>First of all. Take a chill pill. Second of all, where did I
>brag about anything? You have created a pretty strange fantasy
>I don't really want to star in. I get excited/enthusiastic
>about exploring ideas and I certainly do not brag about
>anything that has crossed my mind. I'm not exactly sure what
>you are projecting, but I don't appreciate it.

Every thread you make you write as if you've discovered something "profound". So far, you haven't had a single profound thing to say about anything though; just a lot of wide-eyed, naivety and wonder. This is why you've ended up in an argument in almost every thread you've started (yep, two with me, plenty with others too) - someone comes in and tells you that your college-freshman-at-an-ICP-concert idea is flawed and you flat out refuse to engage.

I even checked this one with someone who's studied the behaviour of light at the very highest level for the past 8 years just in case I was being over-confident. But you don't trust her word either. There's literally no point in having a conversation with someone who, to paraphrase another thread from you says things like "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind".

>
>All one has to do is take a look at the Deep Field imaging to
>see the potency/density of light. From then on, you just need
>to consider that the technological curve is growing, thus
>allowing humanity to process sharper quality images, and rely
>on basic
>laws which state that light will travel infinitely if
>unobstructed as photons do not decay. Yes, the density decays
>but given the astounding quality/clarity of light that has
>been traveling for 12 billion years is astonishing and
>indicative of the incomprehensible density it can yield.

The fact you keep citing a photograph that most people have been aware of for 20 years and has hung above my desk for the last 3 as if I'm somehow not aware of it does not help in changing my opinion of you as a patronising twat.

Further, that you keep using it to try and 'disprove' an immutable law of nature (the inverse square rule, which the HDF actually perfectly encapsulates - we only know the oldest objects are the oldest objects BECAUSE of the inverse square law and Red Shift!) is even more frustrating. 13.6Bn years is not long enough for the inverse square rule to render stars invisible. 100 Trillion Years will be. Mathematically. You invoked infinity/eternity, therefore you have to deal with the sort of distances that the Universe will eventually span. 13.6Bn light years will be fuck all by the time the last star goes cold. Again, reading John D. Barrow would give you all you needed.

>Shrug. If you did not get your panties in a bunch, or make
>this personal, or psychological, we could have had a real
>discussion, but as always, you come into my posts with the
>sole intent of attempting to prove me wrong or to illuminate
>something you think is inferior to your understanding of the
>nature of things. All one has to do is take a look at the post
>about alcohol and our conversation to get a gist of the
>patterns you put into motion. :)

Sorry, I'm just particularly bored with people like you who use the Internet as their mental whiteboard, desperately begging an ether of people they'll never meet for validation of their ill-considered dreaming. Well done, you've had a thought that billions have had before you and several have already disproved. If you posted ideas that actually worked once in a while, posted them as questions, or even showed *some* sort of respect to those that offer a different opinion or even an explanation of why you're mistaken (i.e. not saying "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind") you'll find you get much, much more respectful responses in return. I'm clearly not the only one who has this reaction to you - most people around here think you're the last guy who occupied this persona(BarTek) - every forum has one.

Hell, it'd even help if you, just once, read one of the books or watched one of the documentaries I've suggested. My style is combative absolutely, that's in my nature, but I always make an effort to offer you someone trustworthy's words rather than my own to back my points. I'm not saying "You're wrong because I say so", I'm saying "You're wrong because of this law and this credentialed person can explain properly". You can trust John D. Barrow FRS if you can't trust me. You can trust Lia Han PHD if you can't trust me. It's nothing to do with me if you choose not to process the information I offer you, but again, that will hugely affect the respect your afforded in future... all I can do is continue to call you out on your naivety and offer you suggestions of reading materials.

You clearly have a great lust to learn... I honestly can't understand why you wouldn't want to apply some sort of rigour to your learning rather than letting your mind drift away on flights of fancy all the time.