What is philosophy?

[Impenitent]

if millions of blue shift galaxies visually merge with millions of red shift galaxies, will millions of purple shift galaxies be revealed?

-Imp

[Age]

Well there is an action-reaction process, in action now, correct?

Newton's third law of motion. Yeah, as I'm sure you appreciate, that doesn't apply at the quantum level, and the hypothesis that the big bang singularity was smaller than the nucleus of an atom makes it a quantum event.

What you ASSUMED, and was SURE, I would 'appreciate', as of now I do NOT. I was looking further than just "newtown's third law of motion'.

Now, if you want to make the CLAIM that at the quantum level NOT every action has reaction, then will you provide what evidence or proof for this CLAIM?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, do you appreciate that there was big bang singularity, which was thee ONLY thing in existence, and that it was smaller than the nucleus of an atom is a 'hypothesis' ONLY, or in other words, just an ASSUMPTION or GUESS, ONLY, which CLEARLY there is NO ACTUAL evidence NOR proof for?

If yes, then can ANY one provide a logically reasoned explanation of how this could begin?

If yes, then will you/they?

You are the one making the claim that the universe didn't have a beginning.

Correct.

It is for you to argue the case you are making.

Correct.

All you have so far is an argument from ignorance; I'm not being rude, that's just what it's called:

If you say and BELIEVE so, then that is all you will SEE.

By the way, you have this Wrong.

Shortly I will show how it could be said that it is actually you, who, all you have here, so far, is an argument from ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance It is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow from the fact that I can't prove that the universe had a beginning that it didn't.

What has this got to do with the preceding quote of mine. You have CLEARLY JUMPED FORWARD to some OTHER conclusion, and are now discussing that, which was NOT what you started talking about. Let us FOCUS on what we were ACTUALLY talking about and discussing.

You began by stating;

Let's start with number 1:

What I ACTUAL said to you was;

Well there is an action-reaction process, in action now, correct?

If yes, then can ANY one provide a logically reasoned explanation of how this could begin?

If yes, then will you/they?

So, before you JUMP to ANYWHERE ELSE. Do you, or does ANY one "else", have ANY logically reasoned explanation of how the action-reaction process could have begun?

That is ALL that I asked here.

The reason WHY I say you have this Wrong here is because,

I NEVER asserted ANY thing like my proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false nor that ANY proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

I just asked, Can ANY one provide a logically reasoned explanation of how the action-reaction process could have begun? And NOTHING more.

The evidence I know of overwhelmingly supports the expanding universe hypothesis;

GREAT.

Now, I will ask you, AGAIN, Will you provide the ACTUAL evidence, which you CLAIM "overwhelmingly supports the expanding universe hypothesis"?

The ONLY way we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'that', to SEE if 'it' ACTUALLY does OVERWHELMINGLY support the expanding universe hypothesis is IF you PROVIDE that "evidence".

I have ALREADY PROVIDED the evidence, which I say WILL prove my CLAIM. Now, let us SEE you PROVIDE the "evidence" for which you CLAIM is true here.

Also, the "overwhelmingly" word might work on some, but it does NOT work on me. I have to SEE thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and not just be told that it exists, BEFORE I accept that 'it' exists.

Furthermore, I do NOT like being told, like religious people say, the evidence is in the book. In other words, I do NOT want to be told to either go look for that "evidence" myself nor to be given links to books with reams of pages.

Either there is CLEAR CUT evidence for the expanding universe or there is NOT. IF THERE IS, then PROVIDE 'it'.

your evidence against is nothing more substantial than woeful logic. You have to do better.

Now, Will you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here with some ACTUAL evidence or proof?

What part, or parts, EXACTLY of my evidence "against the expanding/beginning universe hypothesis" is "woeful logic"?

Again, if you do NOT provide ANY, then we have NOTHING to look at nor discuss.

By the way, what you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE is ALREADY true, right, and correct, is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS NOW.

Now, I will show how it could be said that it is actually 'you', "uwot", who, all you have here, so far, is an argument from ignorance.

1. You are CLAIMING my proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

2. You have NOT investigated sufficiently to prove that my proposition is either true or false

I, however, can and will show how my proposition is true. I can do this because I have sufficiently investigated HOW and WHY the expanding/beginning universe hypothesis is False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

[Age]

This is like watching paint dry.

You can LOOK AT paint dry for as long as you like, instead of LOOKING AT the ACTUAL clarifying questions I posed to you and answering them.

You can also LOOK AT paint dry instead of LOOKING AT the ACTUAL evidence I provided AGAINST your CLAIM here.

You CLAIM that;

ALL THE EVIDENCE seem to point the other way.

and I said to you;

If you would like to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSS it, then I am more than READY TO.

You OBVIOUSLY prefer NOT TO, as you CLEARLY prefer to 'watch paint dry', INSTEAD.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here now is that you are NOT CAPABLE TO, nor even could, back up and support YOUR CLAIM HERE. Whereas, I am KNOW I CAN, and WILL, back up and support MY CLAIMS.

If you would like to 'watch paint dry' instead of wanting to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSSING this, then PLEASE do NOT let me STOP you. Go right on ahead.

[Age]

This claim is inherently unsupportable since no evidence could be brought to bear to establish that claim.

Can you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here?

Yes. you might want to think about reading a whole post before you reply.

If yes, then will you?

As it is, all the evidence seem to point the other way.

If you would like to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSS it, then I am more than READY TO.

What 'evidence' is there that the Universe began, and is expanding?

All of known science up to this point and all evidence which shows red shift and limits to the size fo the universe.

Simply this - if the universe were of infinite size and has existed forever then light travelling from the nearest and the most distant (infinite distance) would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so.

What does "would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so" even mean or refer to?


Light diminishes over distance so HOW could light from the most distant, or even a certain distance, reach earth?

No light does not diminish.

And, light comes from stars, and stars, unlike the Universe, are NOT eternal anyway.

The most basic and fundemental laws of the conservation of energy and matter insist that light does not diminish.

In such a universe the entire "night" sky would be brighter than the sun, as there would be no gaps between the stars.

But if, as proposed, light can NOT escape from a black hole, then wherever there is a black hole, light could not be seen. So, if this is true, the entire "night" sky could not be brighter than the sun. Black holes would cause 'gaps between stars', causing an appearance as just what is observed NOW.

You are flailing about desperately to protect your idiotic idea.
Black holes are possible, and theoretical. There is one possible confimed observation. To support your desperate claim you would need black holes to be everywhere.

Also, because light diminishes over distance, only the closer stars would shine on earth. The stars further distance away, which do not shine on earth and so can not be seen, could cause an appearance of 'darkness', or gaps, between those stars, which can be observed and seen.

What do you think makes light diminish? Where does it all go.

Do you ACTUALLY REALLY BELIEVE that ALL known science, just up to this minuscule point in human evolution, when this was being written, and ALL evidence shows red shift, which limits the size of the universe, is ACTUAL PROOF that the Universe, Itself, is expanding and began?

This view is SO SHORT and NARROWED a SIGHT that it speaks for itself.

If you want to BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding and began, and ALL science and ALL evidence points to this, then go right on ahead.

If you EVER want to PUT FORWARD and PROVIDE ANY such 'evidence', then go ahead. Then, at least, 'we' will have some 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until then ALL made up evidence here exists within that head ONLY.

Also, you BELIEVE, without ANY doubt AT ALL, that light does NOT diminish, correct?

By the way, if what you BELIEVE here is true, is NOT ACTUALLY true at all, then I do NOT need black holes to be EVERYWHERE.

Also, if there were black holes EVERYWHERE, then this, contrary to what you say, would NOT support my CLAIM here AT ALL.

Where does all light go is it just changes into another form. This is WHY there is the, so called, "observable universe" compared to the WHOLE Universe.

[Age]

meh

If this is ALL you can say here, then you CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY can NOT clarify nor elaborate on your positions, are NOT able to back up and support your OWN CLAIMS, nor are you able to argue against what I have said so far.

The readers thus are working out which view is FAR MORE CORRECT than the other one is.

[Age]

4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.

And it's not a problem for you that only about 100 nearby galaxies are blushifted, while the other hundreds of billions of galaxies are redshifted?

It only becomes a 'problem', to me, when a question is posed, for a solution.

I have asked a question, regarding this, of which I do NOT YET KNOW the FULL answer/solution, but do have a sufficient answer/solution for.

However, in saying this, I have YET to see ANY question posed, from you, regarding this.

Why are some blueshifted while most are redshifted, to you?

What else could this ACTUALLY be evidence for, besides the BELIEVE 'expanding universe hypothesis'?

[Age]

if millions of blue shift galaxies visually merge with millions of red shift galaxies, will millions of purple shift galaxies be revealed?

-Imp

Maybe, for a very short duration, and then change again.

[Atla]

4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.

And it's not a problem for you that only about 100 nearby galaxies are blushifted, while the other hundreds of billions of galaxies are redshifted?

It only becomes a 'problem', to me, when a question is posed, for a solution.

I have asked a question, regarding this, of which I do NOT YET KNOW the FULL answer/solution, but do have a sufficient answer/solution for.

However, in saying this, I have YET to see ANY question posed, from you, regarding this.

Why are some blueshifted while most are redshifted, to you?

What else could this ACTUALLY be evidence for, besides the BELIEVE 'expanding universe hypothesis'?

So you admit having no idea about what those redshifts and blueshifts of galaxies mean, and why they naturally lead to an expanding universe hypothesis (which I don't really believe in btw, but for the right reasons).
Pretty weak for someone who knows everything

[uwot]

I have to SEE thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and not just be told that it exists, BEFORE I accept that 'it' exists.

Then you need to pop along to your local observatory and ask them nicely to show you.

[Age]

And it's not a problem for you that only about 100 nearby galaxies are blushifted, while the other hundreds of billions of galaxies are redshifted?

It only becomes a 'problem', to me, when a question is posed, for a solution.

I have asked a question, regarding this, of which I do NOT YET KNOW the FULL answer/solution, but do have a sufficient answer/solution for.

However, in saying this, I have YET to see ANY question posed, from you, regarding this.

Why are some blueshifted while most are redshifted, to you?

What else could this ACTUALLY be evidence for, besides the BELIEVE 'expanding universe hypothesis'?

So you admit having no idea about what those redshifts and blueshifts of galaxies mean, and why they naturally lead to an expanding universe hypothesis (which I don't really believe in btw, but for the right reasons).

What are those, alleged, 'right reasons'?

And, I do NOT admit to having no idea about what you said here.

What, to you, do those redshifts and blueshifts of galaxies mean?

And, WHY do they, supposedly NATURALLY lead to an expanding universe hypothesis?

Your response, or non response, WILL SHOW and REVEAL just how much, if ANY, idea you REALLY have.

Pretty weak for someone who knows everything

LOL

[Age]

I have to SEE thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and not just be told that it exists, BEFORE I accept that 'it' exists.

Then you need to pop along to your local observatory and ask them nicely to show you.

ANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, in the Universe, that supports the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe is expanding. AND, this CLAIM can and WILL be PROVEN True.

Even red-shift when LOOKED AT PROPERLY and CORRECTLY does NOT even lead to the PRESUMPTION that the Universe is expanding. Unless, OF COURSE, one of you INTERPRETS it that way.

[Atla]

And, WHY do they, supposedly NATURALLY lead to an expanding universe hypothesis?

You just literally stated again that you have no idea what people mean by it.

[uwot]

ANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS.

It's all here Age:
https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html complete with fornicating unicorns. I'm still editing, so they might not make the cut, but it's my book and I think they're funny. So yah boo to anti-unicornists.
The primary evidence that the universe is expanding is the red shift. Supporting evidence for a big bang is the cosmic microwave background radiation. I cannot show you thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE because I don't have an observatory to hand. You are not compelled to believe that the evidence exists, in which case you would be a conspiracy nut, or you might think you have a better explanation for the red shift and the CMBR, in which case you are welcome to share your hypothesis. From the little I have gleaned so far, your argument is 1: 'Universe' means infinite, and infinite is already as big as it gets. 2: Causal chains cannot have a beginning, therefore the universe didn't. That is just shitty medieval logic, but if you have something better, stop wasting everyone's time and spit it out. You will never know if people are ready to receive your wisdom until you tell them what it is.

[Age]

And, WHY do they, supposedly NATURALLY lead to an expanding universe hypothesis?

You just literally stated again that you have no idea what people mean by it.

So, you are saying that a blue-shift NATURALLY leads 'you', people, in the days when this was written, to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding, although you also CLAIM this is just an hypothesis.

And what makes this all the more HILARIOUS is the FACT that these same 'people' BELIEVE that their OWN BELIEFS do NOT prevent NOR stop them from SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS. They also BELIEVE and INSIST that their OWN BELIEFS do NOT DISTORT and TWIST thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Even LOOK AT the CLAIM that I LITERALLY STATED, AGAIN, that I have no idea what people mean by it, and if questioned, this one would BELIEVE that this is NOT a DISTORTION of what is ACTUALLY True and Right, AT ALL.

This person here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what it says is NOT a DISTORTED VERSION of what is True and Reality, Itself.

Even if I was to ask this one to CLARIFY if it KNOWS what the word 'literally' means, it would probably NEVER answer the ACTUAL question posed to it. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.

[Atla]

So, you are saying that a blue-shift NATURALLY leads 'you', people

Wrong

people, in the days when this was written, to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding, although you also CLAIM this is just an hypothesis.

Wrong

And what makes this all the more HILARIOUS is the FACT that these same 'people' BELIEVE that their OWN BELIEFS do NOT prevent NOR stop them from SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and the last one is your delusion

Even LOOK AT the CLAIM that I LITERALLY STATED, AGAIN, that I have no idea what people mean by it, and if questioned, this one would BELIEVE that this is NOT a DISTORTION of what is ACTUALLY True and Right, AT ALL.

Wrong, delusion

This person here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what it says is NOT a DISTORTED VERSION of what is True and Reality, Itself.

Wrong, delusion

Even if I was to ask this one to CLARIFY if it KNOWS what the word 'literally' means, it would probably NEVER answer the ACTUAL question posed to it. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.

Wrong, and I wouldn't answer because you wouldn't understand the clarification either, it would be a waste of time.

Your brain is completely dysfunctional, you understand nothing about humans, nothing about words, nothing about beliefs, nothing about the world, nothing about proofs, nothing about truth, nothing about the expanding universe idea, and nothing about "thee One".

Most four year olds are farther developed than you, yet you seem to be an adult human being. I find this slightly interesting. If people told you something as simple as "wash your hands" you still wouldn't really understand it. But you have an almost infinite capacity for bitching. It's like your entire brain was peforming this one task.

It's like you're an idiot-savant, but whereas most other idiot-savants have skills in mathematics, music etc. you are a savant in bitching.