On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: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
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?
On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be
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?
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?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift distance
On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: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 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?
On 2/21/2025 3:28 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:According to the Big Bang velocity-distance relation it is the same so
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 2/21/2025 11:39 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be
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?
on it. We have to be in the center of that sphere because the red-shift
is exactly the same in every direction.
What about the great attractor?
On 2/22/2025 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000021, 21.02.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
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?
The 'big bang' was 'the other side' (of a large black hole).
Sometimes, I think we (are universe) is "contained" in a black hole
residing in our "parent" universe? Fwiw, check out this animation I did
on the normal field in red and its equipotential field in yellow:
https://www.facebook.com/chris.thomasson.31/videos/1145436857057561
I need to make another one and post it over on youtube. Sorry about the
FB link! ;^o
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
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.
If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be
on it. We have to be in the center of that sphere because the red-shift
is exactly the same in every direction.
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.
Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Paul, misconstruing is a tactic of ideologues and is deceitful and
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?
Den 22.02.2025 00:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:That's very cheeky, Paul, but you're still ending your comments with a
If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be
on it. We have to be in the center of that sphere because the red-shift
is exactly the same in every direction.
Will you never learn that the observable universe is spherical
and we are in the exact centre? :-D
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?
Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Willfully misconstruing to insult is childish. The velocity-distance relationship places us at the exact center of both the actual entire
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?
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)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:49:46 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 22.02.2025 00:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be
on it. We have to be in the center of that sphere because the red-shift
is exactly the same in every direction.
Will you never learn that the observable universe is spherical
and we are in the exact centre? :-D
That's very cheeky, Paul, but you're still ending your comments with a
"duh." Will you never learn that the velocity-distance relation places
us at the center of the actual universe, and you can't deny that by
claiming the universe is a sphere and the surface of a sphere has no
center?
Den 23.02.2025 21:59, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:49:46 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 22.02.2025 00:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
If the universe is spherical the surface has no center so we cannot be >>>> on it. We have to be in the center of that sphere because the red-shift >>>> is exactly the same in every direction.
Will you never learn that the observable universe is spherical
and we are in the exact centre? :-D
That's very cheeky, Paul, but you're still ending your comments with a
"duh." Will you never learn that the velocity-distance relation places
us at the center of the actual universe, and you can't deny that by
claiming the universe is a sphere and the surface of a sphere has no
center?
You miss the point completely!
We are _obviously_ in the centre of _our_ observable universe
because the most distant light sources we can see are as far away as
the light can reach us now, which is ~46 billion light years away
in all directions.
The point is that if there are observers on a planet - say 5 billion
light years away - they will also be in the centre of their observable universe.
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".
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'.
You're still saying "duh" at the end of your comments.
Den 23.02.2025 20:07, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 21.02.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
The CMBR is isotropic.
The temperature of the CMBR black body radiation is on average 2.7250⁰K, >> but fluctuates between 2.7252⁰K and 2.7248⁰K in different directions.
So it is almost isotropic, but not quite.
Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.
Do you mean that the velocity-distance relation requires
the temperature of the CMBR black body radiation to be
be anisotropic?
Can you explain why? :-D
It is virtually isotropic and the anisotropy is not consistent with a velocity-distance relation. Yes, the velocity-distance relation does
require the temperature to be anisotropic, so you are wrong. It requires
it because it would have to be dispersed more further out resulting from
the expansion. How can you quibble with that?
Den 23.02.2025 20:58, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Why would the CMBR temperature have to be dispersed more further
out resulting from the expansion?
Le 24/02/2025 à 15:14, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 23.02.2025 20:58, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Why would the CMBR temperature have to be dispersed more further
out resulting from the expansion?
It seems that the universe is expanding.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:46:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Willfully misconstruing to insult is childish. The velocity-distance relationship places us at the exact center of both the actual entire universe, and the observable universe.
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?
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 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.
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
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"
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
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 >>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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
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.
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
On 02/28/2025 11:40 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
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 >>>>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>> direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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.
So, "monkey see, monkey do" is what you're saying.
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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 >>>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
"Amicus Plato, finito"
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
that sort of put together, best, then though
there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.
So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
variables of the real wave equation", has that
it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
ideal, quite real.
Axiomless natural deduction
curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
and so on: amicus Plato.
Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
and theory of science to go along with a merest
teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
together make a theory where foundation is
pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.
The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
the sky survey continues, it makes an older
Big Bang theory.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
"Amicus Plato, finito"
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
that sort of put together, best, then though
there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.
So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
variables of the real wave equation", has that
it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
ideal, quite real.
Axiomless natural deduction
No such thing again.
, a spiral-space-filling
curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
and so on: amicus Plato.
Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
and theory of science to go along with a merest
teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
together make a theory where foundation is
pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.
The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
the sky survey continues, it makes an older
Big Bang theory.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Oh, Hegel has one.
On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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 >>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
"Amicus Plato, finito"
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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 >>>>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>> direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
"Amicus Plato, finito"
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
Great. Now derive the Theory of Everything,
without using empirical input of course,
On 03/02/2025 04:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:;)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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 >>>>>>>>>>> distanceDo you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>>>> the observable universe?
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>> direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the 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
Piet Hein is never wrong,
Jan
In his own little world
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
And not "not even wrong".
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
"Amicus Plato, finito"
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
Great. Now derive the Theory of Everything,
without using empirical input of course,
Jan
Well, perhaps you might enjoy these hundred or so
hours of podcasts sort of doing that.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Once it gets established that mathematics
from axiomless theory results axiomless geometry,
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".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 490 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:01:56 |
| Calls: | 9,676 |
| Files: | 13,719 |
| Messages: | 6,171,536 |