Einstein on the train

[Logik]

What definition do you give to the word 'idealism'?

Somebody who blindly pursues ideas.

Like Truth.

[Age]

The MORE I READ, the MORE 'an expanding Universe' can be easier FALSIFIED, and the MORE my VIEW can be substantiated.

Great. So start your own fucking thread about it.

Do you NOT like feedback and/or comments about how in your book that you have NOT provided any actual 'facts', which support the ASSUMPTION that the Universe is "getting bigger"?

[Age]

What definition do you give to the word 'idealism'?

Somebody who blindly pursues ideas.

Like Truth.

So, to you, somebody who blindly pursues ideas like Truth is 'idealism'.

Okay, but some might consider that a different or strange label to call somebody.

"Look, there is 'idealism' walking towards us". Or, "I want you to meet 'idealism'".

It "might" work, but some might say that it would NOT.

[Logik]

So, to you, somebody who blindly pursues ideas like Truth is 'idealism'.

Okay, but some might consider that a different or strange label to call somebody.

"Look, there is 'idealism' walking towards us". Or, "I want you to meet 'idealism'".

It "might" work, but some might say that it would NOT.

Are you really that stupid?

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... s/gerunds/

[uwot]

The MORE I READ, the MORE 'an expanding Universe' can be easier FALSIFIED, and the MORE my VIEW can be substantiated.

Great. So start your own fucking thread about it.

Do you NOT like feedback and/or comments about how in your book that you have NOT provided any actual 'facts', which support the ASSUMPTION that the Universe is "getting bigger"?

No Age, I would really appreciate some meaningful feedback. So which of the facts in my book are not "actual 'facts'"?

[uwot]

Are you really that stupid?

You have to ask?

[Logik]

Are you really that stupid?

You have to ask?

The principle of charity has me doubting myself.

[Age]

So, to you, somebody who blindly pursues ideas like Truth is 'idealism'.

Okay, but some might consider that a different or strange label to call somebody.

"Look, there is 'idealism' walking towards us". Or, "I want you to meet 'idealism'".

It "might" work, but some might say that it would NOT.

Are you really that stupid?

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... s/gerunds/

I MUST BE 'that stupid'. There was absolutely NO THING in your link that has ANY THING to do with what I just wrote in reply to you, which I could see anyway.

[Age]

Great. So start your own fucking thread about it.

Do you NOT like feedback and/or comments about how in your book that you have NOT provided any actual 'facts', which support the ASSUMPTION that the Universe is "getting bigger"?

No Age, I would really appreciate some meaningful feedback. So which of the facts in my book are not "actual 'facts'"?

Because you will NOT clarify my questions posed to you I can NOT be absolutely certain, BUT IF you are proposing that red shifting is evidence for the Universe expanding, then what you wrote about red and blue shifting contradicts the idea that the Universe is expanding. So, once again what do you say is 'evidence' for the idea that the Universe is expanding?

Do you say it is red shifting?

If yes, then great AND is there any other facts that you say is 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding?

If no, then what do you say is 'evidence' for the idea that the Universe is expanding?

[Atla]

...

Looks like I struck a nerve by pointing out that the observable universe is expanding, something your allmighty True Self didn't tell you or didn't know.

What do you mean by "struck a nerve"? What do you think has happened differently this time from all the other times you have just proposed the idea that the observable universe is expanding?

The idea that the observable universe is expanding has been around for quite some time, and thus this idea has been KNOWN by the True Self for just as long, as for how long i have known that this is what some human beings assume and believe is true is another matter.

The Truth about what ACTUALLY happens is also ALREADY KNOWN by the True Self, but which is YET to be revealed to most human beings.

Most adult human beings are STUCK in the BELIEF that the observable universe IS expanding so they are incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth IS. Just like those people who were STUCK in the BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth were incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth WAS.

(By the way, Hubble WAS a person. They named the telescope after him. Another thing your True Self didn't know. Must be a pretty ignorant True Self if it thought that we had space telescopes 90+ years ago.)

But it was KNOWN, and NOT what was thought. i, however, were completely and utterly WRONG in what i wrote. i did NOT read what you wrote properly and mistook some thing you said for some thing else. So, my apologies.

Also, if you ever thought or assumed that i could write or express at all accurately for the True Self, then you could NOT be any further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.

What the True Self KNOWS and what is thought can be two very completely different things.

By the way depending on what your definition of 'space telescopes' is some might disagree with you on what you said here.

Your insanity seems to be spinning out of control, and it's only matched by your cluelessness. Good, please become more unhinged.

So, I took some thing you wrote out of context, by misreading it, and therefore, to you, I am spinning out of control and am also clueless. What else could I do but apologize?

Let me repeat: there is zero evidence that the "True Self" knows anything, even if we are truly open. you just make it all up, or maybe you are hallucinating (a lot).

(You also don't understand Hubble's law as it seems. Only a few hundred or few thousand or so very nearby galaxies are slightly blueshifted. But on average, the farther a galaxy is, the higher a redshift it has. Basic knowledge.
Even the majority of the galaxies that we can see now, are by now moving away from us faster than the speed of light.)

[Age]

Looks like I struck a nerve by pointing out that the observable universe is expanding, something your allmighty True Self didn't tell you or didn't know.

What do you mean by "struck a nerve"? What do you think has happened differently this time from all the other times you have just proposed the idea that the observable universe is expanding?

The idea that the observable universe is expanding has been around for quite some time, and thus this idea has been KNOWN by the True Self for just as long, as for how long i have known that this is what some human beings assume and believe is true is another matter.

The Truth about what ACTUALLY happens is also ALREADY KNOWN by the True Self, but which is YET to be revealed to most human beings.

Most adult human beings are STUCK in the BELIEF that the observable universe IS expanding so they are incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth IS. Just like those people who were STUCK in the BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth were incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth WAS.

(By the way, Hubble WAS a person. They named the telescope after him. Another thing your True Self didn't know. Must be a pretty ignorant True Self if it thought that we had space telescopes 90+ years ago.)

But it was KNOWN, and NOT what was thought. i, however, were completely and utterly WRONG in what i wrote. i did NOT read what you wrote properly and mistook some thing you said for some thing else. So, my apologies.

Also, if you ever thought or assumed that i could write or express at all accurately for the True Self, then you could NOT be any further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.

What the True Self KNOWS and what is thought can be two very completely different things.

By the way depending on what your definition of 'space telescopes' is some might disagree with you on what you said here.

Your insanity seems to be spinning out of control, and it's only matched by your cluelessness. Good, please become more unhinged.

So, I took some thing you wrote out of context, by misreading it, and therefore, to you, I am spinning out of control and am also clueless. What else could I do but apologize?

Let me repeat: there is zero evidence that the "True Self" knows anything, even if we are truly open. you just make it all up, or maybe you are hallucinating (a lot).

You are FREE to BELIEVE absolutely any thing to be TRUE.

But if it is ACTUALLY True, or not, then that is another matter.

You have already admitted anyway that what you say here could be COMPLETELY WRONG anyway.

(You also don't understand Hubble's law as it seems. Only a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so very nearby galaxies are slightly blueshifted.

But this goes completely against what is proposed as being the facts, expressed in the book that this thread is about. So, who do you want me to accept as knowing and expressing the real truth of things? Should I accept that you are telling the true and right version, or, should i accept the other version, which is in the book?

Who is expressing the true and right facts, you or the author of that book?

But on average, the farther a galaxy is, the higher a redshift it has. Basic knowledge.

But this very "basic knowledge, by itself, may not be evidence for what people BELIEVE here.

Also, this may be very "basic knowledge", but all of the interpretations, assumptions, beliefs, theories, and/or stories, which come from and are MADE UP from this very "basic" knowledge, could be WRONG.

When, and if, people become Truly OPEN, and seriously Want to learn and know what the actual Truth is, then Truth can become known. Until then you just keep BELIEVING that you already KNOW what is true and right. But it will NOT help you to discover and SEE the rally Truth of things?

Even the majority of the galaxies that we can see now, are by now moving away from us faster than the speed of light.)

Is that a fact, or just what you BELIEVE is true?

Either way, how SURE are you of this?

[Atla]

...

If there is zero evidence that the "True Self" knows anything, then when do you believe that it does? you have a belief here, not us

But this goes completely against what is proposed as being the facts, expressed in the book that this thread is about.

No it doesn't.

[Age]

...

If there is zero evidence that the "True Self" knows anything, then when do you believe that it does? you have a belief here, not us

LOL So once again you propose with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you KNOW what thee Truth IS.

I do NOT believe any thing here. You are the only one with BELIEFS here.

And, you ONLY BELIEVE that there is NO True Self. You have absolutely zero evidence for this BELIEF.

In fact are you even ABLE to define what the 'True Self' IS at all?

But this goes completely against what is proposed as being the facts, expressed in the book that this thread is about.

No it doesn't.

And ONCE AGAIN you are expressing as though YOU KNOW with 100% CERTAINTY what thee TRUTH IS.

HOW do you KNOW that what you present as facts is NOT different from what is presented as facts within the book?

Do you even KNOW exactly what part I am actually referring to?

And do NOT ask for it now. You have ALREADY STATED, "No it doesn't". Therefore, you are coming across as KNOWING with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what IS True, Right, and Correct. So now I will ask you to back up what you say here, AND we will SEE what occurs.

The reason I write the way I do is to evoke responses from you, which brings out YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, then I have examples to SHOW how you have these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, yet you are completely INCAPABLE of being able to back them up. Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove me WRONG by proving that you can back up what you say here. Are you able to prove that you can back up what you are INSISTING here is True, Right, and Correct? Are you able to SHOW how what you say are facts are NOT different to what is proposed as being facts within the book in question?

By the way pulling little snippets out of what I write, and only responding to those little bits, is NOT helping you at all here.

[surreptitious57]

The speed between galaxies not gravitationally bound to each other is known as intergalatic speed

This is 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec

A parsec is the distance a distant star moves one second in relation to the Earth which is 3 . 26 light years

The speed of light is 299 458 kilometres per second

To calculate the distance at which light speed occurs

Divide 299 458 by 72 000 [ intergalatic speed x I000 ] which = 4 . I59 and 4 . I59 x 3 . 26 = I3 . 55834

Therefore galaxies I3 . 55834 billion light years or more from Earth are expanding beyond light speed

This is the mathematical proof that demonstrates that the Universe - beyond a certain point - is expanding beyond light speed

[Atla]

LOL So once again you propose with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you KNOW what thee Truth IS.

i haven't, you merely have comprehension issues.

I do NOT believe any thing here. You are the only one with BELIEFS here.

And, you ONLY BELIEVE that there is NO True Self. You have absolutely zero evidence for this BELIEF.

In fact are you even ABLE to define what the 'True Self' IS at all?

Wrong, you are the one with a belief here: the "True Self" knows things.
i don't have that belief.

HOW do you KNOW that what you present as facts is NOT different from what is presented as facts within the book?

Do you even KNOW exactly what part I am actually referring to?

And do NOT ask for it now. You have ALREADY STATED, "No it doesn't". Therefore, you are coming across as KNOWING with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what IS True, Right, and Correct. So now I will ask you to back up what you say here, AND we will SEE what occurs.

The reason I write the way I do is to evoke responses from you, which brings out YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, then I have examples to SHOW how you have these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, yet you are completely INCAPABLE of being able to back them up. Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove me WRONG by proving that you can back up what you say here. Are you able to prove that you can back up what you are INSISTING here is True, Right, and Correct? Are you able to SHOW how what you say are facts are NOT different to what is proposed as being facts within the book in question?

you're an idiot. The book also explains that the farther galaxies are, the more redshifted they are.

By the way pulling little snippets out of what I write, and only responding to those little bits, is NOT helping you at all here.

i'm not, but you are incapable of understanding this as well, just as you are incapable of understanding what i wrote or responding properly