Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
@Age,
Sorry again for not answering quicker. I'm not online as much in the last few days but WILL try to respond to as much as I can as long as you are not in a hurry. You write a lot to respond to and I need time to get through them bit by bit.
I'll jump first to respond to the point of linking you to the "Cosmological Principle" earlier. [I actually agree to your point about redirecting to links. I felt it was sufficient and clear of one to explain matters I did not need to rewrite.] But...
The principle is an "assumption" of convention for science. Because science is only a group project, people have to agree to a minimal set of conditions before moving forward.
And one of those conditions, before moving forward, could be let us just LOOK AT 'that' what it IS that we have observed and seen, only, BEFORE we make any 'assumption' at all, always.
And you are 'assuming' that this hasn't been done.
Do you KNOW of ANY adult human being who has NEVER assumed some thing EVER, and thus been Truly OPEN ALWAYS?
If no, then it is NOT some thing that really NEEDS to be ASSUMED.
If yes, then please provide the label that was placed onto that human being who NEVER assumed ALWAYS.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am See how it is impossible to evade assumptions?
NO.
Even by your remark here, which is obviously being proposed as the absolute 100% certain Truth of things by the way, counters the point you are making. You are countering your own point. If it is, as you are proposing it is here, IMPOSSIBLE to evade assumptions, then I would NOT have to ASSUME that human beings have NOT just LOOKED AT things without ever making any 'assumption' at all ALWAYS, because it would just be a FACT, which could NOT be refuted anyway, according to you.
Now, however, it is very easy to evade assumptions. That is; when you recognize that they are arising.
Recognizing when assumptions are arising, in order to evade then, ALWAYS may not be as easy, BUT it is still POSSIBLE.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amAnd if you are still at odds with this, I ask HOW could you know anything beyond your own personal experience without assuming?
At first glance, through 'trust'.
If you were to trust another human being enough, then you would NOT have to ASSUME that what they are relaying to you is the Truth or not.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amWhen/if you watch the news on television, do you become an absolute skeptic by thinking what you are 'observing' is just as equally just a fake program made in your television set that creates an illusion THAT other people exist?
No I do NOT think this.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am I'm asking the same question I put to you before about how you 'assume' me being real when all you see (I 'presume') are words on the screen you are reading this from?
WHEN and WHEREABOUTS did you put this same question to 'me'?
But to answer this question now, But I do NOT 'assume' you to be real.
I have a view of what the 'you' is, and from that view, what I see on the screen backs up, supports, and verifies further this view of what the 'you' IS, when combined with the other views I have, especially concerning that question; Who am 'I'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amYour intended questions ARE correctly asked. But I think you are in a 'phase' of thinking because that even myself went through a long time ago.
There have been a few of 'you' in this forum who have a tendency to SEE that I am like them in this regard to 'what they have gone through, and come out of' now I am going through that "stage of life" also.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amYou admitted to being 'simple' (which I '
assume' doesn't mean you are mentally defective, by charity.)
That ALL depends on who you are asking, to some here, I could NOT be any more 'mentally defective'.
But to me, all of 'you' are 'mentally defective'. Now, BEFORE the ASSUMING starts, the one writing this is also one of 'you'. If any of us were NOT 'mentally defective' in one way or another, then we would be able to THINK in a way that we would be able to KNOW EVERY thing 100% accurately and correctly. Now, for this one, this 'you', where these words are coming from does NOT even know how to express at all, 'that', which is wanted to be expressed clearly, accurately, and correctly. I would call that very 'mentally defective'.
But if we were to just LOOK AT the word 'simple' on its own and NOT TRYING TO relate it to the derogatory term of 'being mentally defective'. Yes I am extremely 'simple' as I just tend to LOOK AT things from a very SIMPLE perspective, without TRYING TO make things complex nor hard.
For example when I LOOK OUT into what is generally known as 'space', with the physical eyes and with the conceptual ability to SEE past just that what is seen with the eyes. I SEE that there is NO boundary nor limit to that 'space'. NO matter what I have done to TRY and observe a limit/boundary I just can NOT see one. And, when I have asked for clarification of what that boundary/limit COULD ACTUALLY BE, NO reasonable answer has been given. In fact I do NOT recall ANY answer being given, in this forum anyway.
But this inability to SEE a limit/boundary might just be because I LOOK AT things, from this very simple perspective. But when I do TRY TO put a limit/boundary of the non-visible thing of 'space' itself I just can NOT seem to do it. Even when I have imagined a 'wall' as a limit/boundary, then either that wall is infinitely 'thick' or there is another side to it, which again contains 'space', which I then can NOT see a limit/boundary to it. If I conceptualize up another limit/boundary/wall, then I just keep repeating the same, that is; either an infinitely thick wall or a thickness of some size with some thing on the other side. And, if the Universe is ALL-THERE-IS, then that is still part of the Universe, no matter what is is. This is just one example of my SIMPLICITY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amJust be patient when you insist direct observation prior to anyone trying to explain HOW you can first ask questions yourself.] If you only lived in a large city, for instance, you could not see the actual Milky Way Galaxy that others can clearly observe out in the middle of a dark field outside of town.
It would have to be a fairly bright city but yes if the actual milky way galaxy could NOT be seen with the physical eyes, from that position, then that galaxy could NOT be seen, with the physical eyes, from that position.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am So when you demand some prior evidence to observe, it first requires determining where you are to understand why you cannot look up to see such a phenomena that others living in the countryside might take for granted with their own inability to 'assume' what is true of those living in some city.
You might be ASSUMING a case of 'being simple', which is NOT what is NOT the actual case.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amAge wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmThe principles are just conventions that require assuming first that what we live in the SAME world that we have to assume is consistent universally.
But "we" do NOT have to assume that at all.
In fact, if we DID assume that, then this may effect the way we LOOK AT 'that' what we have observed and seen. We may, after all, start "interpreting" 'that', what has actually been observed and seen, through a distorted vision, and then SEE things that are NOT really and actually the Truth of things.
Yes "we" do, if we are trying to relate to each other our subjective realities.
If you BELIEVE 'you' do, then you go right on ahead and ASSUME absolutely any thing you like. But do NOT put I into the category of 'we'.
I do NOT have to ASSUME such a thing and, at the moment, I am NOT assuming such a thing.
For instance, what do you mean by 'SAME world', which you say "we" HAVE TO ASSUME is 'consistent universally'?
How MANY 'worlds' do you think/assume there are?
'We' CAN still relate our views, without ASSUMPTIONS. You are after all, relating your subjective views, and I am interpreting them without the assumption that "we" live in the SAME world nor I am assuming that that "world", which I am NOT yet aware of, is 'consistent universally'.
What do you mean by 'consistent universally'?
SEE by asking clarifying questions I am NOT assuming any thing, yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
I just gave a good example of how a city-dweller cannot observe the same way as one living out in the country. If both of us are arguing something that hides our knowledge of where we EACH come from, both will just go past one another arguing about something that is just an accident of perspective.
I think it was I who said the words we use, even internally, have far more power over "us", human beings, actually realize yet.
I think it was I who also talked about how without KNOWING what the other is actually meaning through the words they are using, then confusion can all to quickly set in.
Was it you who I asked, If I do NOT want to 'argue' with you, then what do I actually mean?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am Thus, you too also have to recognize that you have some prior set of observations that make you think that it is ONLY me who is 'presuming' because you are presuming that I AM assuming something of you that I am not.
WHEN and if I did that, then that is EXACTLY what I have been asking to be POINTED OUT to me.
Because ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMPTIONS can creep in far to easily I WANT mine to be POINTED OUT and SHOWN to me, so that I can improve on expressing my views. So, WHERE exactly did I do this?
I already agree with you on assumptions. I pointed out though that to be perfectly non-assuming, you have to LACK assuming that absolutely everything is true anywhere and everywhere.[/quote]
Any thing wrong with doing this?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am Thus I could hold you accountable to proving the theories wrong rather than expect others to posit why or how something is true in the first place.
But I can NOT even get past the 'IF you just STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING, then what IS actual True and Right can be SEEN and KNOWN' stage of communicating, without being informed that I am a moron and such like. Let alone moving onto SHOWING the 'WHY and HOW the "theories" ARE actually WRONG' stage.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThat would be dumb of both of us to expect.
But WHY are you ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING this?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThe example of Obler's paradox is just a philosophical introduction to the problem, just as it helps justify what others were thinking that first motivated them to observe with better accuracy.
BUT did it HELP them to observe with better accuracy?
By the way what is the actual "problem" you SEE, as I do NOT SEE any problem here whatsoever.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmThis means that we need to separate subjective beliefs about reality, such as religious Cosmological origin stories from the activity of observing the skies.
1. WHY have ANY "BELIEF" to start with?
2. If there is NO "BELIEF" nor "ASSUMPTION", then there is nothing to separate, nor even a "need" to do any such thing.
3. WHY remove SOME "stories" but leave other ones behind?
You are singing to the choir. You come to the same conclusions as I do and why I said what I just said above.
But you said, in the above, that 'you NEED to separate 'subjective beliefs about reality' when observing the skies, right?
If yes, then HOW do you KNOW what are 'subjective beliefs about reality' YET, especially considering when what you are doing is just 'observing' TO DISCOVER what the actual and real Truth IS (or what you call "reality").
If you are going to separate what you BELIEVE is NOT true BEFORE you start 'observing', then that means that you have already ASSUMED what is NOT true, which could be just based on your own 'subjective BELIEFS about reality', which OBVIOUSLY could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG?
Scott Mayers wrote:
The general Cosmological Principle is that we are not in any 'special' place such that the physics here is the same everywhere in this Universe. We ran into problems in previous times of believing that Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Universe itself was 'made' FOR us specifically.
If people STILL believe or disbelieve either, then they will STILL continue to run into, what you call, "problems".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The reason I gave you the link was precisely because it explains this without my need to repeat it.
If you can express your VIEW that 'no matter where "you" are in SPACE and that the distribution is ASSUMED to be the same' but you can NOT just write if the distribution is of SPACE or of some thing else, then so be it. I did NOT think that it would a particular hard question to answer.
So, you KNEW in ADVANCE what I was going to ask you about this distribution IN SPACE, did you?
And you wanted me to read reams of writings to just clarify that if the distribution IN SPACE, which you then afterwards was going to talk about was IN RELATION the word SPACE that you just used or was in relation to some thing else, is this correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am I don't expect you to trust nor follow all of what the link explained as it also 'assumes' some people will also be intellectuals sufficient to understanding all they've written there. But is has some general explanations that might help that would be redundant of me to state.
Do you KNOW that you have used far more words to say, and imply that I am NOT intellectual enough to understand that which is written in scientific literature, which if you want to know the Truth of I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, but anyway if you can NOT just write which probably could have been written in a 3rd or less of the amount of words that you have used so far, then so be it. Carry on the way you are.
Oh look at this.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am the 'distribution' is called 'homogeneous' similar to how the word is used in chemistry to refer to mixtures of distinct things IN a whole. So a chemist will describe a mixture 'homogeneous' when you can see distinct parts of the mixture but distributed evenly through the mixture. For instance, concrete is a 'homogeneous' mixture of gravel and cement. They mix these in that big truck you see to make it 'homogeneous.' That is, it spreads the larger distinct gravel rocks in the cement. A non-homogeneous mixture of this would 'separate' the distribution, like having all the gravel only concentrated at the bottom with the top side only cement.
You have still NOT answered the distribution of WHAT EXACTLY?
So the 'distribution' part of the assumption is that we assume that the stars and galaxies are distributed approximately over the spread of the whole space in the universe.[/quote]
There you go, all you had to do was name two things; stars AND galaxies. So, it would have taken you far less than a 3rd of what you had already written
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThis description is not absolutely precise when you take only a part of space because stars and galaxies cluster.
When you say 'space' what did you mean?
Or, are you also going to get seemingly very frustrated with this very simple question as well?
By the way I could read ALL the so called "scientific" literature ever written on this subject, but then speak to a person, just like you, and you use a word in different way then "others" do, which can be clearly SEEN happens quite to frequently.
You seem to use the word 'space' instead of the word 'Universe', but I could be mistaken, and i did NOT want to ASSUME any thing here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am But the EFFECT of stepping back to look at the whole would make space with the stars/galaxies seem spread out in the same way gas would tend to fill all the space of some container on AVERAGE (called, 'entropy')
By the way if the description is NOT absolutely precise, then WHY NOT just say some thing like; There is an apparent evenly spread of matter distributed in the observable universe, or some thing like that. Instead of just saying 'distribution' as though it was actually true and correct?
Also, what "gas" does in a container does NOT really have much to do with what "matter" does in a MAYBE contained OR uncontained Universe.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
The study of the Universe has been and is continually being defeated by all of these BELIEFS (believing and NOT believing in and of things) that are currently being held, which are also being passed onto "others" to either BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE.
ALL of the truths AND falsehoods within ALL of these "stories" about adam and eve, God, created human beings, steady states, static Universe, multiple universes, one beginning Universe, evolution, et cetera, et cetera CAN already bee SEEN and KNOWN, almost instantly. But this can NOT happen if one already BELIEVES or ASSUMES that they ALREADY KNOW what thee Truth IS.
So, the first thing to do is to speak our differences FIRST to determine what we all MINIMALLY agree to. Those 'minimal' things we agree to are the conventions of 'assumptions' needed first before you actively search together.
I do NOT see them as 'minimal' as you might be ASSUMING that the Universe began and/or finite, or any thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThe more variable opinions involved, the smaller the set of assumptions that are needed to which EACH at least agrees to. But, if no one can get past one person who might assert that you cannot 'assume' anything more strictly, that person needs to define the minimal means needed to qualify them in agreement.
At a minimum NO assumptions and NO beliefs, and then JUST LOOK AT what IS.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am If none can be found, then the whole group cannot move forward without ousting that person's participation.
Is this sort of like "ousting" that person's participation, who was saying the sun does NOT go around the earth, BECAUSE that person's participation was NOT fitting in with the ALREADY held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThe argument that I give about the fact that "assuming nothing" is identical to "assuming everything", is what I am trying to appeal to you so that you can accept 'assumptions' as a convention.
IF you really and Truly BELIEVE that ASSUMPTIONS are NECESSARY, then 'what' ASSUMPTIONS exactly do you WANT me have and strongly HOLD ONTO?
Also, 'assuming nothing' IS NOT any thing at all like 'assuming everything', to me.
For example one, literally, means NO thing is being assumed, whereas the other means that EVERY thing is being ASSUMED.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am If not, there is no possible way to prove to you anything and the whole effort would be fruitless to try.
But that is an extremely WRONG assumption to be making. But considering you are basing of a supposed "fact", which you are TRYING TO "argue" for, then it is very simple and easy to CLEARLY SEE WHY you made up such an ASSUMPTION.
You CAN prove many things to me with observable empirical evidence or with sound, valid arguments. Either one is just as good for me.
And, if you idea here, in this forum, is to "PROVE" things, then that is okay with me. But that certainly is NOT what I am here nor what I am LOOKING FOR here,from you nor any one "else".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amAgain, ASSUME ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ARE you 'assuming' are are you "lacking an assumption" if you did this? If you think you are 'lacking ANY assumption', this has to mean you are still 'assuming' something.
But I am NOT 'assuming' any such thing. At the moment as far as I am aware I am NOT assuming any thing at all. This could change, however, before this sentence is even finished, for example.
ASSUMPTIONS CAN arise and subside all the time if One is NOT conscious of what is going on in the thinking within a body.
Because ASSUMPTIONS can so easily "creep" into the thinking and appear in the written words, without even being recognized by the writer, that is WHY I ask to be informed of WHEN my ASSUMPTIONS are noticed, in my words. But ASSUMING that I am ASSUMING and TRYING TO LOOK FOR and FIND "justifications" for that ASSUMPTION, and then writing things like IF you are "assuming" that you are 'lacking ANY assumption' is just NOT doing any thing, other than providing ANOTHER example of just HOW ASSUMPTIONS can and will distort the actual Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amI use this kind of argument (for my own purposes of 'theorizing') that Totality itself CAN have an 'origin' but would require being ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in its 'origin'.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I am ACTUALLY DOING.
This is because IF absolutely nothing WERE a reality, then it would be ONE TRUTH. But 'ONE' is greater than 'NOTHING'. Thus, this 'contradiction' requires accepting that IF reality had an
origin, it COULD BE TRUE that reality is caused by contradiction itself. That if you accept absolutely nothing to have no possible means to 'cause' anything, you would just be denying that it could be 'ABSOLUTE'. If it is NOT the case, then TOTALITY HAS to hold all infinite possibilities in it, including things that locally appear to be untrue.[/quote]
So, if you finally come to SEE the absurdity in this and TRYING TO do this, then that is great. But really again NOTHING much at all to do with what I am ACTUALLY DOING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amSo to presume absolutely nothing LEADS to assuming absolutely everything!
But that is IF you were to PRESUME absolutely nothing, which IS NOTHING like what I have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am This is fine for me and quite revealing. It suggests that all of reality can be infinite but BOUND such that all that is 'false' is just what is 'not true' of some PART of Totality. To open your mind to the possibilities then at least makes it reasonable to 'presume' some minimal set of facts because it IS true of something somewhere.
IF you WANT to PRESUME some 'minimal' so called "facts", then go ahead on DOING THAT. If it makes you feel better and/or helps supports your ASSUMPTIONS, then also that is great if you WANT to continue down that path. But AGAIN really NOTHING at all like what I AM DOING AND SAYING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amYou cannot NOT 'assume' while limiting it to some conditional assumption about assuming itself.
If you say so.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am So, when scientists got together, they AGREED to CONVENE a set of minimal things that everyone could at least agree to is 'true', even if it may not be,
LOL
And they call "religious" people blindsided by their own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
So, are you really telling me/us that when so called "scientists" get together, they AGREE to at least agree on some thing/s to be 'true', even if that thing may well NOT be true at all?
If yes, then I would suggest to them that they are NOT really being scientists AT ALL. But with my credentials I would be very surprised if some even listened to a word i said, and instead just laughed at what I said, and then TRY TO ridicule me.
But as some say, "That is the nature of the beast". "Others" might say that that is just the BELIEF-system at work, which ASSUMING and ASSUMPTIONS are a part of.
If no, however, then what were you telling me/us?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am because we have no other choice other than to NOT DO ANYTHING at all. If 'scientists' thought this, there would NOT be science at all as an activity we share. We'd all have to figure things out by ourselves without ever trusting anything but our own senses alone. "Science" is a word derived from a Greek word meaning, 'to see'.
Like in 'TO SEE'/UNDERSTAND is TO LOOK from the Truly OPEN perspective, which is where
what IS actually True and Right can and will be SEEN.
Or, does 'to see' mean some thing completely different, from your perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am The INSTITUTE of 'science' was an invention of groups of people agreeing to ONLY USE our collective SENSES to begin with, go step by step from observations to try to determine common patterns which we use 'theories' to explain. These then act as tentative stories to be used to combine what we observe into a 'formula' of explaining the patterns we see.
And so far these 'groups of people', from what I SEE, are more disagreeing than agreeing.
They can NOT even decide if human beings have an effect on the climate or not, and this is in their own backyard, let alone agreeing on what is happening out past earth.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmBecause evolution is understood as a 'fact', some think that the Big Bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now. This enables the Big Bang to be viable.
If I recall correctly it was you who stated the big bang means that it was the beginning. So, what do you mean by the big bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now? What "past" is it "now"?
You are not understanding the word 'evolution'.
AND what have you based this such incredible insightful understanding of what thinking and views are within this body?
HOW are you able to enter and obtain such insight into THIS body?
I NEVER used the 'evolution' word, yet you KNOW/ASSUME that I am NOT understanding the word 'evolution'.
This will be good, that is IF it gets answered. But, IF you KNOW that I am NOT understanding the word 'evolution', then HOW am I misunderstanding the word 'evolution'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThe Big Bang Theory assumes that there IS a different reality at different times, such as that AT or NEAR the origin of the singularity, everything was all fit into a point in some place, something that we do NOT see possible to see locally nor could reproduce in some lab.
I am NOT sure how there could even be a "different" 'reality' at different times. IF what is really happening at any particular time, then that IS what is REALLY happening.
What IS this 'reality', which you refer to a fair bit that somehow COULD EVEN BE "different"?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amThis means that the theory proposes a time when things were NOT the same as they appear today.
Besides the fact that you are just telling us what A "theory" proposes, which is NOT answering my clarifying questions, 'things were NOT the same yesterday as they appear today', so I would be pretty confident in saying that that part of the "theory" might actually be True.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am This then means that they don't believe in the Cosmological Principle IF IT INCLUDED TIME.
One sentence you talk about what A "theory" proposes then you talk what "they" do NOT believe in such and such. Who cares about what some people BELIEVE or do NOT BELIEVE, or what some "theory" proposes or does NOT propose. The actual and real Truth, after all, is usually ALWAYS different anyway.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 am How else could you have some 'bang' of something into existence from nothing if they had no 'original' cause.
VERY, VERY SIMPLY and EASILY.
The obvious answer to this, you think would ALREADY BE KNOWN, by these so called "scientific" "experts", SURELY.
The actually blindly OBVIOUS ASSUMPTION/BELIEF in your statement is ONE reason WHY this view still even exists in the days of when this is written.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amWhat they hold as 'evidence' is to things that they observe as proof of a time when the universe was extremely hot everywhere. This is what that 'cosmic background radiation' evidence is claimed to be proving.
Yes, "claiming" to be "proving", AND THEN "holding" onto 'that' "as evidence" just about says it all.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amI disagree and even the term "cosmic background radiation" is begging of implying meaning to the interpretation of observation.
And do you 'disagree' because it is WRONG or because it does NOT 'fit into' you already held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:51 amSo obviously I too think there is a problem of 'assumptions' going on. So you are NOT in strange company on this thought.
But do you also find it amusing and even hilariously when people say that "others" are only ASSUMING, when it is only when the "others" are NOT agreeing with and saying what the person wants them to agree with AND say?
Or, is it JUST Me who SEES this?