Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk
So, in other words, you want to dazzle us with B.S. Creating your own conditions and then validating them on those conditions is cyclical logic, then cloaking it in purposefully bloviating pendantic lexicon.
Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum movens
and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.
And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.
I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.