Einstein on the train

[uwot]

So WHY write that the Universe IS expanding and that It STARTED?

Because that is how stories work. If you have to point out every time the big bad wolf said 'I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down' that he couldn't actually speak English, yer kinda ruin the narrative.

Are these two things "stories" or "facts"?

The clue is in the title.

And THANK YOU for ACCURATE description of 'me', from your perspective.

You're welcome.

The only assumption I have made is that it might be possible for you to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

This readers is ANOTHER example of WHY it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME ANY thing. They can so EASILY lead you astray.

Indeed. As a simple courtesy, dear reader, I recommend that you do not assume that the reason that someone appears to be a fucking idiot is they are in fact a fucking idiot. Let them prove it themselves.

Also, are you SURE that that ASSUMPTION is the ONLY one that you have made?

Absolutely.

[Age]

But that is only YOUR perception of what 'communicating' is.

Since you are here to "learn to communicate", would you care to clarify your views on:

1. What learning is.
2. What communication is.

Why do you want me to answer your questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with my views on the Universe by the way, which is what this discussion is about, in this thread ,YET you will NOT or CAN NOT answer questions posed to you in relation to what you STATE about the Universe, Itself?

What I want to LEARN in relation to COMMUNICATING has NO bearing on what your or I perceive 'learning' nor 'communicating' to mean.

If you are so concerned about helping me learn how to communicate better, as you appear to be, then you can help by answering the clarifying questions I ask of you OR you POINT OUT and SHOW me WHERE I am WRONG in my VIEWS as well as explaining WHY my VIEWS are wrong.

If you care to EXPLAIN WHY you want to KNOW what my views are on the word 'learning' and 'communicating' are, then maybe I will answer. But if you want to KNOW what my views are going to be on just about EVERY word that is being used, then this is going to be one very long slow process, remembering that one word can have very many different meanings/views, and the definition of a word can change dramatically depending on what words are being used before and after that word in a sentence.

[Age]

So WHY write that the Universe IS expanding and that It STARTED?

Because that is how stories work. If you have to point out every time the big bad wolf said 'I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down' that he couldn't actually speak English, yer kinda ruin the narrative.

Oh well that is one way to instill BELIEF into those that the book is written for. Tell them that the Universe is expanding, and that it started, then they will starting BELIEVING what the author, them self, BELIEVES is true. Why do you NOT just write what the actual Truth IS, instead?

Telling a "story" through a nursery rhyme is one thing. Telling a "story" through a scientific perspective is another thing.

One is told from this is "just a story" perspective. The other is told from this is "the facts" perspective.

One could therefore been seen to be very misleading while the other is not seen that way.

I will let you and "others" decide which one is which.

Are these two things "stories" or "facts"?

The clue is in the title.

Why NOT just write non-fiction stories, instead of fictional stories, especially when expressing what IS discovered scientifically.

Some might SEE a very clear, yet unintentional, deceitful perspective to this. (This is the power of the brain and the BELIEF-system at work though.)

Even now, in this forum, you have still NOT told us and let us in what the truth is about what are just 'stories', from what are the 'actual facts'.

Is the Universe expanding? Is that a fact, or is it just a "story"? (which some people ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true)
Did the Universe start? Is that a fact, or is it just a "story"? (which some people ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true?)

Do you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding?
Do you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that the Universe started?

Your OPEN and Honest answers here will be gratefully appreciated and accepted.

And THANK YOU for ACCURATE description of 'me', from your perspective.

You're welcome.

The only assumption I have made is that it might be possible for you to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

This readers is ANOTHER example of WHY it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME ANY thing. They can so EASILY lead you astray.

Indeed. As a simple courtesy, dear reader, I recommend that you do not assume that the reason that someone appears to be a fucking idiot is they are in fact a fucking idiot. Let them prove it themselves.

This I have already proven correct, correct?

Also, are you SURE that that ASSUMPTION is the ONLY one that you have made?

Absolutely.

LOL

Your writings so far have clearly SHOWN your other ASSUMPTIONS.

You appear NOT to gratefully appreciate feedback and comments, which critique and show FAULT in your writings. You do, however, appear to gratefully appreciated feedback and comments, which praise and commend you though.

By the way if some galaxies blue shift while some red shift, then what is the actual EVIDENCE that the Universe is expanding?

As I have been POINTING OUT here, human beings have a tendency to "discover" and "FIND", with and through so called "evidence", 'that', what they ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE to be true.

For millennia some human beings have ASSUMED and BELIEVED that the Universe BEGAN, and so they have, unintentionally of course, being searching for "evidence" that will back up and support these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. They do this unintentionally as they are NOT even fully aware (Conscious) of the fact that they even have and hold these ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS. Human beings also, unintentionally, and unknowingly as evidenced here, PASS ON their BELIEFS through their writings and spoken words without ever recognizing that this is what is happening and taking place. VERY unfortunate though some of the BELIEFS that human beings have been and continue to pass on, to unsuspecting children, are just plain WRONG. Children then take these BELIEFS on as though they are the actual and real Truth, and then continue to pass them on again to the next unsuspecting generation/s exactly like what is happening here through this book in question.

There is NO real good reason to tell dishonest stories to children when the actual and real Truth is far more exciting and "unbelievable" anyway. The actual and real Truth really IS stranger than the fiction, made up by human beings.

[uwot]

Age, here is the full text of the introduction:

"Once upon a time, Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree, trying to work out what makes planets go round the sun. Suddenly, an apple fell and hit him on the head. Somehow his brain was bashed into realising that the force that makes apples fall on people’s heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity.
That at least is the story. Not all of it is really true, but what we do know is that Newton’s formula is very useful. It shows how gravity works very accurately. But it doesn't explain why.
Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which does include a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the facts that Newton could and some that he couldn’t.
So does that mean that his story is true? Well, not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories. It’s a bit like this image.(The duck/rabbit illusion) What exactly are you looking at? What scientists know, in effect, is the size and shape of the marks that make up the picture; those are the facts - they are real, you can see them and measure them and say all sorts of things about them which are demonstrably true. The thing is, those facts are the same whether you think the overall picture is a duck or a rabbit.
The same sort of thing is true about gravity and other laws of nature. Scientists mostly agree about what happens, because they can all do the same experiments and see it happen. Even the best microscopes and telescopes can only see so far though. Beyond those horizons are things that scientists can only speculate about. And they do!
That can make science very confusing, because depending on which scientist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Some of the stories sound crazy, but if the storyteller is a proper scientist, you can be sure there is a good reason for telling it. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how scientists think the universe actually works. In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit."

You can see it here with illustrations: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
As someone who is always banging on about openess and honesty, can you openly and honestly say you have read it and understood it?

[Age]

Age, here is the full text of the introduction:

"Once upon a time, Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree, trying to work out what makes planets go round the sun. Suddenly, an apple fell and hit him on the head. Somehow his brain was bashed into realising that the force that makes apples fall on people’s heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity.
That at least is the story. Not all of it is really true, but what we do know is that Newton’s formula is very useful. It shows how gravity works very accurately. But it doesn't explain why.
Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which does include a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the facts that Newton could and some that he couldn’t.
So does that mean that his story is true? Well, not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories. It’s a bit like this image.(The duck/rabbit illusion) What exactly are you looking at? What scientists know, in effect, is the size and shape of the marks that make up the picture; those are the facts - they are real, you can see them and measure them and say all sorts of things about them which are demonstrably true. The thing is, those facts are the same whether you think the overall picture is a duck or a rabbit.
The same sort of thing is true about gravity and other laws of nature. Scientists mostly agree about what happens, because they can all do the same experiments and see it happen. Even the best microscopes and telescopes can only see so far though. Beyond those horizons are things that scientists can only speculate about. And they do!
That can make science very confusing, because depending on which scientist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Some of the stories sound crazy, but if the storyteller is a proper scientist, you can be sure there is a good reason for telling it. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how scientists think the universe actually works. In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit."

You can see it here with illustrations: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
As someone who is always banging on about openess and honesty, can you openly and honestly say you have read it and understood it?

YES.

Can you OPENLY and Honestly say that you have NOT let your ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS get in the way of the FACTS and the Truth?

For example, you wrote: Once it was realized that the Universe is getting bigger ... ... it didn't take long to work out it used to be smaller. Now, are these statements part of a story, or are they facts?

You can write whatever you want at the front of your "story" book, but are you proposing this statement as a fact, or as just another story? From the way you write, from my perspective, this is just NOT very clear to me. It is hard to differentiate between what are just stories and what are proposed as actual facts some times. Your assistance in clearing this up for me now would be gratefully appreciated.

The obvious ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS in what you wrote following those two statements are very clear, but we can leave them for now until you clear this up first.

[Logik]

It is hard to differentiate between what are just stories and what are proposed as actual facts some times.

For somebody who has access to The Truth it should be trivial to distinguish facts from stories.

Oops?

[surreptitious57]

What two things are quarks and electrons made from

Quarks and electrons are fundamental particles that have no other constituents - other than themselves
You claim every thing is made from at least two things but here are two examples where this is not true

[uwot]

As someone who is always banging on about openess and honesty, can you openly and honestly say you have read it and understood it?

YES.

Okie-dokie. So, in your own words, what do you understand by this?

This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how scientists think the universe actually works. In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit.

Can you OPENLY and Honestly say that you have NOT let your ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS get in the way of the FACTS and the Truth?

There are no assumptions and/or beliefs involved in facts. For example, you don't have to assume and/or believe that heavy objects fall if you drop them. You can perform the simple experiment of dropping a heavy object and seeing which way it moves. On Earth, this is invariably downwards. It's a fact. The statement 'Heavy objects fall to Earth' is "the Truth". It is only when you get into explaining why this should be so that you get into story-telling. Any story that satisfactorily accounts for the fact that heavy objects fall to Earth could be "the Truth". All competent scientists know this as well as you, but generally don't insist that they know which story is the "actual Truth". Without exception, people who claim to know 'the Truth' are bonkers.

For example, you wrote: Once it was realized that the Universe is getting bigger ... ... it didn't take long to work out it used to be smaller. Now, are these statements part of a story, or are they facts?

They are part of a story.

You can write whatever you want at the front of your "story" book, but are you proposing this statement as a fact, or as just another story? From the way you write, from my perspective, this is just NOT very clear to me. It is hard to differentiate between what are just stories and what are proposed as actual facts some times. Your assistance in clearing this up for me now would be gratefully appreciated.

'Heavy objects fall to the ground' is a fact.
Any explanation for why that happens is a story.

The obvious ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS in what you wrote following those two statements are very clear, but we can leave them for now until you clear this up first.

Aw Age, now you're just being rude.

[surreptitious57]

Once upon a time Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree trying to work out what makes planets go round the sun. Suddenly an apple fell and hit him on the head. Somehow his brain was bashed into realising that the force that makes apples fall on peoples heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity

The story about the apple falling on his head is apocryphal and in all probability is false
The first to mention it was Voltaire who lived a century later and never actually met Newton

Newton never discovered gravity either but the universal theory of gravitation - gravity was known to
exist four hundred years before Newton but no one had the mathematical formula for it before he did

These may seem like nothing more than pedantic nit picks but in science it is important to be as precise as possible

[uwot]

The story about the apple falling on his head is apocryphal and in all probability is false

C'mon, surely you know me better than that. The next line is "That at least is the story. Not all of it is really true.." Here's a nice little article that tells it in more detail: https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... eal-story/

[Dubious]

So it turns out the apple story is true – for the most part. The apple may not have hit Newton in the head, but I’ll still picture it that way. Meanwhile, three and a half centuries and an Albert Einstein later, physicists still don’t really understand gravity. We’re gonna need a bigger apple.

This is obviously a watermelon problem not a "bigger apple" one.

[Age]

It is hard to differentiate between what are just stories and what are proposed as actual facts some times.

For somebody who has access to The Truth it should be trivial to distinguish facts from stories.

Oops?

Do you think this is one of those "gotcha" moments, which you have so been desperately LOOKING FOR?

Maybe it is, or maybe just because I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing I LOOK FOR the actual and real Truth by asking clarifying questions. If the "other" is Truly OPEN and Honest, then that is when I have access to, and obtain, the Truth, OBVIOUSLY.

Where you ASSUMING some thing different regarding 'having access to the Truth'?

[Age]

What two things are quarks and electrons made from

Quarks and electrons are fundamental particles that have no other constituents - other than themselves
You claim every thing is made from at least two things but here are two examples where this is not true

But I NEVER ever claimed such a thing at all. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

[Logik]

Do you think this is one of those "gotcha" moments, which you have so been desperately LOOKING FOR?

Maybe it is, or maybe just because I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing I LOOK FOR the actual and real Truth by asking clarifying questions. If the "other" is Truly OPEN and Honest, then that is when I have access to, and obtain, the Truth, OBVIOUSLY.

Where you ASSUMING some thing different regarding 'having access to the Truth'?

Fuck off, Age

Nobody ASSUMED anything other than the fact that you are an idiot.
You ASSUMED that we ASSUMED something else.

By refusing to answer any clarifying questions posed to you, YOU have demonstrated that you are neither OPEN nor HONEST.

[Age]

As someone who is always banging on about openess and honesty, can you openly and honestly say you have read it and understood it?

YES.

Okie-dokie. So, in your own words, what do you understand by this?

You see the interpretations/s of facts, as stories, about what could be the case.

This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how scientists think the universe actually works. In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit.

Can you OPENLY and Honestly say that you have NOT let your ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS get in the way of the FACTS and the Truth?

There are no assumptions and/or beliefs involved in facts.[/quote]

OF COURSE there NO assumptions and/or beliefs involved in facts. To ASSUME otherwise would be just plain silly or stupid.

But I was talking about the ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS that you, yourself, have and hold onto.

For example, you don't have to assume and/or believe that heavy objects fall if you drop them.

Besides the fact that this is a VERY narrow view of what actually does happen, you are going down a WRONG and/or unnecessary path. That is; what you ASSUMED I was talking about is NOT what I was talking about.

You can perform the simple experiment of dropping a heavy object and seeing which way it moves.

Yes you can.

On Earth, this is invariably downwards.

In the Universe is there a "downwards"?

The actual and real Truth will NEVER being discovered with such a narrow and small perception of things.

Even on earth is there an actual "downwards", or just a relative "downwards" to the relatively very small and narrow thinking human being?

The actual and real Truth comes from a much larger scale than just that relatively small perspective of the observing human being.

It's a fact.

Are you absolutely sure?

Could a fact instead be; Objects with mass attracts objects with mass, if close enough?

The statement 'Heavy objects fall to Earth' is "the Truth".

Are you absolutely sure?

Could 'Heavy objects are attracted to the earth's mass' be MORE True?

"Fall" is relatively a very small and/or narrow view of things, to me.

It is only when you get into explaining why this should be so that you get into story-telling.

Do 'you'?

Why can you NOT just explain that objects with mass attract objects with mass. Is that NOT a fact?

Any story that satisfactorily accounts for the fact that heavy objects fall to Earth could be "the Truth".

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Some might instead and/or prefer to say; Any story that satisfactorily accounts for the fact that heavy objects are attracted to earth could be the Truth. That is because they do NOT see "falling" to earth is a fact.

All competent scientists know this as well as you, but generally don't insist that they know which story is the "actual Truth". Without exception, people who claim to know 'the Truth' are bonkers.

Considering 'you' are the 'one' who just claimed to know 'the Truth' do you want to stick by this statement, even with the "without exception" part? You have just very clearly stated that Heavy objects fall to earth is the Truth, after all. Therefore, you claim to know 'the Truth'. Are you now also saying that you are bonkers as well? You did, after all, just stipulate that this is 'without exception'.

For example, you wrote: Once it was realized that the Universe is getting bigger ... ... it didn't take long to work out it used to be smaller. Now, are these statements part of a story, or are they facts?

They are part of a story.

So, the actual and real Truth then IS: The Universe may NOT be getting bigger at all?
And, if this is True, then the Universe may NOT have began at all, is also the Truth, correct?

If your answer to these two questions is Yes, then the actual and real fact IS: Human beings do NOT know if the Universe is expanding AND human beings do NOT know if the Universe began. Do you agree with this?

If yes, then great. We agree on what the facts ARE.
If no, then WHY NOT?

You can write whatever you want at the front of your "story" book, but are you proposing this statement as a fact, or as just another story? From the way you write, from my perspective, this is just NOT very clear to me. It is hard to differentiate between what are just stories and what are proposed as actual facts some times. Your assistance in clearing this up for me now would be gratefully appreciated.

'Heavy objects fall to the ground' is a fact.

As explained only to a very narrow and small LOOKING human being that is only a, relative, "fact".

But, anyway, you are NOT actually answering MY QUESTION about what is a fact or NOT a fact. You are, instead, answering some thing, you brought into here, which is TRYING TO deflect away from what I am actually POINTING OUT. That is; The Universe expanding is NOT a fact at all.

And, IF it is NOT a fact at all, then saying 'the Universe is expanding' is either an ASSUMPTION, and/or a BELIEF, or it is just a view/thought, which could be completely WRONG, or partly wrong. Now, which one is it?

Any explanation for why that happens is a story.

The obvious ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS in what you wrote following those two statements are very clear, but we can leave them for now until you clear this up first.

Aw Age, now you're just being rude.

Why do you ASSUME that i am just being rude.

My intention is NOT to be rude at all, but rather just point out the ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS you have and hold onto. Like, for example; There is no good reason to think that the Universe started out as any particular size. The OBVIOUS ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF can be clearly SEEN in that statement of yours.