Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 amSo, what does 'space' mean to you?
So, AFTER I am the one asking, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, the people who BELIEVE and STATE that 'space is expanding, 'What IS 'space'? and I have STILL YET to get a response, I am 'now' the one who is expected to provide a definition for the word 'space'. When just about all along I was the one NEVER claiming any thing about 'space'.
This goes against any concept of 'burden of proof' being on the one who is making the claim. But considering
NO one, besides me, as of yet has provided A definition, so I will, provide a definition for the word 'space' AGAIN. 'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
I gave a working definition HERE with your response:
Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amWorking definition of the
Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.
I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.
But just to inform YOU that is NOT going to help you find 'that' what you are LOOKING FOR.
By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?
I cannot tell if you are agreeing or not to an actual definition I DID provide.
This is because I write in a way, some times, to MAKE the people in this forum ASSUME things. I have expressed, on to many occasions, the reasons WHY it is much better to NEVER assume. But NO clarifying questions are ever asked about this, and people just keep ASSUMING. So, I now write KNOWING people will ASSUME. That way I have GOT INSTANCES of WHEN people ASSUME and EXAMPLES of WHY it is fair better to NEVER ASSUME.
However, I can NOT see why any one would assume otherwise is for the SAME reason why I can NOT see why any one would assume the definition you DID provide as well. I can NOT see why any one would assume ANY thing, at all. This VIEW is based on the OPEN principle.
I purposely wrote that in a way so that you could NOT tell if I was agreeing or not. This is to prove my point about how it is much better to NOT assume any thing at all.
If you can NOT tell if I am agreeing or NOT, then just ask me to clarify. This really is the best, and really the only, way to gain a True understanding of things, from "another's" perspective. This is WHY I say ASSUMING prevents one from KNOWING the Truth (of things).
If you do NOT ask a clarifying question, then you could have gone on for the rest of you life NOT telling if I was agreeing or not, or just ASSUMING one way or the other. But with one very simple clarifying question, and an OPEN and Honest reply, then you WOULD KNOW if I am agreeing or not, very quickly, simply, and easily also. This is WHY I say KNOWING the Truth (of things) can be KNOWN very quickly, simply, and easily.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmYou assert that you cannot see why anyone would assume otherwise which suggests agreement but then follow up with the additional informed condition that it will not help ME find that which I am looking for, which is making some assertion on your part that I don't understand.
So, what do you THINK would be the best action to take to understand what I am "asserting"?
Do you really think that informing me that you do NOT understand is the best way, or, do you THINK that by just asking me a clarifying question in regards to 'what' it is EXACTLY that you want to become aware of would be the best, simplest, and easiest way to understand what i am "asserting"?
But anyway, I do NOT agree with ALL of the actual definition you DID provide. Although, to me, the general concept of NO matter where you are in the Universe 'things are relatively the same', could be agreed with.
You have informed us of WHY you BELIEVE it is NECESSARY to ASSUME. I have just informed that I can NOT see WHY any one would assume ANY thing. So, we have both put our VIEW forward.
You can NOT make me ASSUME some thing just like I can NOT make you NOT ASSUME any thing. We just are using a different definition for the word 'assume' here.
If, however, you would like to change the word 'assume' when used in reference to 'assuming things are relatively the same' any where in the Universe to we both 'agree' on that if we, from now on, LOOK AT 'ALL of this' and discuss from the perspective that 'things are relatively the same any where in the Universe', then I WILL agree and accept this. But then you may NOT agree with and accept the term/definition that 'things are relatively the same any where in the Universe'. If you do NOT agree with nor accept this, then what would you agree with and accept?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmWhat is 'that' to which I am “LOOKING FOR”?
ONLY 'you', 'your' True Self, would KNOW the answer to 'that', right?
But could it be ANSWERS?
Are 'you' LOOKING FOR 'answers'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmIf this the
(1.0)Perfect Cosmological Principle that I stated is a meaning you agree to but are sure that is a process of thinking that would not help me express some successful proof to you, I require YOU to initiate the means for which would QUALIFY to you as proof of expansion. So,...
But I DO NOT WANT nor am I SEEKING nor am I LOOKING FOR "proof" of any thing.
BUT what I have been asking for is WHAT 'evidence' do people, themselves, have and use to SAY that 'the Universe IS expanding'?
That could "QUALIFY" as proof.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm(1) first TELL me clearly
what qualifies as a proof that COULD potentially prove that 'the Universe expands'.
WHAT qualifies as a 'proof' that COULD potentially prove that 'the Universe expands' IS the 'proof' you use.
Just tell me what 'evidence' you have for the Universe expanding, as that I is all I have been asking for anyway.
The 'facts', 'evidence', and/or 'proof' that you, yourself, use would suffice.
By the way has there been some sort of ASSUMPTION that I am LOOKING FOR "proofs", which COULD "prove" some thing to me here?
When I ask for 'evidence' of some thing, I am NOT asking that to 'prove' some thing I am just asking that to gain a better clarity of how you individual SEE things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmIf there is none, there is no amount of words anyone could say that you would agree to.
But this is like saying to the person who was stating that the earth revolves around the sun, when every one else is saying the opposite, What do you need as prove that the sun revolves around the earth. There is NO use asking the person what qualifies as "proof" that COULD potentially prove some thing, when the person is expressing their VIEW, which ACTUALLY opposes that ASSUMPTION/BELIEF.
Do you understand this?
The REASON WHY the observable universe LOOKS LIKE it is expanding BUT IT IS NOT is OBVIOUS, to me. Just like the sun revolving around the earth is/was just an optical illusion ALSO, so is an 'expanding Universe' just an optical illusion as well.
I am here in this forum to learn how to better communicate this VIEW, plus other things human beings BELIEVE are true, but which REALLY are NOT. I am NOT here LOOKING to be "proved" of things. I am here LEARNING how to express my VIEWS better.
I do NOT need "proof" of the things human beings BELIEVE are true. I need to learn how to communicate my VIEWS better.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm(2) Next, because you are hesitant to agree to anything for some 'assumptions' I hold, to avoid the problem of me assuming that you interpret the words I use from a different lexicon you have than mine,
I want you to set the 'working definitions' of all the significant terms to which I will either agree to or try to negotiate.
Okay this is a great way to move forward. If the Truth be KNOWN this is roughly EXACTLY HOW peace on earth, FOR EVERY One, CAN be created, and WILL be achieved.
But anyway, If you want me to set the working definitions, then I just need to know one thing, that is; what is the goal you are wanting here?
Do you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding? Or,
Do you want to listen to my VIEW and ALL of the details, which will explain HOW I came to this VIEW?
If it is the former, then just write down ALL of the facts, which is the evidence, and therefore 'what' proves that the Universe is expanding. If those "facts" are irrefutable evidence, then I can NOT do any thing. You will have achieved your goal, by proving your point.
If, however, you want to do the latter, then are you prepared to just challenge me and ask me clarifying questions?
If it is the latter, then I found it better to have heard ALL of "another's" VIEW BEFORE dismissing it. But if one is LOOKING AT "another's" VIEW NOT from an ALREADY held ASSUMING/BELIEVING perspective, then they are Truly OPEN anyway to LISTEN to ALL of it.
So, either you want to prove to "others" that what you think, assume, and/or believe is true IS TRUE. Or, you are OPEN and want to SEE IF there is another picture that COULD possibly illustrate MORE, and explain in MORE and GREATER DETAIL a MORE or ANEW Truth.
My 'working conditions' are based on YOUR CHOICES and what you are prepared to 'work with'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm You are holding the 'power' here and won't relent to assumptions that I keep seem to be making of you.
To me there is NO single/separate one holding the "power". If there is, then that destroys the power of communication, when Truth is FOUND. The 'power' is held within the ability of ALL to communicate OPENLY and Honestly WITH EACH OTHER.
Also, are you saying here that I am relenting to assumptions or that you are relenting to assumptions?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm As such, you now have the burden to at least set the definitions that I am forced to appeal to or challenge.
If your goal is to prove that the Universe is expanding, then it is up to you what definitions you use or want to use.
If, however, you are Truly OPEN and are WANTING to listen to what I have, to express, regarding my VIEW, then if you are going to allow me to define the words I use, then I could NOT ask for much more. I would, however, ask, and in a way expect, you to bring to my attention any definitions, which are becoming to incomprehensible, or just NOT feasible at all. I do, after all, WANT you to be able to UNDERSTAND ME and FOLLOW what I am saying ALL OF THE WAY. only AFTER I have expressed ALL of my VIEW, then is the better time to pick it ALL apart, with clarifying questions, and challenging ALL of the WRONG in it.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmHow else can I try to prove to you something if the words I use even within sentences of an argument are also 'assumed'. If you want me NOT to assume anything of you AND you won't assume my own assumed definitions nor principles, for being 'assumptions', then I won't even assume you agree to any words I use without determining them first of you.
First, you will have to let go of the ASSUMPTION that I want you to 'prove' some thing to me.
Second, although I can SEE that what you are saying here would make sense, at the moment, I just can NOT see it.
The use of the word 'assume' so many times here could lead to an 'assumption' being made all to easily.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmTo determine even what you are challenging of me, I need to determine what you are asking in light of your own potentially hidden counter assumptions of what is 'true' by default about space. So ...
But I was NEVER challenging you. I am literally just asking for what evidence is used to support the VIEW that the Universe is expanding.
To ASSUME that I had some potentially hidden counter "assumption" is only going to PREVENT you from being Truly OPEN and Honest, which just PREVENTS the Truth from being REVEALED.
I have NO hidden ANY thing. I have already CLEARLY expressed my VIEW on the Universe being infinite and eternal. So, there is NOTHING for you to determine about WHY I am just asking some very simple, straightforward questions. I am NOT here, in this forum, to challenge your VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, nor BELIEFS. I am just here to LEARN from them.
In this thread if I am informed of people's "fact" which they use as 'evidence' to 'prove' things, then that is what I would like. But I am NOT going to use that to challenge any thing here. I am wanting to use that to counter things that I wish to express some where other than in this forum.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm(3) If you agree to the first two things I ask you to assert, I need to ask you to accept the burden of telling me any default of belief that one not assuming anything SHOULD hold about space. That is,
Is space defaulted to some pre-non-assumed state of being? If you hold a belief that there is some default state of existence of space, I need to begin from that to try to determine that you actually LACK a position or REMOVE the potential bias of some counter-predisposition you may hold to begin fresh with certainly NO assumptions.
1. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, which is WHAT I DO SAY, then that means that I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing. Could you please tell me in your own words what this means, TO YOU? (You keep using the 'belief' word in relation to me. No matter how may times I inform you of what I just wrote. You are not the only one also. So there must be some thing in those seven words that is NOT being understood).
2. If you want to prove that the Universe is expanding, then it is up to you to define the words you use.
3. If, however, you would like to hear my VIEW on how the Universe is infinite and eternal, then it would be up to me to define the words i use.
After all, it is up to the one, telling their story, who is painting the picture here, so it is up to them to clearly and succinctly SHOW how they are defining the words they use. It is through defining words MORE CLEARLY that a BETTER picture can be SHARED.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmLet's reset this argument to scratch between you and me here with these questions and suggested course of action I ask of you.
Resetting sounds great. But I just want to make it clear that I am NOT here to 'argue' any thing. I have NOT yet formulated sound, valid arguments to SHOW what it is that I want to express YET, and that is WHY I am here to LEARN how to communicate better. Obviously if i had sound, valid arguments already, then I could just express them now. But I do NOT, so instead of arguing for a point-of-view, I just would like to express my VIEW instead.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmThese are NOT burdening you to any proof, but establishing the grounds of which your questions can be answered with better success or satisfaction.
Any thing could be interpreted or assumed regarding my questions, but seriously just take my questions on their most basic and simplest LITERAL form. For example, if I ask: What evidence is there for the Universe is expanding? And, one piece of evidence is 'red shifting, then just state 'red shifting'. My questions really are just that SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pmIf you agree to the course of action and answered the questions above, here is at least the starting definition of space you asserted:
This is your working definition of “space”:
Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm
'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
What is “
distance” to you?
A length.
Do you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding? Or, would you like to hear, and are you OPEN enough to, HOW the Universe may well in fact be infinite and eternal?