Einstein on the train

[Age]

That is the whole point, there is NO evidence in that book. That book just expresses the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS of the writer, without any actual evidence provided to support those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

That's an infamous slur, you scoundrel!
Ladies and gentlemen, let me assure you that the evidence that resulted in the big bang theory is very clearly laid out. Pages 6-14, since you ask: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

But I am NOT looking for 'evidence' that resulted in just ANOTHER "theory".

You BELIEVE and state that the 'Universe IS getting bigger'. So, WHAT is the ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe is getting bigger?

[surreptitious57]

I should have recognised the ludic fallacy as I have read the Black Swan and its an excellent book as well
Its one of the best ones that I have ever read - a very thought provoking and unconventional read indeed

[Age]

That is the whole point, there is NO evidence in that book.

Every time I ask you what 'evidence' is you keep dodging the question.

But you have NEVER ask any such question like this, to me.

If you don't state your own expectations how is anybody supposed to meet them?

I have CLEARLY stated MANY TIMES; If you are one of those that BELIEVES or says that the Universe is expanding, then WHAT IS the ACTUAL 'evidence' for this?

And,

If you are one of those that BELIEVES or says that space is expanding, then WHAT IS 'space', EXACTLY? And, WHAT IS the ACTUAL 'evidence' that space is expanding?

Now IF you are either one of 'those', and, hopefully you are now CLEAR on what I am asking for to be clarified, then would you care to be the FIRST to answer these questions?

[Age]

Maybe it doesnt exist but it is an ideal that should be strived for as much as possible
For better knowledge produces better models which in turn provide more knowledge

And when you take the pursuit a little too seriously you end up like Age.

Drowning in the metaphysical swamp.

But I have NOT, yet, drowned. I am still waiting patiently for ANY one to ask me clarifying questions and/or challenge me on what I actually write.

You have, so far, FAILED to accept the challenge.

[Logik]

But you have NEVER ask any such question like this, to me.

Liar.

WHEN evidence is provided, then OBVIOUSLY that would suffice.

The litmus test for dogmatism goes like this: What would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your view?

I am quite literally asking you to identify and express your own uncertainty. Try to prove yourself wrong.

For if your claim is unfalsifiable, then all the burden of proof for your views is on you. Russel's teapot...

[Logik]

WHAT IS the ACTUAL 'evidence' that space is expanding?

What would you accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space?

[uwot]

But I am NOT looking for 'evidence' that resulted in just ANOTHER "theory".

Once again: The only thing we know for certain is that there is some weird shit going on. Every explanation for the experiences we have is a theory. People who don't know that are ignorant. People who can't understand it are stupid. And people who think they know better are mental. Some prize specimens are all three.

You BELIEVE and state that the 'Universe IS getting bigger'. So, WHAT is the ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe is getting bigger?

Which of the pages between 6 and 14 have you stuck together?

[Age]

But you have NEVER ask any such question like this, to me.

Liar.

See the issue here, and BEFORE you accuse me of being a liar, is 'misinterpretation' can happen all to easily. As is the case here. So, when you wrote: Every time I ask you what 'evidence' is you keep dodging the question.

Now, to me you have NEVER asked me, What 'evidence' is? nor What is 'evidence'? Which is what I interpreted what you were saying here.

Asking like you did below; What would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence ... IS, to me, a completely different question. So, I was NOT a liar in stating: You have NEVER ask any such question like this, to me. when the question I was referring to was about "what 'evidence' is".

"What 'evidence' is"? is a much different question to; "What would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence"?

You may have obviously been meaning the second in your first remark but it obviously was NOT interpreted in that way by me.

Just like the many times you misinterpreted what I write I also misinterpret what you write. If some thing is NOT written in absolute clarity, then without clarifying questions misinterpretation and misunderstanding can, unfortunately, happen all to quickly and easily. Thus WHY clarifying questions are MUCH BETTER for UNDERSTANDING I found, than making accusations and assumptions are, or ever could be.

Now, you STATED that every time you ask me what 'evidence' is I keep dodging the question.

If this WAS in any way a FACT, then I would NOT have replied to what you quote below. I HAVE ALREADY replied to what you quote below, so then who is NOT telling the truth now?

I WILL SHOW the EVIDENCE of WHAT I REPLIED WITH by repeating verbatim what I HAD replied with, underlined.

I WILL repeat verbatim to BOTH points you raised and asked me, in underlined.

I wonder if you would then be big enough and honest enough to admit that actually I DID NOT "keep dodging the question" at all? I also wonder if you WILL reply to my QUESTIONS EVERY time I ask them, TO YOU, as I ACTUALLY DO?

WHEN evidence is provided, then OBVIOUSLY that would suffice.

The litmus test for dogmatism goes like this: What would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your view?

I am quite literally asking you to identify and express your own uncertainty. Try to prove yourself wrong.

Have you been asleep here. I have quite literally been ASKING for; What is WRONG in what I wrote? AND, I have also been asking for; WHAT could start a finite universe? How much more could I SHOW of the uncertainty of my view? AND, How much more could I ask for to prove myself WRONG?

Obviously, IF I have "proof" of WHERE my VIEW is WRONG, then I would NOT express it. (Unless of course I was attempting to SHOW or PROVE some thing else).

BUT, if you can NOT show HOW a finite universe could start, then HOW do you propose that I prove myself WRONG and show HOW a finite universe could start? If you can NOT think of any way a finite universe could begin, and no one else can either, then WHY do you EXPECT me to think up one?

By the way I am NOT saying any thing 'is the case', therefore there is NOTHING to "prove" wrong. A view, which is clearly being stated as; Just a VIEW, which could actually be WRONG, could NOT be "proven" wrong, because it is NOT being stated as it is even remotely close to being true nor right in the beginning.

My views are, literally, stated OPENLY as could be WRONG, so that ALL the wrongness in them could be, and, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE pointed out and SHOWN to ALL the readers.

I WANT the wrongness in my views made perfectly clear to EVERY one. I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA if the Universe is infinite or NOT. I WANT to be made aware of what the actual and real Truth IS, in this regard.

How much MORE do you WANT me to identify and express my own uncertainty?

For if your claim is unfalsifiable, then all the burden of proof for your views is on you. Russel's teapot...

If my claim is unfalsifiable, then so to is the claim that the Universe is finite, and/or had a beginning, also unfalsiable.

If one is unfalsifiable, then so is the other, obviously.

Do you actually READ ALL of what I WRITE?

I WROTE: I have already offered up 'EVERY action causes a reaction' and the 'cause and effect principle' for an infinite Universe.

So, WHATEVER WRONGNESS is in these, then just POINT IT OUT and SHOW IT to us, NOW.

If these are falsifiable, then falsify them.
If these are unfalsifiable, then what does that SHOW you?

Now, are you going to still keep calling me a liar for supposedly "keep dodging the question" or are you going to admit that I did actually respond?

Would you RESPOND to ALL of my questions like I do with yours?

[Age]

WHAT IS the ACTUAL 'evidence' that space is expanding?

What would you accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space?

FIRST, I would ACCEPT a definition of WHAT 'space' IS, to them. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.
SECOND, I would ACCEPT ANY evidence of HOW 'space' could expand. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.

I think you really have been asleep when "reading" my words.

Do you, yourself, have ANY 'evidence' at all for HOW 'space' could expand.

I WILL ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE, for starters. At least then we have SOME thing to LOOK AT and work with.

Besides ALL of that. How about just one person here who BELIEVES and/or says that 'space' IS expanding just writes WHAT the 'evidence' IS that the so called "scientists" use to SAY that 'space' (or the Universe) IS expanding.

If ANY person is going to say "The Universe is expanding" or "Space is expanding", then SURELY there MUST BE SOME evidence SOME where that SUPPORTS this VIEW.

For your information, I WILL ACCEPT 'that' EVIDENCE.

BUT, SOME one has to OBVIOUSLY provide it here FIRST.

[Logik]

WHAT IS the ACTUAL 'evidence' that space is expanding?

What would you accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space?

FIRST, I would ACCEPT a definition of WHAT 'space' IS, to them. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.
SECOND, I would ACCEPT ANY evidence of HOW 'space' could expand. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.

I think you really have been asleep when "reading" my words.

Do you, yourself, have ANY 'evidence' at all for HOW 'space' could expand.

I WILL ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE, for starters. At least then we have SOME thing to LOOK AT and work with.

Besides ALL of that. How about just one person here who BELIEVES and/or says that 'space' IS expanding just writes WHAT the 'evidence' IS that the so called "scientists" use to SAY that 'space' (or the Universe) IS expanding.

If ANY person is going to say "The Universe is expanding" or "Space is expanding", then SURELY there MUST BE SOME evidence SOME where that SUPPORTS this VIEW.

For your information, I WILL ACCEPT 'that' EVIDENCE.

BUT, SOME one has to OBVIOUSLY provide it here FIRST.

You are welcome to provide all the definitions yourself.

To avoid any confusion and misunderstandings, you are welcome to define 'define' for us.
Once you are done defining 'define' go ahead and define 'evidence'.

Once you've defined 'evidence' go ahead and tell us what evidence would convince you that your VIEWS (whatever they may be) are wrong?

On what topic? On ANY topic. Define 'evidence' for us and then express your own uncertainty.

Help us help you, because if your objective is to learn how to communicate it is rather obvious to all the readers that you are going the wrong way.

[Age]

But I am NOT looking for 'evidence' that resulted in just ANOTHER "theory".

Once again: The only thing we know for certain is that there is some weird shit going on.

Well that is one way to "cover up" proposing things as being True, but in Truth REALLY NOT knowing what IS going on.

You have, in your book, proposed that 'the Universe IS expanding'. You have written it as though IT IS A FACT.

Every explanation for the experiences we have is a theory.

So, are you now ADMITTING that 'the Universe is expanding' IS ONLY a "theory", which may in fact NOT be true at all?

If yes, then finally.
If no, then what will you admit about 'the Universe is expanding' THEORY?

People who don't know that are ignorant. People who can't understand it are stupid. And people who think they know better are mental. Some prize specimens are all three.

And SOME can only feel better about themselves when they are TRYING TO put "others" down.

You asked for feedback and comments about your book. I have TOLD you that there are parts in your book, which you have proposed are true, when the truth of them is NOT yet even KNOWN. 'The Universe is expanding' is just a theory, or assumed to be true, and BELIEVED to be true by some. You appear to NOT like this FACT, and instead of backing up what you have written in that book WITH EVIDENCE, or, just SHOW how and why I am wrong, you have resorted to just attempts at ridicule and put downs. To some that is the only way they can lift them self up.

You BELIEVE and state that the 'Universe IS getting bigger'. So, WHAT is the ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe is getting bigger?

Which of the pages between 6 and 14 have you stuck together?

But it IS in pages 6 to 14, where you say they are FACTS, which are the VERY THINGS that I have been TRYING TO SHOW you CONTRADICTS that the Universe is expanding.

You have NEVER once clarified any thing I have been saying. You have NEVER challenged any thing I have been saying. You have NOT been answering my clarifying questions. Instead you have been ridiculing me and NOT wanting to LOOK AT what I have been TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU.

IF you EVER answered my question: What evidence is there for the expansion of the Universe? Then I could SHOW you HOW, the way you have worded it, in between pages 6 - 14 it leaves a question mark as to the expansion of the Universe. But I can NOT bring this to light because I do NOT know what "EVIDENCE" there is for the expansion of the Universe.

WHY it is SO HARD, especially for the writer of the book them self, to just CLARIFY their OWN writings and just say WHAT the 'evidence' is, which "scientists" or any one else uses that supports the "theory" that the Universe is expanding/getting bigger?

[Logik]

But I am NOT looking for 'evidence' that resulted in just ANOTHER "theory".

Once again: The only thing we know for certain is that there is some weird shit going on.

Well that is one way to "cover up" proposing things as being True, but in Truth REALLY NOT knowing what IS going on.

You have, in your book, proposed that 'the Universe IS expanding'. You have written it as though IT IS A FACT.

Every explanation for the experiences we have is a theory.

So, are you now ADMITTING that 'the Universe is expanding' IS ONLY a "theory", which may in fact NOT be true at all?

If yes, then finally.
If no, then what will you admit about 'the Universe is expanding' THEORY?

People who don't know that are ignorant. People who can't understand it are stupid. And people who think they know better are mental. Some prize specimens are all three.

And SOME can only feel better about themselves when they are TRYING TO put "others" down.

You asked for feedback and comments about your book. I have TOLD you that there are parts in your book, which you have proposed are true, when the truth of them is NOT yet even KNOWN. 'The Universe is expanding' is just a theory, or assumed to be true, and BELIEVED to be true by some. You appear to NOT like this FACT, and instead of backing up what you have written in that book WITH EVIDENCE, or, just SHOW how and why I am wrong, you have resorted to just attempts at ridicule and put downs. To some that is the only way they can lift them self up.

You BELIEVE and state that the 'Universe IS getting bigger'. So, WHAT is the ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe is getting bigger?

Which of the pages between 6 and 14 have you stuck together?

But it IS in pages 6 to 14, where you say they are FACTS, which are the VERY THINGS that I have been TRYING TO SHOW you CONTRADICTS that the Universe is expanding.

You have NEVER once clarified any thing I have been saying. You have NEVER challenged any thing I have been saying. You have NOT been answering my clarifying questions. Instead you have been ridiculing me and NOT wanting to LOOK AT what I have been TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU.

IF you EVER answered my question: What evidence is there for the expansion of the Universe? Then I could SHOW you HOW, the way you have worded it, in between pages 6 - 14 it leaves a question mark as to the expansion of the Universe. But I can NOT bring this to light because I do NOT know what "EVIDENCE" there is for the expansion of the Universe.

WHY it is SO HARD, especially for the writer of the book them self, to just CLARIFY their OWN writings and just say WHAT the 'evidence' is, which "scientists" or any one else uses that supports the "theory" that the Universe is expanding/getting bigger?

Age, what is this 'universe' thing you are talking about. Are you sure it even exists?
Do you have any EVIDENCE for your BELIEF?

[Age]

What would you accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space?

FIRST, I would ACCEPT a definition of WHAT 'space' IS, to them. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.
SECOND, I would ACCEPT ANY evidence of HOW 'space' could expand. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING FOR.

I think you really have been asleep when "reading" my words.

Do you, yourself, have ANY 'evidence' at all for HOW 'space' could expand.

I WILL ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE, for starters. At least then we have SOME thing to LOOK AT and work with.

Besides ALL of that. How about just one person here who BELIEVES and/or says that 'space' IS expanding just writes WHAT the 'evidence' IS that the so called "scientists" use to SAY that 'space' (or the Universe) IS expanding.

If ANY person is going to say "The Universe is expanding" or "Space is expanding", then SURELY there MUST BE SOME evidence SOME where that SUPPORTS this VIEW.

For your information, I WILL ACCEPT 'that' EVIDENCE.

BUT, SOME one has to OBVIOUSLY provide it here FIRST.

You are welcome to provide all the definitions yourself.

To avoid any confusion and misunderstandings, you are welcome to define 'define' for us.
Once you are done defining 'define' go ahead and define 'evidence'.

Once you've defined 'evidence' go ahead and tell us what evidence would convince you that your VIEWS (whatever they may be) are wrong?

On what topic? On ANY topic. Define 'evidence' for us and then express your own uncertainty.

Help us help you, because if your objective is to learn how to communicate it is rather obvious to all the readers that you are going the wrong way.

So, you KNOW how to communicate in the "RIGHT" way and say that it is done by defining ALL the words one uses. YET, you have made it clear that you use your OWN specific definitions for the words you use, and when asked for that specific definition, which you made clear you have on a particular word, you completely and utterly refused to. So, the RIGHT way is define the words you use but you will NOT. So, do you communicate the RIGHT way OR the WRONG way?

Are you at least able to define that for us here now?

Also and by the way as I wonder you DID NOT admit that you were NOT telling the truth before nor DID YOU RESPOND to what I actually wrote and questioned you about. Your continual complete inability to answer my clarifying questions leaves me in less doubt each time about your true intentions here. You ask me about what I would accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space. I TELL YOU, yet you completely ignore ALL of that, and then go on to ask me to define the word 'evidence'. Remember it was you who WANTED me to answer a question regarding the word 'evidence', but you then expect me to define the very words that you, yourself, use and bring up. All appears rather VERY contradictory to me.

[Logik]

So, you KNOW how to communicate in the "RIGHT" way and say that it is done by defining ALL the words one uses. YET, you have made it clear that you use your OWN specific definitions for the words you use, and when asked for that specific definition, which you made clear you have on a particular word, you completely and utterly refused to. So, the RIGHT way is define the words you use but you will NOT. So, do you communicate the RIGHT way OR the WRONG way?

Are you at least able to define that for us here now?

Also and by the way as I wonder you DID NOT admit that you were NOT telling the truth before nor DID YOU RESPOND to what I actually wrote and questioned you about. Your continual complete inability to answer my clarifying questions leaves me in less doubt each time about your true intentions here. You ask me about what I would accept as sufficient evidence for the expansion of space. I TELL YOU, yet you completely ignore ALL of that, and then go on to ask me to define the word 'evidence'. Remember it was you who WANTED me to answer a question regarding the word 'evidence', but you then expect me to define the very words that you, yourself, use and bring up. All appears rather VERY contradictory to me.

Non-sequitur. You asked for evidence. I don't know what you are asking for.

Define 'evidence'.

[Age]

Once again: The only thing we know for certain is that there is some weird shit going on.

Well that is one way to "cover up" proposing things as being True, but in Truth REALLY NOT knowing what IS going on.

You have, in your book, proposed that 'the Universe IS expanding'. You have written it as though IT IS A FACT.

Every explanation for the experiences we have is a theory.

So, are you now ADMITTING that 'the Universe is expanding' IS ONLY a "theory", which may in fact NOT be true at all?

If yes, then finally.
If no, then what will you admit about 'the Universe is expanding' THEORY?

People who don't know that are ignorant. People who can't understand it are stupid. And people who think they know better are mental. Some prize specimens are all three.

And SOME can only feel better about themselves when they are TRYING TO put "others" down.

You asked for feedback and comments about your book. I have TOLD you that there are parts in your book, which you have proposed are true, when the truth of them is NOT yet even KNOWN. 'The Universe is expanding' is just a theory, or assumed to be true, and BELIEVED to be true by some. You appear to NOT like this FACT, and instead of backing up what you have written in that book WITH EVIDENCE, or, just SHOW how and why I am wrong, you have resorted to just attempts at ridicule and put downs. To some that is the only way they can lift them self up.

Which of the pages between 6 and 14 have you stuck together?

But it IS in pages 6 to 14, where you say they are FACTS, which are the VERY THINGS that I have been TRYING TO SHOW you CONTRADICTS that the Universe is expanding.

You have NEVER once clarified any thing I have been saying. You have NEVER challenged any thing I have been saying. You have NOT been answering my clarifying questions. Instead you have been ridiculing me and NOT wanting to LOOK AT what I have been TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU.

IF you EVER answered my question: What evidence is there for the expansion of the Universe? Then I could SHOW you HOW, the way you have worded it, in between pages 6 - 14 it leaves a question mark as to the expansion of the Universe. But I can NOT bring this to light because I do NOT know what "EVIDENCE" there is for the expansion of the Universe.

WHY it is SO HARD, especially for the writer of the book them self, to just CLARIFY their OWN writings and just say WHAT the 'evidence' is, which "scientists" or any one else uses that supports the "theory" that the Universe is expanding/getting bigger?

Age, what is this 'universe' thing you are talking about. Are you sure it even exists?
Do you have any EVIDENCE for your BELIEF?

Now you are just getting beyond ridiculous.

I have asked: To those people who BELIEVE or say that 'the Universe is expanding', then how?

Bringing up questions like you have here is just one of those very tiring examples, which people resort to when they have run out of ideas to back up and support their OWN assumptions and beliefs.

To me, the 'Universe' means ALL-THERE-IS or Everything, which I have told you many times already.

If there are writings on this screen in front of a human being, then some thing exists. Using the definition of 'Universe', which I just provided and 'you' the human being reading these writings on the screen in front of you just saw, then the Universe EVEN exists.

How many times do I have to TELL you I do NOT have any BELIEFS before you can Truly comprehend and understand this?

Also, the EVIDENCE for the Universe EVEN existing is provided in these VERY WORDS before 'you' that human being reading this.

Now that I have answered YOUR clarifying questions AGAIN, will you at least BEGIN to START to answer MY clarifying questions asked to you?