Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #661367 > unrolled thread

The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-21 19:39 +0000
    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-21 13:35 -0800
      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-21 21:54 +0000
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-22 19:18 +0000
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-23 14:46 +0100
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-23 21:00 +0000
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-02-24 00:00 +0100
              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-02-24 08:31 +0100
                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-02-24 12:59 +0100
                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-24 13:09 +0100
                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-03-15 09:21 +0100
                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-25 14:53 -0800
              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-02-25 14:27 +0100
                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-26 20:26 -0800
                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-27 08:06 +0100
                    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-27 21:05 -0800
                      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-28 08:09 +0100
                        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 09:44 -0800
                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:07 -0800
                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-28 20:40 +0100
                            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 15:13 -0800
                              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-01 07:38 +0100
                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-02-28 12:41 +0100
                    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-28 13:26 +0100
                    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 09:36 -0800
                      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-01 11:53 +0100
                        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-01 13:29 +0100
                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 07:41 -0800
                            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-01 18:38 +0100
                              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 14:52 -0800
                                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 14:56 -0800
                                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-02 07:42 +0100
                                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 08:00 -0800
                                    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-02 17:18 +0100
                                      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 08:42 -0800
                                        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-02 18:21 +0100
                                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 09:41 -0800
                                            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-02 23:08 +0100
                                              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 14:32 -0800
                                                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 10:14 -0800
                                                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-03 23:27 +0100
                                                    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 17:38 -0800
                                                      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-04 08:03 +0100
                                                        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 03:16 -0800
                                                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-04 13:14 +0100
                                                          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-04 10:21 -0800
                                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-02 19:46 +0100
                                  Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 12:16 -0800
                            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-02 13:12 +0100
                              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-02 14:33 +0100
                              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 08:04 -0800
                                Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-03-02 19:46 +0100
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-24 00:15 +0000
              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-02-24 16:48 +0100
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-23 14:41 +0100
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-23 16:45 -0800
      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-21 23:28 +0000
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-22 12:29 -0800
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-22 21:39 +0000
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-23 14:49 +0100
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-23 20:59 +0000
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-24 11:32 +0100
              Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-24 11:37 +0100
      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-02-22 09:58 +0100
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-22 12:28 -0800
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-02-23 09:18 +0100
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-25 15:24 -0800
    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-23 20:07 +0100
      Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-02-23 19:58 +0000
        Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-02-24 15:17 +0100
          Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-02-24 14:31 +0000
            Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-24 16:05 +0100
    Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-02-25 17:53 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#661367 — The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.

The CMBR is isotropic.

Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#661370

On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
> the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
> 
> The CMBR is isotropic.
> 
> Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.

For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large 
local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one, 
kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661371

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
>> the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
>>
>> The CMBR is isotropic.
>>
>> Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.
>
> For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large
> local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one,
> kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?
For fun we could be logical and face the fact that a velocity-distance
relationship necessarily places us exactly at the center of the universe
making it obviously absurd nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661398

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:54:12 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
>>> the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
>>>
>>> The CMBR is isotropic.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.
>>
>> For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large
>> local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one,
>> kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?
> For fun we could be logical and face the fact that a velocity-distance
> relationship necessarily places us exactly at the center of the universe
> making it obviously absurd nonsense.
The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661427

Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.

Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
the observable universe?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661441

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:46:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>
> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
> the observable universe?
Paul, misconstruing is a tactic of ideologues and is deceitful and
stupid and obvious to everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661445

Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>
> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
> the observable universe?

He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the universe ;)
(even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)

-- 
guido wugi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661457

Am Montag000024, 24.02.2025 um 00:00 schrieb guido wugi:
> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>
>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>> the observable universe?
> 
> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the universe ;)
> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
> 

The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':

wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!


You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in direct 
succession of the 'big-bang'.

So: how can we have such a universe?

Well there exists a book about this topic, which is nicely explained there


"On the Geometry of Time
in Physics and Cosmology"

by A.F. Meyer

https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html

or

https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/Cosmology23/docs/A06-afmayerBook2009.pdf

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661460

Op 24/02/2025 om 8:31 schreef Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000024, 24.02.2025 um 00:00 schrieb guido wugi:
>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>
>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>> the observable universe?
>>
>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the 
>> universe ;)
>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>
>
> The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':

A "sphere", I suppose, the "shell" of a "ball".

> wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!
>
>
> You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in 
> direct succession of the 'big-bang'.

The sphere would shrink (backwards) to a point. Yet I've seen also 
"infinite" models, eg lines shrinking to a straight "big bang" line with 
infinite density.

-- 
guido wugi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661461

W dniu 24.02.2025 o 12:59, guido wugi pisze:
> Op 24/02/2025 om 8:31 schreef Thomas Heger:
>> Am Montag000024, 24.02.2025 um 00:00 schrieb guido wugi:
>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>> the observable universe?
>>>
>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the 
>>> universe ;)
>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>
>>
>> The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':
> 
> A "sphere", I suppose, the "shell" of a "ball".

The universe has no "topology" except the
one/ones we're assigning to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661886

Am Montag000024, 24.02.2025 um 12:59 schrieb guido wugi:

>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>> the observable universe?
>>>
>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the 
>>> universe ;)
>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>
>>
>> The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':

That was actually wrong, because I somehow missed to write a 'not'.
> 
> A "sphere", I suppose, the "shell" of a "ball".


No, because a sphere is two dimensional, what the universe obviously isn't.

The topology is of higher dimensions and contains a 'cut', which 
generates the local impression of what we call 'universe'. That local 
'universe' is actually not real and not universal, because what we call 
'universe' is actually our own past light cone.

So, we receive a picture from the past, which combines to something 
visible, that does not reflect any kind of reality.

It is actually a picture, that is 'stacked in time' and behaves like the 
'crystal spheres' of Ptolemaios.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661503

On 02/23/2025 11:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000024, 24.02.2025 um 00:00 schrieb guido wugi:
>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>
>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>> the observable universe?
>>
>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>> universe ;)
>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>
>
> The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':
>
> wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!
>
>
> You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in direct
> succession of the 'big-bang'.
>
> So: how can we have such a universe?
>
> Well there exists a book about this topic, which is nicely explained there
>
>
> "On the Geometry of Time
> in Physics and Cosmology"
>
> by A.F. Meyer
>
> https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
>
> or
>
> https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/Cosmology23/docs/A06-afmayerBook2009.pdf
>
> TH

Neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable,
though, over time, the sky survey of the visible
universe aging, has never falsified Steady State,
yet has falsified each the prevous existing models
of Big Bang.

(... without finding something like the toroid bounds.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661484

guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
> > Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> >> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
> >> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
> >> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
> >
> > Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
> > the observable universe?
> 
> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the universe ;)
> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)


Here is Piet Hein's take on it


THE CENTRAL POINT 
A philosophistry

I am the Universe's Centre.
No subtle sceptics can confound me;
for how can other viewpoints enter,
when all the rest is all around me?


Hard to argue with that,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661521

On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>
>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>> the observable universe?
>>
>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the universe ;)
>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>
>
> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>
>
> THE CENTRAL POINT
> A philosophistry
>
> I am the Universe's Centre.
> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
> for how can other viewpoints enter,
> when all the rest is all around me?
>
>
> Hard to argue with that,
>
> Jan
>

"I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

is a line from a song with these lines:

"When I was three /
I thought the world revolved around me /
I was wrong."

Infant

Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
philosophical development, not the stopping
point, though it may engender what results
core strength of a sort of personal rationality.

Also "sophism" is seen by some as inherently
hypocritical and self-serving and un-ethical, even.

Though, some find that practical, ....

(Others don't)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661523

W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>> the observable universe?
>>>
>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the 
>>> universe ;)
>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>
>>
>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>
>>
>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>> A philosophistry
>>
>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>
>>
>> Hard to argue with that,
>>
>> Jan
>>
> 
> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
> 
> is a line from a song with these lines:
> 
> "When I was three /
> I thought the world revolved around me /
> I was wrong."
> 
> Infant
> 
> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the

There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
is  combined from subjective ones by voting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661541

On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
>>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every direction so
>>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>>> the observable universe?
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>>>> universe ;)
>>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>>
>>>
>>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>>> A philosophistry
>>>
>>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hard to argue with that,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>>
>> is a line from a song with these lines:
>>
>> "When I was three /
>> I thought the world revolved around me /
>> I was wrong."
>>
>> Infant
>>
>> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
>
> There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
> is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>

The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
matters of true "truth", with regards to the
inter-subjective, which philosophers of science
ascribe to science, and philosophers in metaphysics
connect with a merest teleology, a silver thread,
contemplations and deliberations on de res, de re,
de ratio, de natura, providing a stronger mathematical
platonism for a stronger logicist positivism.

Then, personal objectivism, where, you know, you
are real and the rest of the world is a figment,
is a usual phase of usual deeply and comprehensively
thinking being in the maturation of their philosophy.

Unfortunately, some never reach it, some never leave
it, and some just vacillate.

Yet, there are others, that there is one at all.

Anyways the inter-subjective is incompatible
with naive narcissism.

It's understood that others can understand what
that is, relayable, and relayed.

Anyways, yeah, if you're a real thinking being,
then at some point the world does revolve around you.
You can always keep that belief you believed.

Others needn't.


Anyways neither Steady State nor Big Bang is falsifiable.
Furthermore, the modern sky survey does not point at
the old Big Bang theory, and every few years the Universe
gets hundreds of millions of years older.

... Than what the old theory was, as it's been falsified.
I.e., "the most recent", if not "the current", theory, say.


Also if your logic has material implication it's wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661544

W dniu 28.02.2025 o 06:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift 
>>>>>>> distance
>>>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every 
>>>>>>> direction so
>>>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>>>> the observable universe?
>>>>>
>>>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>>>>> universe ;)
>>>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>>>> A philosophistry
>>>>
>>>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>>>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>>>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>>>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hard to argue with that,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>
>>> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>>>
>>> is a line from a song with these lines:
>>>
>>> "When I was three /
>>> I thought the world revolved around me /
>>> I was wrong."
>>>
>>> Infant
>>>
>>> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
>>
>> There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
>> is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>>
> 
> The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
> matters of true "truth"

There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
"objective" is  combined from subjective ones by
voting.

Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
understanding the words and the rules of the
language the statement is written in.
Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
programmed  computers) - nothing has the
ability. So, if human brains together
decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.

And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
the way we speak instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661554

On 02/27/2025 11:09 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 28.02.2025 o 06:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>> On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift
>>>>>>>> distance
>>>>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
>>>>>>>> direction so
>>>>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>>>>> the observable universe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>>>>>> universe ;)
>>>>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>>>>> A philosophistry
>>>>>
>>>>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>>>>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>>>>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>>>>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to argue with that,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>>>>
>>>> is a line from a song with these lines:
>>>>
>>>> "When I was three /
>>>> I thought the world revolved around me /
>>>> I was wrong."
>>>>
>>>> Infant
>>>>
>>>> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
>>>
>>> There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
>>> is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>>>
>>
>> The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
>> matters of true "truth"
>
> There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
> "objective" is  combined from subjective ones by
> voting.
>
> Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
> or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
> understanding the words and the rules of the
> language the statement is written in.
> Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
> programmed  computers) - nothing has the
> ability. So, if human brains together
> decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
>
> And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
> Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
> the way we speak instead.
>

Comenius has named for him a language of all
the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
and idealism and the analytical tradition are
two different things, together, one thing.

There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius
he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
and it's very much so that both idealism and the
analytical tradition get combined.

The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
help thoroughly relay that a "real realist" position
in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
inference by itself works fine in closed categories
or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.

So, finitists: are considered, you know, a bit absent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKnZUg9jPf0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=11

"Logos 2000: philosophical theory"

Better than your usual, ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661557

On 02/28/2025 09:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/27/2025 11:09 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 28.02.2025 o 06:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift
>>>>>>>>> distance
>>>>>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
>>>>>>>>> direction so
>>>>>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>>>>>>> universe ;)
>>>>>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>>>>>> A philosophistry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>>>>>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>>>>>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>>>>>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to argue with that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>>>>>
>>>>> is a line from a song with these lines:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When I was three /
>>>>> I thought the world revolved around me /
>>>>> I was wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>> Infant
>>>>>
>>>>> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
>>>> is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
>>> matters of true "truth"
>>
>> There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
>> "objective" is  combined from subjective ones by
>> voting.
>>
>> Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
>> or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
>> understanding the words and the rules of the
>> language the statement is written in.
>> Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
>> programmed  computers) - nothing has the
>> ability. So, if human brains together
>> decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
>>
>> And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
>> Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
>> the way we speak instead.
>>
>
> Comenius has named for him a language of all
> the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
> and idealism and the analytical tradition are
> two different things, together, one thing.
>
> There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius
> he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
> so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
> out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
> the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
> and it's very much so that both idealism and the
> analytical tradition get combined.
>
> The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
> aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
> help thoroughly relay that a "real realist" position
> in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
> in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
> continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
> course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
> inference by itself works fine in closed categories
> or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.
>
> So, finitists: are considered, you know, a bit absent.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKnZUg9jPf0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=11
>
>
> "Logos 2000: philosophical theory"
>
> Better than your usual, ....
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfoDJ0M7Tc&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=48

"Descriptive differential dynamics:  dogma, doubling"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661564

W dniu 28.02.2025 o 18:44, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 02/27/2025 11:09 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 28.02.2025 o 06:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>> On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift
>>>>>>>>> distance
>>>>>>>>> relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
>>>>>>>>> direction so
>>>>>>>>> the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
>>>>>>> universe ;)
>>>>>>> (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THE CENTRAL POINT
>>>>>> A philosophistry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the Universe's Centre.
>>>>>> No subtle sceptics can confound me;
>>>>>> for how can other viewpoints enter,
>>>>>> when all the rest is all around me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to argue with that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>>>>>
>>>>> is a line from a song with these lines:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When I was three /
>>>>> I thought the world revolved around me /
>>>>> I was wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>> Infant
>>>>>
>>>>> Objectivism is a maturity phase in the
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
>>>> is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
>>> matters of true "truth"
>>
>> There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
>> "objective" is  combined from subjective ones by
>> voting.
>>
>> Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
>> or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
>> understanding the words and the rules of the
>> language the statement is written in.
>> Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
>> programmed  computers) - nothing has the
>> ability. So, if human brains together
>> decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
>>
>> And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
>> Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
>> the way we speak instead.
>>
> 
> Comenius has named for him a language of all
> the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
> and idealism and the analytical tradition are
> two different things, together, one thing.
> 
> There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius


There are also words and the rules of a
language, and without  their knowledge
trying to  determine what is "true" or
"false" has neither sense nor a chance.



> he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
> so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
> out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
> the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
> and it's very much so that both idealism and the
> analytical tradition get combined.
> 
> The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
> aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
> help thoroughly relay 




that a "real realist" position
> in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
> in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
> continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
> course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
> inference by itself works fine in closed categories
> or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.

In physics religious maniacs fuck without any
sense, having their wishes instead any logic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web