i have proof!

[Omnibus]

Hi David,
As several have asked is there a way for you to physically prove your theory. Or perhaps give us a simplied diagram of what you are discussing so we can examine and digest it.
Thanks
Bizzy

What theory? If @Tinsel Koala is right there's no theory there but plain and simple nonsense. A creation based on internal contradicitons is not a theory. It is nonsense. Nonsense requires no physical proof.

[WilbyInebriated]

Never mind sticking together with what's already known. If what is proposed is internally contradictory it is indeed incoherent. Such a proposal isn't even a theory. Internally contradictory proposal is simply called nonsense. You'll shoot down that thing right there if you can point out the internal contradiction.

tu stultus es... take your red herrings elsewhere. no one said anything about internal contradictions. tinsel said and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." this is completely incorrect. a coherent argument, theory or whatever you want to call it, can contradict what is already known... science has done such on a regular and consistent basis throughout its history.

[Omnibus]

tu stultus es... take your red herrings elsewhere. no one said anything about internal contradictions. tinsel said and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." this is completely incorrect. a coherent argument, theory or whatever you want to call it, can contradict what is already known... science has done such on a regular and consistent basis throughout its history.

Don't lie. @Tinsel Koala said "If a "theory" is internally contradictory ... it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly."

[WilbyInebriated]

Don't lie. @Tinsel Koala said "If a "theory" is internally contradictory ... it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly."

noone was talking to you... tu stultus es.

don't misrepresent... he said that after i posted the correct definition of the word. as the record shows quite clearly... see reply #4

[Omnibus]

noone was talking to you... tu stultus es.

don't misrepresent... he said that after i posted the correct definition of the word. as the record shows quite clearly... see reply #4

So, he said that the "theory" in question is self-contradictory and you lied that he didn't.