Einstein on the train

[Age]

I have to say that it drives me insane how many people assume that scientific theory is decided by a social media style hunch, ignoring the incredible rigour applied and the amount of work needed to retain that rigour.

Some people also feel frustrated that just because a theory has the word 'scientific' before that it then somehow makes it true, right, and/or correct.

If it is a theory, scientific or not, then it is still some thing that can be falsified.

Yes it can, generally by people who have done paid their dues and deeply understand the subject.

And also by some, just through logical reasoning.

"Paying dues" and "deeply understanding the subject" through the "education" 'pays' system, is one of the reasons why human beings are still so far behind in lacking the true, right, and correct knowledge of things.

I'm not going to tell a brain surgeon how to do their job and neither will I tell physicists or cosmologists.

Okay that is fair enough. Are you also not going to tell them 'that', which you KNOW is false, wrong, and/or incorrect? By the way which is far different from telling someone how to do "their" job.

What they say is the best we have in their fields.

That may be the best 'you' have, but it certainly is NOT the best 'I' have.

I then have two options - to learn or remain ignorant.

If that is all you have, then so be it.

If you do not want to remain ignorant, then apparently you will just have to hope, as well as put a lot of faith into, that what you are being "taught" and are "learning" is actually true, right, and/or correct.

I prefer, however, to just move straight past this 'hoping' and 'faithing', and discover the actual and real Truth of things for, and by, myself. I found this option a much better way to gain a much Truer UNDERSTANDING of things.

These days anything that can be questioned, is questioned by someone.

Is there any thing wrong with questioning?

Usually the ones who do not like to be questioned are the ones who are saying things not based on actual facts but rather on what they assume or believe is true. For example people who makes statements like "God created everything" do not like to be questioned, much like those people who make statements like "The Universe is expanding" also do not like to be questioned, as has been evidenced here in this thread.

Just like it is purported that 'we can NOT know what happened before the big bang because we can not observe nor test it' human beings can not then purport to know what happens out past what can be observed and tested also.

By the way as long as there are a questioning species existing, then I do NOT see where there could be a time when things can not be questioned.

To me, it speaks for itself that if there is a day any thing can be questioned, then it is questioned, obviously by some one.

It's hard to think of questions about reality that others have not already thought about.

Is that really that hard for 'you'?

If any questions about scientific matters hold water then they'll be proved correct or not - with proper testing, NOT by Twitter.

Does the question 'Is the Universe expanding?' "hold water"?

If yes, then IF the actual Universe, Itself, is expanding WILL be proved correct or not - but I am not sure how this could be done with so called "proper testing". Maybe you will enlighten us.

If the question "Is the Universe expanding, does not "hold water", then okay.

I am not sure how a human being could sincerely make such a bold claim like 'the Universe is expanding', especially considering that they can only observe just a fraction of the Universe, and then to claim that that observation would be a "very thoroughly checked observation" just detracts from the OBVIOUS Truth of things. Human beings just do NOT know.

So what?

If people want to express things as though they are true, right, and correct, then do NOT be surprised when the actual Truth of what IS actually Right, True, and Correct is SHOWN back to them.

My answer to "So what?" is, I just like to CLEARLY SHOW the OBVIOUS expressed falsehoods, which are based on assumptions and beliefs, are brought to light. I want the True view to be finally SEEN, instead of the continually DISTORTED views which are expressed, and then continually passed on, by some.

That's the best we have.

There is MUCH BETTER, which you WILL have.

Remember, the universe's expansion was an unexpected result - and unwelcome.

To a True "scientist" NOTHING is unexpected. And, to a True "scientist" NOTHING is also certainly unwelcome. Some might say that the only thing expected, is the unexpected. All True scientists (and all True philosophers for that matter), which is just young children, there is NOTHING that is unexpected and unwelcome, other than obviously the abuse that all of you adult human beings do upon children.

At first scientists didn't want to believe it but test after test after test after test showed that the OBSERVABLE universe is expanding.

And there is one of the biggest mistakes adult human beings make, that is; 'believing' or 'disbelieving'. When, and if, "scientists" STOP believing and disbelieving, then they will really start moving forward and progressing in their gaining of new and more knowledge.

Also, are you able to list the so called "tests", which SHOWED that the OBSERVABLE universe IS expanding?

OBVIOUSLY when speaking of the universe, we are limited by what is observable.

Although it is OBVIOUS that adult human beings are limited, it is those same adult human beings who say and insist things like; "The Universe IS expanding", "the sun DOES revolve around the earth", and, "The earth IS flat".

When, and IF, they ever Truly OPEN UP, then they can SEE the connection here.

You will NEVER find a scientist who thinks there's nothing left to learn about reality. They leave such assertions to social media warriors.

Is there any more to learn in regards to the Universe's expansion? Or, is the expansion of the Universe just an unambiguous, irrefutable fact, at the moment?

Do not mistake the attitudes of confused dudes on social media with actual scientists.

Okay I will not do that. Than you for the advice.

By the way, are you under some sort of presumption that I would?

Do you make that mistake, yourself, some times?

The latter are acutely aware that their knowledge only scratches the surface, but that's the best we have.

The 'earth is flat' and 'the sun revolves around the earth' was also the so called "best" you had, also. And, just like they became "better" when newer and more knowledge came to light, so to will the "better" come to light in regards with the 'the Universe is expanding' "best", which 'you' have now, when this is written.

I prefer that to superstition and politicisation of everything, both of which are too common in this world IMO.

Yes I have noticed this very often in the "world", in which 'you' live in, when this is written.

Also IMO, Will has done an outstanding job in collating and presenting the material in such a unique and unusually clear way. Bloody brilliant.

That is fair enough. If that is your opinion, then I certainly can not dispute that, nor even disagree with YOUR opinion.

[Age]

I seriously do not see what the issue is here. I also do not see why you need to, nor even want, to bring, what IS,
just ANOTHER 'theory' into the equation.

Totality, (or the Universe), is infinite in size and although there may have been a bang, of some relative size, which appears to be the beginning of ALL things, that bang is OBVIOUSLY not the origin of Everything and that bang OBVIOUSLY DID not come from absolutely nothing.

The Universe (or Totality) is infinite AND eternal, from my perspective.

All of this can very easily and simply be proven True, Right, and Correct. NO 'theories, 'assumptions', nor 'beliefs' are needed anywhere.

I was removing the need for 'assumptions' by eliminating the exhausted possibilities. It is thus NOT an 'assumption' once examined. Also, my underlined phrase of yours is begging what is so 'easy and simply' able to be proven?

'That', what you call "Totality", and what I call the "Universe", is infinite AND eternal. As well as lots of other things. But I do NOT know what you are LOOKING FOR if you do not let me know.

Do you think I should trust you on this without explanation?

I am not sure if you have read where I have written that I WANT to be challenged and asked clarifying questions regarding this/view.

I certainly do NOT want you to trust me, but what I would love and what I thrive on is being questioned, challenged, and/or critiqued.

I do NOT want you to even accept what I say. I am certainly NOT here to convince any one of any thing. I KNOW that within 'you' you will only accept and agree with what is True, Right, and Correct anyway with and to 'you' anyway. I am just LOOKING FOR what IS in agreement with EVERY one.

I'm only appealing to Will's interest in thread and probably should not be responding to you on this here.

Why "should" you not?

Is there some law or protocol that I am unaware of, or missing here?

"uwot" asked for feedback. I said that when writing "the Universe is getting bigger" that that is only an assumption or a belief of yours, and a few "others", and this has NOT yet been proven with facts nor evidence yet. This still seems to be the issue, and what is still in contention, with some people here.

You say you have a theory that the Universe/Totality did not begin, if I am reading you correctly, and if you ever get around to explaining this theory, then that might help show how the Universe/Totality could NOT expand.

Would you like to just say what the conclusion of your theory is, and some of the logical reasoning for this outcome here, or in another thread, so we can have a LOOK AT it?

[Age]

...
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
...

Why do we have to have an assumption of absolutely nothing when there is absolutely nothing?

Given any x, is the following statement true:

To be Honest with you, i do NOT even know what "Given any x" even means. So, what does "Given any x" even mean?

There is such a reality as non-X for every X?

If no, what is X?

If yes, how many things are not X? [non-X means all that is not X]

What IS 'X'?

By the way you are expressed a statement but placed a question mark on the end. Are you stating some thing or asking some thing? Obviously, I could make an assumption, based on your next two questions, but as I say I do not like to assume any thing at all. Also, if I was to start assuming, then I could very easily assume that by the way you wrote what you did, you have already concluded some thing, and really there is no use in "asking" me any thing here. But as I do NOT like to assume any thing I will await your response to if you are really asking me, or if you already have an answer that you believe could not be refuted.

But anyway, to me there are two fundamental things to Totality - matter AND space, which could be expressed as X (for matter) and non-X (for space). Or, in other words there is some thing AND no thing. These two things HAVE TO exist for a species to have evolved with enough ability to grasp the knowledge needed to work this out. Totality of just one, or the other, that is; matter OR space, COULD exist but if either did, and only that one, then there could NOT be a thing, to work things out, nor even any thing to work out, anyway.

So, to me, if 'X' means some thing, and 'non-X' means no thing, or absolutely nothing, then there is only one thing, which is non-X or not X. All that is not X is space and all that is X is matter, of which it could be said there is only one of also. The two, one things of X/matter AND non-X/space, (between and around matter), co-exist together always, and with an eternal conclusion, which comes from these two fundamental things co-existing together forever, it could be argued that they co-exist in all ways, as well.

[uwot]

Will has presented an excellent educational resource based on current theories. If we was to depart from them, then it would be a work of speculation, not of science education. As far as I can tell he seems to have everything correct and also explained some nitty-gritty aspects of the theories that I've not seen explained before.

Yeah, I find his book good and valuable too.

Aw shucks guys, I love you too.

[Greta]

I then have two options - to learn or remain ignorant.

If that is all you have, then so be it.

If you do not want to remain ignorant, then apparently you will just have to hope, as well as put a lot of faith into, that what you are being "taught" and are "learning" is actually true, right, and/or correct.

I prefer, however, to just move straight past this 'hoping' and 'faithing', and discover the actual and real Truth of things for, and by, myself. I found this option a much better way to gain a much Truer UNDERSTANDING of things.

Pretty naive. Are you very young?

I (and no doubt numerous others) have privately developed all manner of hypotheses alone through thought experiments and extrapolated logic. Then, if relevant or possible, those hypotheses are tested against established knowledge. Do you do that or just you believe your own guesses without questioning yourself? As things turned out, I have found over my many years that some of my intuitions turned out to be right and others were wrong. Like everyone else's intuitions in my experience.

That is the problem with individual intuition. It will be correct some of the time, maybe even much of the time, but it won't be reliable. Seeking reliable information is the reason for science to exist. People wanted to know which of the conflicting opinions around them were true.

Part of the issue is that quantum mechanics and chemistry are not intuitive, yet ingenues insist on shoehorning the dynamics of their familiar domains rather than accepting that those dealing in chem and QM know more about what's going on in those fields than beginners and their unfounded guesswork.

If any questions about scientific matters hold water then they'll be proved correct or not - with proper testing, NOT by Twitter.

Does the question 'Is the Universe expanding?' "hold water"?

If yes, then IF the actual Universe, Itself, is expanding WILL be proved correct or not - but I am not sure how this could be done with so called "proper testing". Maybe you will enlighten us.

If the question "Is the Universe expanding, does not "hold water", then okay.

Expansion is the current best explanation for observed red shift, something you should know.

If anyone says that the universe "is expanding" rather than "it may be expanding" or "it appears to be expanding" there is a good chance they are skipping the qualifiers for the sake of clarity and brevity. You do understand that people sometimes communicate loosely/informally for the sake of flow and clarity, don't you? They expect the reader or listener to be sophisticated enough to appreciate that that is the situation.

[Age]

I then have two options - to learn or remain ignorant.

If that is all you have, then so be it.

If you do not want to remain ignorant, then apparently you will just have to hope, as well as put a lot of faith into, that what you are being "taught" and are "learning" is actually true, right, and/or correct.

I prefer, however, to just move straight past this 'hoping' and 'faithing', and discover the actual and real Truth of things for, and by, myself. I found this option a much better way to gain a much Truer UNDERSTANDING of things.

Pretty naive. Are you very young?

Relative to what exactly?

I (and no doubt numerous others) have privately developed all manner of hypotheses alone through thought experiments and extrapolated logic.

Worded like that it sounds like you must be a very smart and intellectual person. Is that what you are trying to relay here? Or, is there some thing else that you are trying to get across?

Then, if relevant or possible, those hypotheses are tested against established knowledge. Do you do that or just you believe your own guesses without questioning yourself?

Firstly I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

What are my "guesses", which you are referring to? And, I do question things.

As things turned out, I have found over my many years

How many is 'many' years?

that some of my intuitions turned out to be right and others were wrong. Like everyone else's intuitions in my experience.

That could sound exciting, but if it is some thing that happens to every one, then I wonder; Why are you expressing this here?

That is the problem with individual intuition. It will be correct some of the time, maybe even much of the time, but it won't be reliable. Seeking reliable information is the reason for science to exist. People wanted to know which of the conflicting opinions around them were true.

Is 'the Universe expanding' opinion one of those conflicting opinions, or is it just an unambiguous irrefutable fact?

Part of the issue is that quantum mechanics and chemistry are not intuitive, yet ingenues insist on shoehorning the dynamics of their familiar domains rather than accepting that those dealing in chem and QM know more about what's going on in those fields than beginners and their unfounded guesswork.

If you say so.

If any questions about scientific matters hold water then they'll be proved correct or not - with proper testing, NOT by Twitter.

Does the question 'Is the Universe expanding?' "hold water"?

If yes, then IF the actual Universe, Itself, is expanding WILL be proved correct or not - but I am not sure how this could be done with so called "proper testing". Maybe you will enlighten us.

If the question "Is the Universe expanding, does not "hold water", then okay.

Expansion is the current best explanation for observed red shift, something you should know.

But I am the one who is saying, just about what you said here. It is "others" who are insisting that the Universe is expanding.

To you, is the Universe expanding, or is it just an idea, theory, assumption, and/or just a guess about what is occurring?

To me, an OBSERVED "red shift" does NOT mean that the Universe is expanding, just like an OBSERVED "sun revolving around the earth" and an OBSERVED "flat earth" does NOT mean that they are the case. As I have POINTED OUT ALREADY because of 'optical illusions' 'that' what is OBSERVED may be just NOT the actual and real Truth of things.

If anyone says that the universe "is expanding" rather than "it may be expanding" or "it appears to be expanding" there is a good chance they are skipping the qualifiers for the sake of clarity and brevity.

Ah okay. So, if one is to say, "God created the Universe", then is there a good chance that they also are skipping the qualifiers for the sake of clarity and brevity as well?

Skipping the Truth of things when speaking with friends during a casual discussion is one thing, but, I find, speaking in a forum, which is under the disguise of 'philosophy', then it would be better to NEVER skip the Truth of things, and rather concentrate MORE on the Truth then on NOT what IS True.

LOOKING AT and discussing only what IS True, I found allows the actual and real Truth of things to be revealed far quicker, simpler and easier.

You do understand that people sometimes communicate loosely/informally for the sake of flow and clarity, don't you?

Yes I do.

But if one is the author of a book, which is about scientific matters, and writes in a way that, to me, appears to be stating things about the Universe, for example like; The Universe is getting bigger, then I like to question this.

Do you understand that some times questioning can lead to further and/or newer knowledge coming to light?

If an author writes some thing, and then says that they will appreciate feedback, then, if they propose some thing as being True, and I feel like questioning it, then I will question them about if 'that' is actually True, or is it just an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF, which is being proposed?

Then, with enough Openness and Honestly, then the actual and real Truth gets revealed. As evidenced here in this thread, as well as throughout this forum.

They expect the reader or listener to be sophisticated enough to appreciate that that is the situation.

To you, is it okay for a writer or speaker to write or say some things, which may be intended for children, and just expect them to be "sophisticated" enough to appreciate that they ALREADY KNOW what the actual and real facts are and that the writer/speaker was really just to lazy to use all the words to express the Truth of things?

You, adult human beings, for thousands of years now, after all, have NOT even been so called "sophisticated" enough to work out what the phrase 'In the beginning' actually meant. Some of you are still under the illusion that the Universe is expanding, which then "helps" to explain that the Universe did actually begin.

'In the beginning' was communicate loosely/informally for the sake of flow and clarity, but you, adult human beings, have shown NO sign of being "sophisticated" enough to appreciate that that was the situation.

Until you adult human beings real start questioning yourselves OPENLY and Honestly, from the view of CHANGING, then you will ALL still remaining ASSUMING and BELIEVING the most outrageous and stupid things that you do now, and have been for millennia.

You can keep believing that you have the current "best" explanation for as long as you want. But 'the earth is flat' and 'the sun revolves around the earth' were also, at those times, 'the current "best" explanation" also. Just like you propose; 'expansion' is currently the so "best" explanation that you have, in those times when this is written.

[uwot]

But if one is the author of a book, which is about scientific matters, and writes in a way that, to me, appears to be stating things about the Universe, for example like; The Universe is getting bigger, then I like to question this.

Fucking hell, you bonehead! Which bit of 'Einstein on the train and other stories' do you not understand? The only person here who is actually mad enough to believe they KNOW how the universe works is you. The rest of us are sufficiently sophisticated to understand that we are working with the materials at hand, all the results from incredibly accurate observations, to try and weave a coherent narrative that draws them all together into a workable philosophy. A major part of all of our philosophies is that we accept that there might be better explanations and that it is entirely possible that some discovery is just around the corner which will change everything. Rather than fearing that, or in your case completely ignoring the observations that have already been made, some people simply try to hammer them into a shape that fits their fruitloopery. Others though, are excited that there is still mystery and delight and are prepared to do the work necessary to try and keep up.

[Age]

But if one is the author of a book, which is about scientific matters, and writes in a way that, to me, appears to be stating things about the Universe, for example like; The Universe is getting bigger, then I like to question this.

Fucking hell, you bonehead! Which bit of 'Einstein on the train and other stories' do you not understand?

There is a part where you say; The Universe is getting bigger. Now, would you like to clarify what the actual Truth IS?

IS the Universe getting bigger, or is that just what you assume is true?

You clarification here would help.

The only person here who is actually mad enough to believe they KNOW how the universe works is you.

Besides the actual Truth, which IS I do NOT believe any thing, there is also at least the fact that I will stand for what I say, which is the exact opposite of what you will do.

Remember it is 'you're who stated: The Universe is getting bigger. Now, do you stand by what you say or not?

The rest of us are sufficiently sophisticated to understand that we are working with the materials at hand, all the results from incredibly accurate observations, to try and weave a coherent narrative that draws them all together into a workable philosophy.

It is a shame that your so called "workable" philosophy does NOT actually work. If it did, then there would be nothing in dispute.

A major part of all of our philosophies is that we accept that there might be better explanations and that it is entirely possible that some discovery is just around the corner which will change everything.

Funny how I say nearly the exact same thing.

Now, if only people were OPEN to what discovery is about to come, to light?

Rather than fearing that, or in your case completely ignoring the observations that have already been made, some people simply try to hammer them into a shape that fits their fruitloopery. Others though, are excited that there is still mystery and delight and are prepared to do the work necessary to try and keep up.

But there is only mystery to those who are NOT already OPEN.

By the way, from what you have said here, you must have missed when I have said that just because some thing is observed, these "observations" do NOT make what is observed the actual Truth. In case you are unaware there is a thing called 'optical illusions'. Evidence of this is, the earth was "observed" to be flat. The sun was also "observed" to revolve around the earth. Should these "observations" be ignored, or accepted also?

[uwot]

There is a part where you say; The Universe is getting bigger. Now, would you like to clarify what the actual Truth IS?

Again:

Fucking hell, you bonehead! Which bit of 'Einstein on the train and other stories' do you not understand?

[Univalence]

Searching for Truth (with a capital T). The 21st century equivalent of searching for God (with a capital G).

Dogma either way. Perhaps it's worth inventing a new philosophical position?

Atruism. The rejection of Truth.

[surreptitious57]

Truth with a T is only true for the one claiming it to be so and could actually be false
I prefer knowledge with a k because while not as sexy as Truth it is way more reliable

[surreptitious57]

To me an OBSERVED red shift does NOT mean that the Universe is expanding just like an OBSERVED sun revolving around the earth
and an OBSERVED flat earth does NOT mean that they are the case. As I have POINTED OUT ALREADY because of optical illusions
that what is OBSERVED may be just NOT the actual and real Truth of things

Knowledge is never absolute so what is regarded as being true may subsequently turn out to be false
This is because scientists can only work from within the knowledge base that exists at any given time

[surreptitious57]

You can keep believing that you have the current best explanation for as long as you want. But the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth were also at those times the current best explanation also. Just like you propose expansion is currently the so best explanation that you
have in those times when this is written

Knowledge increases over time which is why in science it is better not to regard anything as ever being absolutely true
The more evidence there is for something the more likely it is to be true - but science does not deal in absolute truth

[surreptitious57]

By the way from what you have said here you must have missed when I have said that just because some thing is observed these observations do NOT make what is observed the actual Truth. In case you are unaware there is a thing called optical illusions. Evidence of this is the earth was observed to be flat. The sun was also observed to revolve around the earth. Should these observations be ignored or accepted also

They should be ignored because they are both demonstrably false
The expansion of the observable Universe is not demonstrably false so that cannot be ignored
If at some future point it becomes falsified then it will be discarded however not before then

[Greta]

You are babbling, Age. I had to scroll down a fair way to find anything with enough content to prompt a reply.

As I have POINTED OUT ALREADY because of 'optical illusions' 'that' what is OBSERVED may be just NOT the actual and real Truth of things.

You capitalised the wrong words, rendering the sentence a little hysterical and incoherent. I can help:

"As I have pointed out already because of optical illusions, that which is observed MAY be just not the actual and real truth".

MAY is the key word. However, the evidence is pointing the other way.