Einstein on the train

[Logik]

(@ Age) In case you weren't aware, the "Real" numbers were named such AFTER they discovered that there are other numbers we call 'imaginary'.

Discovered? Invented?

[Age]

WHAT exactly do you BELIEVE I "made up"?

This:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

Which, as I have pointed out, is not true.

Are you absolutely SURE this is NOT true?

Yes I am absolutely SURE it is NOT true.

As I pointed out there were "scientists" who did not believe that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is true.

Which is WHAT I said also.

No, what you said was:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

You really are MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISCONSTRUING what I am saying.

The tortured syntax aside, I think what you are claiming is evident.

BEFORE people BELIEVED that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe what do you IMAGINE they BELIEVED and/or were saying/insisting?

The difference between you and I is that there are some things I don't have to imagine, because I have done the research. You apparently think this is a mistake:

Your ASSUMPTION is WRONG, again. I do NOT think that doing research is a mistake at all. I think doing "research" and just repeating what one has read, based off of already held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which obviously could be WRONG, IS a mistake.

You obviously still have no clue about what I am saying. If you just answered my question, then you would have UNDERSTAND what I am saying. BEFORE a human being is BELIEVING some thing, like for example, that the earth is NOT the center of the Universe, then what do you IMAGINE they BELIEVED and/or were saying/insisting?

Just think about it, AND THEN answer it. If you were to STOP and IMAGINE, instead of just re-writing 'that', which is just basing ALL of your knowledge of so called "research", then you WILL understand.

If you STOP believing that you ALREADY know the answer, then you MIGHT SEE the Truth of things.

You SEEM to be under some sort of illusion when LOOKING AT what I wrote, that ALL people suddenly come to the realization, and BELIEVED that the earth is NOT the center of the Universe, all at the same time. Besides the FACT that this, obviously, did NOT occur, you also APPEAR to be LOOKING AT this as though that is what I am suggesting. From a very compartmentalized perspective you are unable to decipher that all I am saying is; ALL adult human being BELIEVE some thing else PRIOR to their newly found/formed BELIEF.

Obviously BEFORE ANY adult human being is BELIEVING some thing, they are BELIEVING/SAYING/INSISTING some thing else. Therefore, even EVERY so called "scientist" BELIEVES some thing else PRIOR to what they, at any particular moment, BELIEVE to be true.

If, and only IF, this is True, then EVERY scientist BEFORE they BELIEVED that the earth is NOT the center of the Universe WAS BELIEVING, saying, and/or insisting, some thing else.

To PROVE the accuracy of this statement name ONE "scientist" who was stating that the earth is NOT the center of the Universe PRIOR to them BELIEVING that this is true. Even you named some "scientists" who did NOT believe that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is true, which is great. But now tell us what they WERE BELIEVING, at that moment, and then tell us that 'what' they WERE BELIEVING PRIOR to when they developed 'that' BELIEF.

Now, if you can NOT understand this very SIMPLE Truth, then I do NOT know how to make it any more clearer, for you.

If I was to do "research", then I would just be RE-REPEATING things, like what you write.

If ever you were to read a scientific paper, you would appreciate the primary importance of describing the results of experiments and the secondary role given to the interpretation of the results.

BUT the so called "scientific paper", "results of "experiments" " and the "interpretation of the results" regarding the Universe Itself are mostly based off of the ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe began with, and/or at, the big bang. Because these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS could be WRONG ALL of the "scientific results and interpretations" COULD also BE WRONG.

That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.

That pretty much was what I said here:

I really don't think that an introductory cartoon strip is the place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae.

Why NOT?

WHERE do you think IS a place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae. We/I could go there. That is WHERE I could explain ALL things in GREAT detail.

I made it as clear as I could in the introduction that there is a difference between what actually happens (you might not like my use of the term, but that's what I call facts) and the models we create in order to explain those things that actually happen.

IF you human beings are creating models of "what actually happens" based on ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which could be WRONG, then you do NOT need to be informed of just how STUPID this is. The STUPIDITY of this "should" be completely obvious by NOW. What you are saying about "what actually happens" could just be confirmation bias. A human being does NOT want to discover and find 'that' what opposes their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, OBVIOUSLY. This needs to be taken into consideration when LOOKING AT things. Now, you may BELIEVE that this could NOT be possible, but think about what REALLY happens when one bases any "results and/or interpretations" off of any already held ASSUMPTION and BELIEF.

Remove the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there was "a beginning", then WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN becomes much clearer to SEE.

By the way, WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is different from what is explained in your book.

Also WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN does NOT need to be explained. Once what IS is SEEN, then 'explanation' is unnecessary.

The book is OBVIOUSLY based off of the author's own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Note that was written nearly 3 weeks ago and there is no sign of progress.

No 'sign of progress' in relation to WHAT exactly?

Much as I think I am flogging a dead horse, that is explained in the chapter 'The whirlpool and the wave-A story about what the universe is made of. Please read it and then tell me what you don't understand. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

Okay I read it. There is nothing in it that I do not understand.

As I have said, and which is clearly expressed within the book, the Universe could be made up of 'matter' AND 'space'.

So, are we in agreement on this? If no, then WHY NOT. If you BELIEVE that the Universe is NOT made up of 'matter' AND 'space'. Then 'WHAT' exactly do you BELIEVE the Universe is made up of. This is certainly NOT clearly expressed within that book, which you keep flogging, or is it?

[Age]

(@ Age) In case you weren't aware, the "Real" numbers were named such AFTER they discovered that there are other numbers we call 'imaginary'. Originally, all numbers were just natural ones (1, 2, 3, ...) then they included fractions which are properly called 'rational' from the term 'ratio' which just compares two natural numbers. They notice that all the natural numbers could be expressed as x/y where x and y are 'natural'. Then when it was discovered that the square roots of numbers, like "√2", has no way to express itself as a fraction of two natural numbers. Thus we come to an 'irrational' conclusion and why then they added all these to a larger group just called 'real' for recognizing that though they cannot represent all numbers, they are nevertheless real, even though many are 'irrational'.

Next, the "Whole" numbers are the Natural numbers plus zero, (0, 1, 2, ....); The Integers are all Whole numbers plus the Negative numbers, (...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...) and collectively all numbers are 'real' when including the rational and irrational. The last addition to the number types came about to respond to the square root of negative numbers. Then they just call "i" the number that means, "square root of negative one" and use this with any real number to make up the whole set of all numbers, now called "complex".

I only added this as a quick summary note in case you were unaware that the "Real" numbers I asked in the last post have the property such that between any two Real numbers, there are an infinity of numbers. If you already understand this then ignore.

Do you see the connection to your question?

NO.

And, WHICH question are you referring to EXACTLY? I do ask MANY.

If you do NOT want to answer my questions, then just LEAVE them. Reader's can SEE what answers of mine do get answered and what ones are skipped, side stepped, and/or TRIED to be deflected away within "other's" responses.

Do you see that your own common sense belief

WHEN will you understand I do NOT BELIEFS, (so called "common sense" or not)?

about 'not assuming' is still only an 'assumption' no matter how you try to escape it?

If there IS an ASSUMPTION, there IS an ASSUMPTION. However, if there IS NO assumption, then OBVIOUSLY there IS NO assumption. THEREFORE, IF I am NOT assuming any thing, then there is NO assumption AT ALL.

Besides this FACT, what you wrote here does NOT even make sense, to me.

IF a person has a BELIEF about 'not assuming', then that IS a BELIEF. It is NOT an 'assumption'.

TRYING TO 'twist' things around to fit in and suit YOUR OWN ALREADY HELD ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS will NEVER work. ALL you end up doing is twisting and distorting what IS ACTUALLY very SIMPLE and EASY, to understand, into just APPEARING COMPLEX and HARD, for yourself, and some "others", just like you TRIED doing with numbers, above.

To me there is absolutely NOTHING hard NOR complex in, and about, 'Life', living, and/or the Universe Itself. (Although you may BELIEVE the opposite?)

[Please ignore the trivial inaccurate order of the history of numbers. Rational numbers, for instance, are also a part of the negative numbers, but I skipped over that. All that's important to recognize is that underlined principle about the Real numbers and why it is incidentally called, 'real', as it implies some presumption of 'fake' numbers. ...something that throws off a lot of students as weirdly superfluous to say before learning THAT there was discovered a new number they couldn't express before. The 'real' numbers suffice to map to real world measures until you enter into multiple dimensions.]

ONCE AGAIN, an ATTEMPT at making what is essentially VERY SIMPLE and EASY into SEEMING COMPLEX and HARD.

The Universe exists, NOW. (and always WILL). The Universe is composed of two fundamentally very different, separate, or opposing things, they are: space AND matter.

ONCE AGAIN, IF this is WRONG, then demonstrate HOW this is WRONG.

Until this is demonstrated to be WRONG. The ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that the Universe "BEGAN" will remain just 'that' as an ASSUMPTION and/or a BELIEF, which could be WRONG.

[uwot]

BUT the so called "scientific paper", "results of "experiments" " and the "interpretation of the results" regarding the Universe Itself are mostly based off of the ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe began with, and/or at, the big bang.

The big bang is not an assumption, it is an hypothesis that, although very puzzling, neatly accounts for the observed phenomena. As a result, some scientists 'believe' in the big bang, but very few would insist that it is the only possible explanation.

Because these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS could be WRONG ALL of the "scientific results and interpretations" COULD also BE WRONG.

Scientific results are very carefully checked, precisely because any competent scientist knows perfectly well that they could be wrong. Interpretations, like the big bang theory, are hypotheses which are tentatively held and again, any competent scientist will be prepared to modify or abandon any 'belief' they have if there is strong evidence that they are wrong.

That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.

Yup. That is indeed a possibility.

IF you human beings are creating models of "what actually happens" based on ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which could be WRONG, then you do NOT need to be informed of just how STUPID this is.

That isn't what we human beings do. We create models of what actually happens based on observations of what actually happens. In practise, the amount of data that modern experiments can gather is so overwhelming that scientists cannot practically analyse all of it. What this means is that they often need an hypothesis that they can test, by designing an algorithm that can search the mountain of data for results that are consistent with the hypothesis. Note that it is hypotheses, not "ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS" that are tested. The difference being that if an hypothesis is not supported by the data, scientists, as a rule, shrug their shoulders and try to think of another hypothesis. Whereas people who hold "ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS" are more wont to throw their toys out of the pram when it is clearly demonstrated that they are talking bollocks.

By the way, WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is different from what is explained in your book.

I would be very grateful if you could show me where.

[Age]

BUT the so called "scientific paper", "results of "experiments" " and the "interpretation of the results" regarding the Universe Itself are mostly based off of the ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe began with, and/or at, the big bang.

The big bang is not an assumption, it is an hypothesis that, although very puzzling, neatly accounts for the observed phenomena. As a result, some scientists 'believe' in the big bang, but very few would insist that it is the only possible explanation.

Besides the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that the big bang was the "beginning", what is "very puzzling" about a big bang, to you? To me there is NOTHING puzzling about the so called big bang.

A bang occurred, which some call a "big bang", and the Universe continues to change in shape and form. Nothing puzzling at all here, to me anyway.

Because these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS could be WRONG ALL of the "scientific results and interpretations" COULD also BE WRONG.

Scientific results are very carefully checked, precisely because any competent scientist knows perfectly well that they could be wrong.

Does this happen in ALL situations and in ALL cases?

Interpretations, like the big bang theory, are hypotheses which are tentatively held and again, any competent scientist will be prepared to modify or abandon any 'belief' they have if there is strong evidence that they are wrong.

WHY form, have, and/or hold a 'belief', and then 'modify' and/or 'abandon that 'belief'? WHY NOT just NOT have a 'belief' in the beginning?

WHY wait for EVIDENCE when it is OBVIOUS that a prior BELIEF leads to confirmation bias?

By the way 'WHAT' EXACTLY is the 'belief', you BELIEVE, which is being held onto now by "scientists" (competent or not) in regards to the big bang theory?

That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.

Yup. That is indeed a possibility.

And, FAR MORE PLAUSIBLE then "it was the beginning".

Is the an experiment done where the results SHOW that there was even a "beginning"?

Is there one so called "scientist" EVER who could explain HOW there could even be a "beginning"?

IF you human beings are creating models of "what actually happens" based on ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which could be WRONG, then you do NOT need to be informed of just how STUPID this is.

That isn't what we human beings do. We create models of what actually happens based on observations of what actually happens. In practise, the amount of data that modern experiments can gather is so overwhelming that scientists cannot practically analyse all of it. What this means is that they often need an hypothesis that they can test, by designing an algorithm that can search the mountain of data for results that are consistent with the hypothesis. Note that it is hypotheses, not "ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS" that are tested.

Test what you like. But WHY is it suggested that the big bang WAS the "beginning"?

WHY would the hypotheses that the big bang WAS the "beginning", which you say is what is tested, IF there was NOT an ASSUMPTION nor BELIEF made first about "in the beginning". If there was NO assumption that there was a beginning, then there would be NO such hypothesis to "test".

The difference being that if an hypothesis is not supported by the data, scientists, as a rule, shrug their shoulders and try to think of another hypothesis.

'

Once again WHY make up, or think of, another hypothesis? WHY NOT just LOOK AT what IS instead?

Whereas people who hold "ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS" are more wont to throw their toys out of the pram when it is clearly demonstrated that they are talking bollocks.

Which is what APPEARS to be happening here.

Can you ACCEPT that what you are talking about could be completely, as you call it, "bollocks"?

You, after all, are the one with the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS here.

By the way, WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is different from what is explained in your book.

I would be very grateful if you could show me where.

I also would be very grateful if you ALSO showed me things you say are NOT true.

I say the Universe is made up of matter and space. You say this is NOT true.

If you BELIEVE that the Universe is NOT made up of 'matter' AND 'space'. Then 'WHAT' exactly do you BELIEVE the Universe is made up of. This is certainly NOT clearly expressed within that book, which you keep flogging, or is it?

I said: If you want to insist that the Universe does NOT contain matter or space, then explain how could the Universe NOT contain matter or space?
You said: Much as I think I am flogging a dead horse, that is explained in the chapter 'The whirlpool and the wave-A story about what the universe is made of.

One EXAMPLE of WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, which is different from what is explained in the book IS, you state: that a chapter in the book is about what the Universe is made up of. This is the WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN part. The what is the different part is; there is NOTHING written in that chapter that explains about what the the Universe is made up of. Are you able to SEE this?

Another example of WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, which is different from what is explained in the book IS, you state: the sun is 400 times further away then the moon is.

Another example is that light travels at 300,000 km a second.
The sun's light takes 4.1 hours to reach neptune.
You state that there is NO space in the Universe but you also state: The distances in space are so vast. So, WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN? Is there space where distances are "vast" or there is NO space?
You state the Universe is "mind-boggingly" big as though the size of the Universe is incomprehensible. The size of the Universe can so easily be UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN.
BUT WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, which is NOT different from what is explained in the book IS, you ask: so why do scientists think the Universe started out smaller than an atom.
This is what I have been pointing out. WHY would a "competent scientist" THINK such a thing? What are they basing this ASSUMPTION on exactly?
WHY would ANY person THINK that there was a beginning, to begin with? Are people so indoctrinated by what is written in books, that because they have read the words "in the beginning" that this actually means that there was a beginning and so people started BELIEVING this? Did people start ASSUMING that there was a beginning for Everything, just because they, themselves, had a beginning?
WHY would any rational thinking person even start to ASSUME or BELIEVE there IS "a beginning" in the first place? There is absolutely NO evidence for this, will NONE that I have SEEN, so WHY do scientists THINK the Universe STARTED at all?

A heading you write is: A story about where the universe came from? Now, WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN is NO person KNOWS if the Universe is finite or infinite/eternal, but WHY is there a story proposed from the finite perspective and NOT one from the infinite perspective?
You state that the red/blue shift is used to tell how fast a planet is spinning. You also stated that scientist were surprised when it was discovered that the further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving away from us. Now, that is WHAT (may have) ACTUALLY HAPPENED, but WHERE did the NOTION that the Universe is expanding come from? IF using the shift on one side compared to another was to tell how fast the spin is, then could the galaxy just be spinning faster, or slower, depending on what way the shift occurred?
WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, expressed from the book, is the light from some of the galaxies, what are SAID TO BE further away, is red-shifted, while the color changed around the finger print from the galaxies, which are SAID TO BE closer, is blue-shifted. Yet how could a red or blue shift of a galaxy be compared with exactly? Besides the FACT that these two OPPOSITE experimental results SHOW to OPPOSING views about an expanding Universe, the red or blue has to be compared to each other to SHOW results of what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Just from writing this, from a completely OPEN perspective, I can SEE clearly now EXACTLY WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN, regarding ALL of this. (If anyone is Truly curious and interested, then they will KEEP asking clarifying and challenging questions to me).

Another example of WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN as explained in your book is; some galaxies are moving away and some are getting closer, relative to earth, but you ask us to imagine your illustration of galaxies in an expanding Universe and say that this means all the galaxies are moving apart. But WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN is some are moving apart and some are getting closer, well this is what you say DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN, but this is different from what you want us to imagine. The reason you want us to imagine from is different from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is because you ASSUME and BELIEVE, that which is DIFFERENT from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN, and you want us to to ASSUME and BELIEVE like you do. This has been going on since human beings started ASSUMING and BELIEVING that there was "a beginning". And since then the confirmation bias has been hard at work TRYING TO make WHAT DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN fit in with and suit people's own distorted and twisted ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
You state that the Universe IS getting bigger. This is what your book explains. Is this WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN. Is this an actual irrefutable FACT? It all, seemingly, FITS in with the ASSUMPTION that the Universe began. But, unfortunately, this view does NOT fit in with the very FACTS that you, yourself, have provide in this book, which have come from the results of experiments, which you use to make up the STORY, which you are TRYING TO spread here now. You even talk about what is LESS CRAZY is to ASSUME one thing over another.

We are now up to The whirlpool and the wave - A story about what the Universe is made up of. As already explained WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN here, regarding what the Universe is actually made up of, IS different from what is in the book as in the book you do NOT explain any thing about what the Universe is made up of at all. (Unless I missed it, in which case you can direct me and us to exactly WHAT page this is on and/or just tell us here now WHAT the Universe is ACTUALLY made up of. You say The Universe is NOT made up of space. But what is the Universe made up of, to you?

Let us work with what I have written so far and SEE what you respond with first, BEFORE I do the rest of your book.

[uwot]

Besides the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that the big bang was the "beginning"...

Again:

The big bang is not an assumption, it is an hypothesis...

Frankly, you need to demonstrate that you understand the difference, or you are wasting your time.

[Age]

Besides the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that the big bang was the "beginning"...

Again:

The big bang is not an assumption, it is an hypothesis...

Frankly, you need to demonstrate that you understand the difference, or you are wasting your time.

The big bang theory IS a hypothesis. I NEVER said the big bang is an assumption. I said the big bang WAS THE BEGINNING is an ASSUMPTION. Frankly, if you can NOT tell the difference, then that explains WHY you can NOT understand. A hypothesis can be written down but it is WHAT is going on within the body that I am talking about. I am talking about the ASSUMPTION that the Bing bang IS THE BEGINNING of the Universe. Surely that is not that hard a thing to understand, especially considering you are the ONE who ASSUMES that the big bang, itself, is the beginning of the Universe is the truth. If you do NOT ASSUME, then what do you ASSUME?

You even state that the Universe IS getting bigger BECAUSE It began at some point. Frankly, you need to demonstrate that you understand the difference, or you are wasting you time.

I actually provided MANY examples of WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN and HOW they are DIFFERENT from what you explain in the book. Are you really just going to disregard them all, and NOT show WHERE, and WHY, I am WRONG, in ANY of those VIEWS. Or, do you just accept that what I wrote is actually RIGHT?

[uwot]

The big bang theory IS a hypothesis. I NEVER said the big bang is an assumption. I said the big bang WAS THE BEGINNING is an ASSUMPTION. Frankly, if you can NOT tell the difference, then that explains WHY you can NOT understand.

Do you not think that this exchange shows that I do?

That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.

Yup. That is indeed a possibility.

[Age]

The big bang theory IS a hypothesis. I NEVER said the big bang is an assumption. I said the big bang WAS THE BEGINNING is an ASSUMPTION. Frankly, if you can NOT tell the difference, then that explains WHY you can NOT understand.

Do you not think that this exchange shows that I do?

That bang COULD well be just one of many bangs that happen within an infinite and eternal Universe.

Yup. That is indeed a possibility.

But just like with your book, where WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is some times different from what is in your book.

WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO SAY here some times is different from what is in your book.

Here you say that an infinite and eternal Universe is a possibility BUT yet in your book you infer that the Universe is getting bigger, and started out a particular size, which completely CONTRADICTS that there is a POSSIBILITY that the Universe could be infinite and eternal.

As I suggested from the outset of this thread, It will help you and it is much better to NOT let your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of your writings, here, nor in your book.

As your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS have so far clearly distorted WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH IS, the differences from what is written in your book from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN can be CLEARLY SEEN.

[Scott Mayers]

(@ Age) In case you weren't aware, the "Real" numbers were named such AFTER they discovered that there are other numbers we call 'imaginary'. Originally, all numbers were just natural ones (1, 2, 3, ...) then they included fractions which are properly called 'rational' from the term 'ratio' which just compares two natural numbers. They notice that all the natural numbers could be expressed as x/y where x and y are 'natural'. Then when it was discovered that the square roots of numbers, like "√2", has no way to express itself as a fraction of two natural numbers. Thus we come to an 'irrational' conclusion and why then they added all these to a larger group just called 'real' for recognizing that though they cannot represent all numbers, they are nevertheless real, even though many are 'irrational'.

Next, the "Whole" numbers are the Natural numbers plus zero, (0, 1, 2, ....); The Integers are all Whole numbers plus the Negative numbers, (...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...) and collectively all numbers are 'real' when including the rational and irrational. The last addition to the number types came about to respond to the square root of negative numbers. Then they just call "i" the number that means, "square root of negative one" and use this with any real number to make up the whole set of all numbers, now called "complex".

I only added this as a quick summary note in case you were unaware that the "Real" numbers I asked in the last post have the property such that between any two Real numbers, there are an infinity of numbers. If you already understand this then ignore.

Do you see the connection to your question?

NO.

And, WHICH question are you referring to EXACTLY? I do ask MANY.

If you do NOT want to answer my questions, then just LEAVE them. Reader's can SEE what answers of mine do get answered and what ones are skipped, side stepped, and/or TRIED to be deflected away within "other's" responses.

The response of mine in your quote of me here was merely a followup supplemental post to the question I responded that expands on the term "Real Numbers" only.

The actual question you asked and I answered in the prior post was:

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:02 am
HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

...and I need you to respond to the understanding infinities of infinities challenge as it relates to everything of your congested questions. It is a significant prerequisite YOU need in order to qualify for understanding anything you doubt. And if this simple math challenge is beyond you, then therein lies your confusion.

You may be playing a game here and when I saw this at the end of your last long post to me, it may justify my skepticism with you here:

What I UNDERSTAND so far is there are seemingly a lot of contradictions and confusion between all of these ASSUMPTIONS, theories, models, et cetera being made up along the way.

I also UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE ALL of this confusion and contradictions are coming FROM.

Further to this understanding I also UNDERSTAND what I SEE and CAN explain it in a way that SHOWS how it ALL fits together like a puzzle to produce a CLEAR and BIG picture of the Truth of things. That is; IF any one is Truly interested.

I'm hearing a Southern Texan Holy Preacher's drawl in this response. Are you implying some religious alternative to Cosmology? If so, I'm "interested" to know up front. You appear contradictory yourself and may be attempting to try the tactic of destroying foundations prior to proposing a Temple reconstruction project upon the ruins.

[uwot]

Here you say that an infinite and eternal Universe is a possibility BUT yet in your book you infer that the Universe is getting bigger, and started out a particular size, which completely CONTRADICTS that there is a POSSIBILITY that the Universe could be infinite and eternal.

Age, the title of the book is 'Einstein on the train and other stories'. In the introduction I make the point that facts can be interpreted in different ways by giving the analogy of the duck/rabbit illusion. The point being that scientists can study the blobs of ink or pixels which are the 'facts'. Everyone can look at the 'facts', agree that they are 'facts', measure and weigh them, everyone agreeing about the shape, size and weight of the individual components of the overall picture and still they can disagree about what the overall picture is.
The chapter that relates to the big bang is preluded by the question "So, if the universe is so mind-bogglinly big, why do scientists think it started out smaller than an atom?" The chapter itself, 'The Priest and the cosmic egg - A story about where the universe came from' explains the methods by which the evidence was gathered which can be explained by the big bang hypothesis. As I say on page 12: "...it was a surprise when it was discovered that the further away a galaxy is, the more its light is red-shifted. This implies that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. Seems freaky, but it makes sense if the universe is expanding." For your benefit, I have highlighted the conditionals that you appear to have missed.

As I suggested from the outset of this thread, It will help you and it is much better to NOT let your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of your writings, here, nor in your book.

Indeed. You apparently are oblivious to my efforts to avoid precisely that.

As your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS have so far clearly distorted WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH IS, the differences from what is written in your book from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN can be CLEARLY SEEN.

If all you have to tell me is that I should be careful not to make assumptions, you have made your point. There is nothing to be gained by labouring it.

[Age]

(@ Age) In case you weren't aware, the "Real" numbers were named such AFTER they discovered that there are other numbers we call 'imaginary'. Originally, all numbers were just natural ones (1, 2, 3, ...) then they included fractions which are properly called 'rational' from the term 'ratio' which just compares two natural numbers. They notice that all the natural numbers could be expressed as x/y where x and y are 'natural'. Then when it was discovered that the square roots of numbers, like "√2", has no way to express itself as a fraction of two natural numbers. Thus we come to an 'irrational' conclusion and why then they added all these to a larger group just called 'real' for recognizing that though they cannot represent all numbers, they are nevertheless real, even though many are 'irrational'.

Next, the "Whole" numbers are the Natural numbers plus zero, (0, 1, 2, ....); The Integers are all Whole numbers plus the Negative numbers, (...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...) and collectively all numbers are 'real' when including the rational and irrational. The last addition to the number types came about to respond to the square root of negative numbers. Then they just call "i" the number that means, "square root of negative one" and use this with any real number to make up the whole set of all numbers, now called "complex".

I only added this as a quick summary note in case you were unaware that the "Real" numbers I asked in the last post have the property such that between any two Real numbers, there are an infinity of numbers. If you already understand this then ignore.

Do you see the connection to your question?

NO.

And, WHICH question are you referring to EXACTLY? I do ask MANY.

If you do NOT want to answer my questions, then just LEAVE them. Reader's can SEE what answers of mine do get answered and what ones are skipped, side stepped, and/or TRIED to be deflected away within "other's" responses.

The response of mine in your quote of me here was merely a followup supplemental post to the question I responded that expands on the term "Real Numbers" only.

The actual question you asked and I answered in the prior post was:

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:02 am
HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

...and I need you to respond to the understanding infinities of infinities challenge as it relates to everything of your congested questions.

Why do you NEED me to respond to that?

But, if you really NEED me to respond, then I will.

What is the challenge, exactly?

The question I posed was: HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

So, HOW does explaining the understanding of the infinities of infinities, which is in relation to numbers, help you to answer the question HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway? Either you can answer that question or you can NOT.

My question is in relation to IF the Universe is infinite, which means FOREVER MORE, then HOW could that GET BIGGER?

It is a significant prerequisite YOU need in order to qualify for understanding anything you doubt.

But what do I doubt?

The Universe is either infinite in size or finite. As far as I can SEE there is NO limit/boundary/edge to the Universe.

If you can SEE or KNOW of any limit/boundary/edge or finite to the Universe, then just say what this IS/COULD BE.

Also, IF you could explain HOW an infinite Universe could get bigger, then please just say that as well.

Infinities of infinities, especially in relation to things like numbers, really does NOT have much to do with some thing like the Universe Itself.

And if this simple math challenge is beyond you, then therein lies your confusion.

I did NOT even see what the math challenge was. Therefore, the math challenge must be beyond me, so WHERE is my confusion exactly?

And, what has my confusion, about a math challenge, got to do with you answering, or NOT answering; HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

You may be playing a game here and when I saw this at the end of your last long post to me, it may justify my skepticism with you

What game do you think I am playing?

And, what are you skeptic about exactly?

here:

What I UNDERSTAND so far is there are seemingly a lot of contradictions and confusion between all of these ASSUMPTIONS, theories, models, et cetera being made up along the way.

I also UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE ALL of this confusion and contradictions are coming FROM.

Further to this understanding I also UNDERSTAND what I SEE and CAN explain it in a way that SHOWS how it ALL fits together like a puzzle to produce a CLEAR and BIG picture of the Truth of things. That is; IF any one is Truly interested.

I'm hearing a Southern Texan Holy Preacher's drawl in this response.

So what if you do?

Does the "accent" you hear, in my written words, affect the accuracy of what I write?

Are you implying some religious alternative to Cosmology? If so, I'm "interested" to know up front.

No. Do you hear some religious alternative to cosmology also, or do you just ASSUME that?

And, IF I was implying some religious alternative to cosmology, then would that affect how intently you would listen to what I was saying?

You appear contradictory yourself

That is perfectly fine. If you SEE any contradictions, then just point them out, and ask some clarifying questions, so then I could clear up things for you here.

and may be attempting to try the tactic of destroying foundations prior to proposing a Temple reconstruction project upon the ruins.

I could be doing this. But WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?

For the readers, this is another perfectly fine EXAMPLE of just HOW ASSUMPTIONS will distort one's ability to LISTEN TO and SEE the actual and real Truth of things.

What 'foundations' EXACTLY are you proposing here that I am attempting to destroy?

Let us SEE if they are actual and real foundations first.

[Age]

Here you say that an infinite and eternal Universe is a possibility BUT yet in your book you infer that the Universe is getting bigger, and started out a particular size, which completely CONTRADICTS that there is a POSSIBILITY that the Universe could be infinite and eternal.

Age, the title of the book is 'Einstein on the train and other stories'. In the introduction I make the point that facts can be interpreted in different ways by giving the analogy of the duck/rabbit illusion. The point being that scientists can study the blobs of ink or pixels which are the 'facts'. Everyone can look at the 'facts', agree that they are 'facts', measure and weigh them, everyone agreeing about the shape, size and weight of the individual components of the overall picture and still they can disagree about what the overall picture is.
The chapter that relates to the big bang is preluded by the question "So, if the universe is so mind-bogglinly big, why do scientists think it started out smaller than an atom?" The chapter itself, 'The Priest and the cosmic egg - A story about where the universe came from' explains the methods by which the evidence was gathered which can be explained by the big bang hypothesis. As I say on page 12: "...it was a surprise when it was discovered that the further away a galaxy is, the more its light is red-shifted. This implies that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. Seems freaky, but it makes sense if the universe is expanding." For your benefit, I have highlighted the conditionals that you appear to have missed.

You have just more or less re-repeated what is written in the book, which detracts from what I am pointing out, which is; the "stories" you give are NOT consistent with the FACTS, which you, yourself, explain.

In your own book you are providing "stories" that contradict what you, yourself, say are the FACTS. As explained in the examples that I have given.

As I suggested from the outset of this thread, It will help you and it is much better to NOT let your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of your writings, here, nor in your book.

Indeed. You apparently are oblivious to my efforts to avoid precisely that.

How can I be oblivious to your efforts to "avoid" 'precisely that' WHEN I am POINTING OUT the actual ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you DO HAVE, which are STARTLING OBVIOUS within your book and within your writings here, in this forum?

You can TRY and "avoid" some thing as much as you like BUT if you are STILL doing that thing, then that is what you are actually DOING. This is what I am pointing out.

As your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS have so far clearly distorted WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH IS, the differences from what is written in your book from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN can be CLEARLY SEEN.

If all you have to tell me is that I should be careful not to make assumptions, you have made your point. There is nothing to be gained by labouring it.

STOP implying that you do NOT make assumptions, or that you make "efforts" to "avoid" making assumptions, when the opposite is obviously True.

Besides saying that it is better to be careful NOT to make assumptions I am expressing WHY it is BETTER to NEVER make assumptions. I am using your distorted and WRONG "stories" to HIGHLIGHT this.

And, you said you would be very grateful if I showed you where WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN is different from what is explained in your book. I have done this, up to a certain point in your book. Is there nothing more you want to add to that?

[Atla]

An expanding infinite universe is of course a logical impossibility, someone here is making even Age look smart. Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

[Logik]

An expanding infinite universe is of course a logical impossibility, someone here is making even Age look smart. Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

A "real" infinite that isn't conceptual ?

Since you have access to "reality" through approximately the same faculties as all humans - which God revealed that "real infinite truth" to you?