety is therefore
well-described as 'a-priori mathematical cosmology':

http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/csm.html

The types of intentional fundamental conceptual blindness
that blind people to certain cosmological truths also cause
the same people to use the blinding truth-obscuring
communicative tactics, most of which are listed at the URL
below this paragraph. That is why, observably, people that
argue in favor of or against specific beliefs most often do
so with a specific corresponding method of persuasion:

http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/ttcs.html

-

[Bo]

some interesting thought you have there!
that is; on the philosophical view. The scientiffic claims you make i cannot agree with. (on some points i might be a bit short; please ask if something is not clear)

Because of that, the universes dimensions are
infinite, and the possibility of a beginning and end to the
universe, as is the case in the big bang theory, is absurd

-well first of all, i wouldn't agree that it means that dimensions are infinite, it would mean that the dimensions contain 'infinite possibillities'. Such a set can still be bounded.
-the big bang never talks about a 'finite span' in which the universe exists. It always exists, but perhaps in strange forms, or in a form where time steps tent to be infinitely long. If you talk about subtlety; this is THE subtle point in understanding big bang cosmology.

The big bang theory, by the way, was
introduced in 1927 by a belgian PRIEST named Georges
LeMaitre, with the obvious intent of infiltrating theist creationism
into science

i woul like to see some proof of this 'obvious intent'

Edwin Hubble, a devout christian,

i don't think there where many people in the western world, around 1900, that wheren't devout christians, so i see no point.

alsely portrayed the increasing red-shift
of increasingly distant objects as meaning that the universe is
expanding (.....) he red shift and the related
microwave background radiation are caused by photons losing
energy by passing through and resisting gravity fields and
interacting with other photons;

- The cosmic microwavebackground has nothing to do with the mechanism that causes the red shift. The CMB is background radiation of the very early uiniverse. It looks the way it does, because of the principle of inflation.
- Yes gravity is causing redshift. (gravitatoinal redshift, gravitational lenzing, etc) however this is a very small effect; and in no way capable of explaining the redshift hubble saw.
- Can photons interact with other photons? i don't even want to start to think what the implications of that should be

but quasars, which are giant black holes at the center of
some galaxies, emit enormous quantities of photons, indicating
that black holes break their mass into energy when they reach a
certain mass, thus recycling it.

think of it like this: if take an empty cup and you pour water in it; at a certain point the cup is full and the water drips over the side; this however doesn't mean that the cup becomes empty again....

don't have time to read the rest now, i will probably do that later

Bo

[Freethinker]

First impression, another one shot wonder? Someone just hiting any science oriented bbs to advertise? Will they even come back to see if anyone bothered.

2nd reaction, why is this person so concerned with rejection? An entire page designed specically to proactively "counter" attack what would obviously seem to be the response they have received so far. Someone so against criticism that they want you to know if front they will ignore any. Going so far as to develop an extensive pre-emptive strike list.

3rd, a quick perusal of the 1st url and we quickly find false assertions used to develop support for the proposed theory. Such as:

the fact that a person's fundamental abstract manner of perceiving reality observably varies little throughout their life, said manners of perception are determined mostly by the genes.

The problem with this FACT is that I was raised and originally accepted the whole Catholic theology and my "fundamental abstract manner of perceiving reality" later changed completely into Atheism. A reasonably common experience.

It would be interesting to gain additional insights into this author's mindset. But perhaps we will never get that chance? Especially once they find many of us here will fit nicely into the list of approaches they are so afraid of.

[Tormod]

My question is - is EdwardSmith the writer of the content or not? I love it when content has a copyright notice but fail to provide a byline.