[QUOTE=only_human;382965]I do not feel that dismissing your theory endorses another theory. My primary complaint has been and still is that your theory sounds to me like a "just so" theory like Rudyard Kipling's stories: how the elephant got its trunk,etc.[/QUOTE]

Meaning it's not scientific and is wrong? I call its level of
discussion "descriptive" and barely mathematical. But it's
arguments and explanations are not beyond validatability.

It's not dismissal but dismissiveness that is objectionable.

[QUOTE=davar55;382973]Meaning it's not scientific and is wrong?[/QUOTE]

That sounds like an accurate summary.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;382990]That sounds like an accurate summary.[/QUOTE]

Of the comment, not of the monograph, which I defend.

Let me prove a point. The cosmology begins with the line:

"The Universe contains all that is. It has always existed. It will always exist."

It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points. I personally don't
consider these facts even controversial, let alone false. But the multi-verse
believers and the Big Bang origin believers believe their opposites, so these
categorical refutations of multi-versism and temporal finitism in just a few pages
should be a challenge. Instead, someone throws around the tr*ll word. That's
not discussion or refutation, it's personalizing. But he probably never read it.

[QUOTE=davar55;382992]It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points.[/QUOTE]

I didn't see a [i]single[/i] point in your 'monograph' that was proven. But there I go again, feeding the troll. Sigh.

Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.
Others.

Perhaps one shouldn't be name-calling.
The work is worth more than you're granting it.

[QUOTE=davar55;383034]Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.
Others.

Perhaps one shouldn't be name-calling.
The work is worth more than you're granting it.[/QUOTE]

Do you have better answers to my PM about what your theory changes from what I read in Hawking's book? I have read part of cosmo1.txt but I guess I don't get how you change it yet don't seem to affect anything else to your knowledge. I mean I know people can interpret things differently but I'm still not seeing it.

[QUOTE=davar55;383034]Well, there were proven points.

Such as the co-existence and co-necessity of Substance, Space and Time.
Such as the infinite regress of time.
Such as the finiteness of space.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that you proved any one of these.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;383043]I don't believe that you proved any one of these.[/QUOTE]
Seconded.

Asserted, yes.

[QUOTE=davar55;382992]Of the comment, not of the monograph, which I defend.

Let me prove a point. The cosmology begins with the line:

"The Universe contains all that is. It has always existed. It will always exist."

It then goes on to explain, justify, and prove these points. I personally don't
consider these facts even controversial, let alone false. But the multi-verse
believers and the Big Bang origin believers believe their opposites, so these
categorical refutations of multi-versism and temporal finitism in just a few pages
should be a challenge.[/QUOTE]As I have already pointed out, what you call "multi-versism" is compatible with your ideas with a very simple change of nomenclature without changing by one iota either philosophy.

Whenever you read "multiverse", translate it into "universe". When reading a tract which supports the multiverse concept and come across the word "universe" translate it into "portion of the universe".

There, what is so difficult about that?

Alright, I'll bite. Put your logic where your mind is.

The Universe either always existed, or it had a beginning.

How do you argue or justify the latter viewpoint?

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof][i]Onus probandi[/i][/url], what fun.