>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 idea is flawed and you refuse to engage.
>

Hardly, and your fantasy is neither entertaining or interesting, just odd.


>I even checked 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".
>
>>

I did not have a conversation with said individual, you did. I have no idea what you said or what she said, and given your irrational quickness towards anger, ego, and immaturity, I can hardly trust you. Furthermore, I am speaking to you and you continue to avoid valid points I am making. I have addressed everything you said, including the inverse square law. If this is beyond your depth and you need to consult others, than direct them directly to me and stop wasting my time.


>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.

You can continue to ignore the valid points I am making if you wish, makes no difference to me.

>
>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.

This is all speculation, and as I have already said, there is no way to test the inverse square law against infinity. Your initial number was a "couple of billion years", and now you are switching your tune to 100 trillion years, therefore, illuminating that you are pulling numbers out of your ass.



>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.
>

You spend more time coaxing your strange fantasy than debating the data. Typical and highly indicative of your maturity level.

>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 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 have no idea how to control your emotions or how to control yourself. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

>
>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.

Yawn. You bore me.