Looking for someone to debate...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Usus Vox Tractus is looking for someone to debate in the formal debate forum. If you are interested or curious; please stop by the link below:

Debating the Great Contraction Theory vs any other scientific theory of cosmogenesis.

Thanks,

Mark
Area Supervisor

 

[Papias]

I read the description linked to.

I'm personally not interested in that debate. Why?

If one has a groundbreaking theory that explains a lot of evidence (that's that "theories" do, after all), then one can get fame, fortune and tenure by publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal for discussion by those who, like you, are experts in the field.

If one is not an expert in the field, and is relatively clueless about the subject under discussion, but due to the Dunning-Kruger effect thinks that one's word salad is meaningful, then debating it on an internet forum with other similarly clueless people is an option.

But that's just my view.

Best of luck in finding someone to debate.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I read the description linked to.

I'm personally not interested in that debate. Why?

If one has a groundbreaking theory that explains a lot of evidence (that's that "theories" do, after all), then one can get fame, fortune and tenure by publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal for discussion by those who, like you, are experts in the field.

If one is not an expert in the field, and is relatively clueless about the subject under discussion, but due to the Dunning-Kruger effect thinks that one's word salad is meaningful, then debating it on an internet forum with other similarly clueless people is an option.

But that's just my view.

Best of luck in finding someone to debate.

Hello Papias, yes I could go for fame and fortune if I was well versed in the language of academia. I am over coming several language barriers and this is why I am not only here but on several different types of sites, debating this theory. I am learning what is and is not an effective means of conveyance.

My confidence in it comes from the great number of structural predictions it makes about the universe account for by scientific evidence of both known and unknown processes. Example: My theory and model account for modern revised estimates of dark energy within .3% and dark matter within .6%. It accounts for rapid initial space-time inflation and the subsequent slow plateau we enjoy today. It also accounts for the structure of DNA, musical relationships and subatomic relationships. It accounts for many more things that man appreciates theologically and lines up with the far majority of "religious" accounting for the beginning of the universe.

I find all these correlations and matching of data to be compelling.

So I am on several forums debating this with people all over the world who are experts in the varied topic and fields my theory/model covers.

I am still leaning Papias, and the best way to quicken that is to spar with those who are learned and observe their mode of operation.

 

[Papias]

UVT wrote:

Hello Papias, yes I could go for fame and fortune if I was well versed in the language of academia.

Academic papers are published in all major languages. Certainly English (and often in not-so-good English, so your writing here shows that you are A-OK with knowing a language to publish in).

So go for fame, fortune and tenure by publishing in a real peer-reviewed journal, unless you don't think you theory works.

I am still leaning Papias, and the best way to quicken that is to spar with those who are learned and observe their mode of operation.

No, it isn't. The best way to learn is to get a degree in the relevant field, at any of the thousands of Universities worldwide. I'm sure there is one near you, if you want to learn about a given subject.

Have a good day

Papias