Great proposal, all it needs is a link to the source of your quote. You might want to fix the quote's spelling error, too, which comes from the original. I've never seen "wage" used as a verb before, but I'm sure the dog isn't happy about it.
There is one minor concern I have that relates to all the negative response this topic has already generated; is this normal?
It's regrettable that people jeer a post still in the promotion process instead of waiting for promotion. Many here think I should turn off jeering and only keep cheering enabled, and I agree with them. I only keep jeering enabled because this website also serves as a test platform for the dBoard software.
But the jeers do seem well founded to me. It's one thing to be aware of the evidence and have good reasons for questioning it, but quite another to be unaware of the evidence while drawing conclusions anyway. I can't be sure, of course, but your comments associating the origins of theories concerning dark energy and dark matter with the human imagination while not giving any indication of awareness of the evidence behind them could likely be what drew the jeers.
Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?
Not really what we're looking for, but of course you knew that. I prefer that suspensions be preceded by warnings, and now that prerequisite is satisfied.
I know Zaius started it, but its use seems to be growing, so I have to ask: is it just me, or is this an incredibly condescending way to begin a message.
...by relativity I mean the deepest underlying principle of relativity which is that everything is related to everything else and that the relation is following strict ratios and not a particular doctrine such as GR.
Would you mind using the same meaning of the term relativity that everyone else is using? When you need to talk about relatedness you should probably actually write "relatedness," not relativity.
First, there is no need to respond to moderator messages, unless they request a response.
Second, about this:
Ok, as you wish so I will propose a new thread on whether the big bunk hypothesis has got anything to with Minkowski and Einstein relativity.
That's not what I said. You were using your own personal definition of relativity. If you would like to propose a thread to argue for the advantages of your definition over the current one you are welcome to do so, but in this thread, unless otherwise noted, qualified or modified, relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity.
You may also propose a thread to discuss your ideas about the big bunk being unrelated to Minkowski and Einsteinian relativity if that's what you'd like to do, but that wasn't what I suggested.
I have stepped in as moderator simply because there can be no constructive discussion while people insist on using different definitions of the same word. What matters to me isn't whether or not the Big Bang is bunk, but clear communication. Relativity already has a definition in cosmological contexts, and that's the definition we will use in this thread.
First, ropes- that's not my idea, that's Bill Gaede's hypothesis. So talk to him and tell him that.
If you introduce an idea into a thread then you're expected to address reactions to it yourself.
The goal here at EvC Forum is discussions that actually get somewhere. All evidence and argument should appear in messages in your own words (some quoting is fine) and not be in the form of references or instructions to go elsewhere.