Smugness doesn't constitute an argument. For any statement you make, I can respond "Ha, I knew you'd say that, how naive and predictable!" I can also add "I perfectly understand your position" despite giving no one any reason to believe this is true.
If our physicist friend didn't provide "backup" for his points, it's probably because he's just trying to set you on the right track. You can't reasonably expect someone to lay out the experimental results of every test we've ever run that has led us to assert TBB. And if you're going to persist in claiming that you understand the theory anyway despite all evidence to the contrary, I really doubt it would make any difference.
I am curious how you became so very confident that you are an enlightened genius and all physicists are naive and irrational fools. Especially since physics arrives at it's theories by empirical evidence whereas you seem to arrive at yours by proclaiming inapplicable truisms.
If our physicist friend didn't provide "backup" for his points, it's probably because he's just trying to set you on the right track. You can't reasonably expect someone to lay out the experimental results of every test we've ever run that has led us to assert TBB. And if you're going to persist in claiming that you understand the theory anyway despite all evidence to the contrary, I really doubt it would make any difference.
I am curious how you became so very confident that you are an enlightened genius and all physicists are naive and irrational fools. Especially since physics arrives at it's theories by empirical evidence whereas you seem to arrive at yours by proclaiming inapplicable truisms.