Diagoras wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:02 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:05 pm
brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:14 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:07 pm
brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:05 pm
That article said nothing like what you claimed. Good grief.
I'm sorry, tell me then, what were you expecting exactly?
I was expecting you to honestly back up what you claimed.
I did just that.
Perhaps the laws of online debate changed in the meantime, too?
Lets recap, this began when I said:
Holmes wrote:Consistent models have been constructed where (what we consider to be) laws varied over time, changing in accordance with yet deeper laws of change. These are legitimate models but cannot be tested because their outcomes are the same as a universe with unchanging laws, assume either way, you get the same result...
this was responded to:
brunumb wrote:Please present these models, or at least provide links to where these models may be examined.
to which I responded:
to which brunumb responded with:
brunumb wrote:That article said nothing like what you claimed. Good grief.
to which I replied:
Holmes wrote:I'm sorry, tell me then, what were you expecting exactly?
predictably replied to by brunumb with:
brunumb wrote:I was expecting you to honestly back up what you claimed.
These are the facts, I stand by what I posted and prepared to discuss this but brunumb simply dismisses what I provided and you it seems want to play that same game too.
If you actually want to discuss the theme of that which was that we can and have created theories in physics where (what we regard as) laws can in fact vary and that these models predict outcomes that are consistent with observation then I was happy to do so, but juvenility seems never far way here sometimes.