You cannot advance knowledge without providing proofs, examples and arguments.
All "proofs" are someone's opinions. What determines how correct they are, is logic. Logic is based on honesty. Logic itself is relativity, how something is in relation to something else and why, and so what that something is and why.
I am responding to others' opinions and comments, that are too naive and wrong in relation to what this all is supposed to be about, according to claims made. Personally, my own "view of all", is rather advanced compared to anything I've read; compared to what I've seen others' say theirs is, mine goes beyond and is not stuck but still growing, and subject to immediate change when I find something more correct. What I see many others do, is being stuck with no actual progress, and themselves not able to see it.
Of course there are trolls and shills too, who've learned how to troll and shill, essentially do it as a job; here in this forum too - it is obvious. Comments and "opinions" these "people" provide, are with intent and goal to "guide" progression to falsities and delusions and to keep people stuck at them. They manipulate with peoples understandings, try to put bad and wrong meanings into their minds, try to incite bad ideas and directions about whatever topics, usually flavored with enough "passion" and "truthfulness" and "politeness" (but not honesty) to fool easily.
You are responding to information and proof provided in the thread but, when asked politely, you refuse to provide links to what you are putting forward. That is not how to dispute or advance a claim scientifically. Everyone comes to knowledge by sharing information with others.
Politeness or honesty? Both can be imitated. If evidently not honest, then how is that polite? Or you think politeness is "acting honest" when actually is not, so to not say to other "screw you!" or worse?
When it comes to research and testing and such, then honesty is needed, not politeness.
Politeness is essentially same as politics. Polite and politic... words are nearly same as well. I do not do politics, nor ever will. There is no place for politics in genuine science of any kind. Unless "science of politics", which is essentially science of politeness.
I have not "refused", not in any way you are trying to assert. Don't try to put meanings into my mind, that do not belong there! It's what some certain type of evil people do... or people fooled by those evil people.
I do share info. And not only info, but also understandings and directions, which are more important than info itself.
Info alone is essentially statistics. Cold and unchanging and uncaring, always same no matter what - another way of saying "lack of honesty".
Info alone is rather totally useless, usefulness comes forth when logic is applied, when directions of view accompanied by according knowledge (not info) and understandings.
Only kind of info that is genuinely mine to share, is that which originates from my knowledge and my logical ability, both presented in worded form thus as informational. Meaning if I comment on info brought forth by someone, I give my own opinions about it, my own understandings and directions of view. I do not give links to some yet other stranger's opinions, so to try to "prove false" or "prove true", because by doing such nonsense nothing can ever progress.
And should I bring forth somene's work, links and stuff, then I provide my own opinions regarding it. It is fine to bring someone else's, some stranger's opinions about it, as means of showing possibilities and probabilities and other angles - but do not keep yourself stuck to those while never giving any of your own personal.
If this is your approach, then you should not respond to a discussion board. Discussion boards necessitate sharing of individual research in a collective space. i.e. Giving links, putting forth our premises, logical reasoning and conclusions for others to review.
Discussion means providing own personal opinions, not copy-pasting opinions of strangers.
Discussion is not where you only copy-paste someone else's as "proof" or "disproof". Such someone else's is that person's personal - or not, in case they are merely following some "rules" or "laws" or examples given by some yet other people, and so never have formed their own personal.
Lots of links to others' works and opinions have been provided in this thread, but very few seem to comprehend what is actually going on here... Is this thread about finding out truth, or to merely promote a campaign/cult?
If something has already been provided, and there isn't enough to show it to genuinely be "absolutely true", then why try to keep on arguing over it, same opinions over and over and over endlessly, so to try to force others into believing it to be "absolute truth"? Curious goals some people have...
