The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Tue May 07, 2019 4:06 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 3:38 pm
A paradox is a statement that makes no logical sense because of the specific way that it is worded
Could what you just wrote here be a 'paradox'?

Is the statement, for example, 'the earth is flat' a 'paradox' or not a 'paradox'?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 3:38 pm
For contained within it is a contradiction that may be true or false but appears initially to be false
But just because the contradiction within a statement may appear initially to be false, at very first glance, a few seconds later it may appear to be true.

Also, a contradiction, within a statement, is either a contradiction or it is not a contradiction.

How can a 'contradiction', itself, be either true or false.

We may have, and be using, completely OPPOSITE definitions for the word 'contradiction' now. What do you think?

It looks like we have, and ARE using, completely OPPOSITE definitions for the word 'paradox' now. Can you also SEE this?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 3:38 pm
Paradoxes can exist in statements about Nature but not within Nature itself since it is entirely true
But a paradox is just a written or said statement. Agree?

If yes, then written or said statements can be within Nature, Itself, as 'Nature' could be defined as Everything, anyway.
If no, then what is 'paradox' to you if it is not a written nor said statement?

Also, from another perspective, IF a 'paradox' is a 'contradiction', within a statement, about Nature, which although may initially appear false, BUT, actually be true, then that COULD be within Nature, Itself, correct? Or, have I got this wrong also?

To me, what you are saying here appears to be very contradictory and/or absurd and on further investigation is looking more contradictory and/or absurd. But then again I have NOT seen this FULLY yet, from your perspective.

I am just wondering, from YOUR perspective, have you gained a FULLY COMPLETE perfectly fitting together picture, or VIEW, of ALL-THERE-IS, yet?

If no, then this might explain WHY your definitions of words are contradicting the definitions you are using for other words when they are placed together.
However, if yes, then great.

Also, have you yet noticed how your first sentence states that a 'paradox' is a statement ... BUT your third sentence states that a 'paradox' can exist within a statement ...?

How can a paradox be both 'a statement', and be 'within' 'a statement' also?

And, because of the specific way that it is worded this appears to make no logical sense to me. For within it appears to be a contraction.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed May 08, 2019 2:33 am

Age wrote:
If the notion of absolute truth is not scientifically valid for and to those human beings who propose to do science then they would also
have to admit that an expanding Universe is NOT absolutely the truth as well And therefore the Universe may not be expanding at all
Something is regarded as being true - but not absolutely so - unless it is falsified by new evidence
And equally so the more evidence for something there is then the more likely that it is to be true

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed May 08, 2019 2:50 am

Age wrote:
Why do you human beings use this example when it FITS IN MORE with what I continually talk about which is STOP ASSUMING and / or BELIEVING things and just REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS then it EVER fits in with what you human beings talk about which is you MUST believe some things you MUST assume some things or this IS TRUE because the evidence says so ?
Believing and assuming are not the same. You cannot be truly open if you believe something but assumptions are not as rigid
Because assumptions can be based upon pre existing knowledge and could actually lead to the acquisition of more knowledge
And evidence indicates something may be true and should be regarded as such unless subsequent evidence suggests otherwise

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed May 08, 2019 2:59 am

Age wrote:
How can a contradiction itself be either true or false
I sould have said apparent contradiction not contradiction
Because an actual contradiction cannot be true only false

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 08, 2019 5:27 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:33 am
Age wrote:
If the notion of absolute truth is not scientifically valid for and to those human beings who propose to do science then they would also
have to admit that an expanding Universe is NOT absolutely the truth as well And therefore the Universe may not be expanding at all
Something is regarded as being true - but not absolutely so - unless it is falsified by new evidence
So, just to be clear, the Universe is NOT expanding is regarded as being true - but not absolutely so - unless it is falsified by new evidence, correct?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:33 am
And equally so the more evidence for something there is then the more likely that it is to be true
Okay. Now, the more evidence that the Universe can NOT expand then the more likely that it is to be true. Is this also correct?

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 08, 2019 5:37 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:50 am
Age wrote:
Why do you human beings use this example when it FITS IN MORE with what I continually talk about which is STOP ASSUMING and / or BELIEVING things and just REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS then it EVER fits in with what you human beings talk about which is you MUST believe some things you MUST assume some things or this IS TRUE because the evidence says so ?
Believing and assuming are not the same. You cannot be truly open if you believe something but assumptions are not as rigid
Because assumptions can be based upon pre existing knowledge and could actually lead to the acquisition of more knowledge
And, just LOOKING AT pre-existing knowledge from a Truly OPEN perspective, which would obviously entail NOT assuming any thing at all, could actually lead to the acquisition of more knowledge, far quicker, simpler, and easier.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:50 am
And evidence indicates something may be true and should be regarded as such unless subsequent evidence suggests otherwise
But so called "evidence" can entail things like; It is written in the book, so it must be true, therefore there is the evidence.

So, what you call "evidence" is NOT necessarily actual evidence. Only 'that', which is KNOWN to be true or can be PROVEN to be true, could be used as actual and real Evidence. So far NO actual evidence for the ASSUMED Universe is expanding theory has actually been provided, well to me anyway.

Basing an observation, on only a part of a thing, as being the so called "evidence" for a phenomena of that whole thing is, to me, NOT some thing that is even close to being proven to be true, yet.

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 08, 2019 5:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:59 am
Age wrote:
How can a contradiction itself be either true or false
I sould have said apparent contradiction not contradiction
Because an actual contradiction cannot be true only false
But this still does NOT answer ALL of the other questions I posed in regards to ALL of the other contradictions that you, yourself, wrote regarding this.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed May 08, 2019 10:26 am

Age, this is burning me out and I can no longer bother on this. I have to pick my battles. I am confident I cannot go anywhere with you when I don't get credit even in the least for affecting change in you. Good luck.

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 08, 2019 1:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 10:26 am
Age, this is burning me out and I can no longer bother on this. I have to pick my battles. I am confident I cannot go anywhere with you when I don't get credit even in the least for affecting change in you. Good luck.
Who do you want 'credit' from, for affecting change in me?

And, what 'change' in me happened, which you think you deserve 'credit' for exactly?

I say the Universe is infinite and eternal, and can be explained very simply and easily. WHY some human beings see an expansion can be very easily and simply explained also. What creates this optical illusion, which some people say is the evidence for an expanding, and beginning, Universe can be very simply and easily explained, also.

No one, here anyway, is really that interested in this because they ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that what I am saying is NOT true at all.

Now, you want to express your view of things but you appear to insist that I MUST accept and agree with some things first. I have ALREADY explained that there are NO zeno's paradoxes because, to me, they are NOT 'paradoxes' at all. But just thinks written in a way, which deceives people.

You also want me to accept and agree that no matter how close I bring to points together there will ALWAYS be a space in which another point can exist in between them. I have ALREADY explained that I can bring to points together until there is NO space in which another point can exist in between them. If by I NOT accepting and agreeing to these things, then does NOT allow your theory to be SEEN nor UNDERSTOOD, then just maybe YOUR theory can be falsified?

We will have to wait and see.

If all this is just to hard for you, then so be it. I find all of this very simple, easy, and relaxing actually.

The Universe can NOT have a beginning nor expand because of what what the Universe is actually made up of or because of what It actually IS. This really is this SIMPLE, to understand.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Age wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 1:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 10:26 am
Age, this is burning me out and I can no longer bother on this. I have to pick my battles. I am confident I cannot go anywhere with you when I don't get credit even in the least for affecting change in you. Good luck.
Who do you want 'credit' from, for affecting change in me?

And, what 'change' in me happened, which you think you deserve 'credit' for exactly?

I say the Universe is infinite and eternal, and can be explained very simply and easily. WHY some human beings see an expansion can be very easily and simply explained also. What creates this optical illusion, which some people say is the evidence for an expanding, and beginning, Universe can be very simply and easily explained, also.

No one, here anyway, is really that interested in this because they ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that what I am saying is NOT true at all.

Now, you want to express your view of things but you appear to insist that I MUST accept and agree with some things first. I have ALREADY explained that there are NO zeno's paradoxes because, to me, they are NOT 'paradoxes' at all. But just thinks written in a way, which deceives people.

You also want me to accept and agree that no matter how close I bring to points together there will ALWAYS be a space in which another point can exist in between them. I have ALREADY explained that I can bring to points together until there is NO space in which another point can exist in between them. If by I NOT accepting and agreeing to these things, then does NOT allow your theory to be SEEN nor UNDERSTOOD, then just maybe YOUR theory can be falsified?

We will have to wait and see.

If all this is just to hard for you, then so be it. I find all of this very simple, easy, and relaxing actually.

The Universe can NOT have a beginning nor expand because of what what the Universe is actually made up of or because of what It actually IS. This really is this SIMPLE, to understand.
Sorry. I saw too much more to have to respond to and correct it is overwhelming for me to catch up when I still have a life outside of this. I find this good for improving my own means of communicating but when I don't seem to have positive effect without even knowing who anyone is here, I can't tell if it because of my lack of skills on this or I'm being lead on. Either way, when I get to a point when I see something I said or suggested before that gets dismissed but then gets adopted later as though others thought of it independently, I have to gamble that the return on investment in time is not likely going to pay off when I have other CERTAIN things I can be doing that I know do pay off. Don't take it personally. I just can't tell what is or is not the truth and why it's more of a risk in my time.

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Wed May 08, 2019 11:41 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm
Age wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 1:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 10:26 am
Age, this is burning me out and I can no longer bother on this. I have to pick my battles. I am confident I cannot go anywhere with you when I don't get credit even in the least for affecting change in you. Good luck.
Who do you want 'credit' from, for affecting change in me?

And, what 'change' in me happened, which you think you deserve 'credit' for exactly?

I say the Universe is infinite and eternal, and can be explained very simply and easily. WHY some human beings see an expansion can be very easily and simply explained also. What creates this optical illusion, which some people say is the evidence for an expanding, and beginning, Universe can be very simply and easily explained, also.

No one, here anyway, is really that interested in this because they ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that what I am saying is NOT true at all.

Now, you want to express your view of things but you appear to insist that I MUST accept and agree with some things first. I have ALREADY explained that there are NO zeno's paradoxes because, to me, they are NOT 'paradoxes' at all. But just thinks written in a way, which deceives people.

You also want me to accept and agree that no matter how close I bring to points together there will ALWAYS be a space in which another point can exist in between them. I have ALREADY explained that I can bring to points together until there is NO space in which another point can exist in between them. If by I NOT accepting and agreeing to these things, then does NOT allow your theory to be SEEN nor UNDERSTOOD, then just maybe YOUR theory can be falsified?

We will have to wait and see.

If all this is just to hard for you, then so be it. I find all of this very simple, easy, and relaxing actually.

The Universe can NOT have a beginning nor expand because of what what the Universe is actually made up of or because of what It actually IS. This really is this SIMPLE, to understand.
Sorry. I saw too much more to have to respond to and correct
I also see a lot to "correct", from my perspective, but that does not mean it needs to be corrected. What needs to be revealed instead is just the difference in DEFINITIONS that we are each using for the same words.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm
it is overwhelming for me to catch up when I still have a life outside of this.
Do you think you are the only one?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm
I find this good for improving my own means of communicating but when I don't seem to have positive effect without even knowing who anyone is here, I can't tell if it because of my lack of skills on this or I'm being lead on.
Communicating new ideas is hard enough face to face, let alone on here with anonymous "others". But that is the beauty of it. If you can be heard, understood, and accepted, on here, when obviously no one has any need, want, nor benefit to agree with you here, then you can be heard, understood, and accepted any where.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm
Either way, when I get to a point when I see something I said or suggested before that gets dismissed but then gets adopted later as though others thought of it independently,
If those "others" include me, then I would like to see of some examples of when I have done this. Then I could explain to you what had occurred, from my perspective.

As happens, all to often, it is not that what is said or suggest that gets dismissed and later adopted as though it was independently thought up, (this is what appears to me and/or "others" also by the way), it is what was said or suggested from a different DEFINITION that may be getting dismissed, and what appears to get "adopted" is just the exact same thing was already known, but just from a different DEFINITION. But until it is brought to light what you are actually referring to, we will never know the Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:43 pm
I have to gamble that the return on investment in time is not likely going to pay off when I have other CERTAIN things I can be doing that I know do pay off. Don't take it personally. I just can't tell what is or is not the truth and why it's more of a risk in my time.
I would not be to concerned, at the moment most adult human beings have absolutely NO idea what is or what is not the truth of things. So, you are not the only one.

The Truth of things is easy to find, anyway, once you discover or learn how to find them.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 09, 2019 5:55 am

Age wrote:
But so called evidence can entail things like It is written in the book so it must be true
Evidence is not at all something written in a book even if it is true
Because it actually has to be capable of observation or replication

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu May 09, 2019 9:10 am

Age wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 11:41 pm

The Truth of things is easy to find, anyway, once you discover or learn how to find them.
Besides the lack of recognizing anything 'learned' by you, it is when you add these esoteric like statements with terms that sound as though they've come from some cult that is giving me pause.

This is an example of what concerns me. While you MAY NOT be doing this, I have no reason to ASSUME you are being sincere when you feign Socratic ignorance but then conveniently add these claims. It is a form of rhetoric that suggests one is prying for information of others to exploit them for some uncertain purpose.

I am as 'entertained' to witness it but also not willing to continue with someone who appears mostly capable of learning on their own. With your language background, you appear sufficiently 'well-read' and it begs why you would not have then studied science independently for the degree of interest in these topics as you do.

You also appear to be 'female' in HOW you respond too contrary to the "Ken" you originally claimed to have been. I'm not interested in looking too deep into your words or style but I get an uncertain vibe that something is off and I can't put my finger on it. Regardless, I don't have time to keep investing in something you both claim to be ignorant of AND not ignorant of (That "Truth of things" being so EASY for you to find.)

I don't dislike you and, as I've said before, I could be wrong (as you often add); but I do not want to continue where I think you should be able to figure it out independently and where I don't seem to be gaining ground almost 100% of the time. If it is just me, so be it. I have my own theory to work on and a lot of other things that I can be doing. I know 'expansion' as presented is problematic on a logic level. But this means you have to step back into logic and things like set theory, math, history of science, and more. There is just too much ground to cover prior to speaking on this topic.

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Thu May 09, 2019 10:44 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 5:55 am
Age wrote:
But so called evidence can entail things like It is written in the book so it must be true
Evidence is not at all something written in a book even if it is true
Because it actually has to be capable of observation or replication
So, if you can observe a sun revolving around a planet that you are standing on, then is that evidence that that sun revolves around that planet?

Age
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Fri May 10, 2019 12:52 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:10 am
Age wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 11:41 pm

The Truth of things is easy to find, anyway, once you discover or learn how to find them.
Besides the lack of recognizing anything 'learned' by you, it is when you add these esoteric like statements with terms that sound as though they've come from some cult that is giving me pause.

This is an example of what concerns me. While you MAY NOT be doing this, I have no reason to ASSUME you are being sincere when you feign Socratic ignorance but then conveniently add these claims. It is a form of rhetoric that suggests one is prying for information of others to exploit them for some uncertain purpose.

I am as 'entertained' to witness it but also not willing to continue with someone who appears mostly capable of learning on their own. With your language background, you appear sufficiently 'well-read' and it begs why you would not have then studied science independently for the degree of interest in these topics as you do.

You also appear to be 'female' in HOW you respond too contrary to the "Ken" you originally claimed to have been. I'm not interested in looking too deep into your words or style but I get an uncertain vibe that something is off and I can't put my finger on it. Regardless, I don't have time to keep investing in something you both claim to be ignorant of AND not ignorant of (That "Truth of things" being so EASY for you to find.)

I don't dislike you and, as I've said before, I could be wrong (as you often add); but I do not want to continue where I think you should be able to figure it out independently and where I don't seem to be gaining ground almost 100% of the time. If it is just me, so be it. I have my own theory to work on and a lot of other things that I can be doing. I know 'expansion' as presented is problematic on a logic level. But this means you have to step back into logic and things like set theory, math, history of science, and more. There is just too much ground to cover prior to speaking on this topic.
To me, the so called expansion of the Universe is just an observed phenomona. The fact that optical illusions exist is enough, for me, to never trust observations alone as being 'evidence' for some thing.

Does no one else find it a coincidence that when observing the Universe that the closer objects are to some individual observers, then the Universe does not appear to be expanding, and that it is only when looking further afield then the said "discovery" that the Universe is expanding, first came about?

This ASSUMPTION fitted in nicely with the other ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF being held, which was that the Universe "began".

There might be a very simple explanation for these coincidences, which i am yet aware of, and hopefully someone here in this forum will enlighten me to, but from my perspective there seems to a very big correlation between human beings inventing and creating tools so that they can see further out into the Universe, with the idea that the Universe is expanding, coming with ability to observe further out into the Universe. The further human beings are able to look out also, the rate of expansion is said to be increasing as well.

As human beings are able to observer further and further out all the time, coincidently the rate of expansion is said to be increasing all the time as well, so to is the said date of the big bang said to have happened later on, or earlier, depending on which way you look at it this. The date of the big bang changes with the proposed changed rate of expansion, which changes with the distance human beings are able to look and see further afield.

So, the further humans beings look out into the Universe the rate of expansion increases, and therefore the predicated date of the big bang decreases. All of this, I say, is calculated on so called "observed evidence", or in other words an 'optical illusion'.

Obviously the further afield human beings make observations from, then what IS being observed is what WAS happening. And what WAS happening, is obviously NOT necessarily what IS happening, now.

This combined with the FACT that only a proportion of the actual Universe is actually being observed is enough evidence, well for me anyway, that for human beings to jump to a conclusion that 'the Universe IS expanding' is REALLY just an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF, based solely on NO actual real conclusive evidence yet, but rather on just actual optical illusion, just like a flat Earth and a sun revolving around the earth are optical illusions also. What is first seen on first glance, or when first LOOKED AT, is NOT necessarily the actual and real Truth of things. This Truth is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, when what IS LOOKED AT from the Truly OPEN perspective.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests