Are you asking us to defend the idea that what we see is what we see?
It sounds like you want to radically redefine all the sciences based on some theory of your own.
Rather than ask us to defend an established, documented, and observable princple of the world, why don't you simply present the case for your theory?
What is the basis to believe that everything around us is false?
When in the past has gravity been reversed?
When have electrons broken off of atoms at a much faster rate than they do currently?
Do you have any evidence that any of this has actually happened? And, by evidence, I want to be clear - demonstratable, testable, peer-reviewed evidence. Not a rewrite of a rewrite of a book that no one can agree which version is right in the first place.
This thread might as well be called: Can you prove to me that the number 2 is actually the number 2 and not really the number 17? Or how do we know that blue is blue?
What is your theory of anti-uniformity called anyway? What are the mechanics behind it? How did we change from the way it was in your past to the way it is in our present? When will it change again and why?
If you can't begin to answer these questions, you really have no place attacking U.
You've already shown that evidence in support of what exists is insuffiencent to convince you of fact, so I don't feel that the science side of the debate should be even attempting to present you with evidence.
If you have a problem with what is, then PROVE that it is in fact wrong. Don't assert some half baked theory based on no mechanics, no reasoning and no evidence. It's a waste of everyone's time.
™ Version 4.2
