WHAT is "all here"?
Please STOP speaking in riddles. I suggest say what you mean, and, mean what you say.
Are you 'trying to' suggest that ALL the evidence in the Universe that the Universe is expanding is HERE in your little comic book, or just in chapter 1 of your little comic book.
But if this is not what you are 'trying to' suggest here, then WHAT are you 'trying to' suggest here?
Thank you.uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am 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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is what I have been SEEKING and ASKING FOR.
So, red shift is the PRIMARY evidence that the Universe is expanding.
Now, what is blue shift the PRIMARY evidence for EXACTLY?
And, when, and if, you PROVIDE that answer, then I will ask you just how is red shift, supposedly, "evidence" for an expanding Universe.
Has ANY one here asked for evidence for a big bang?
A big bang has NEVER been in dispute. However, if a big bang MUST be the start or the beginning of the Universe, then a big bang is in dispute.
Just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR - I did NOT want you to PROVIDE me with an observatory, I just wanted you to PROVIDE me with or SHOW me the ACTUAL evidence that you human beings use, and which you CLAIM backs up and supports the HYPOTHESIS/PRESUMPTION that the Universe is expanding and/or began.
By the way, NO observatory, in the days when this was written, could SHOW me an expanding Universe NOR a beginning to the Universe, ANYWAY. So, even if you had ANY observatory "at hand" it would still NOT do YOUR CLAIMS any good.
JUST MAYBE if you can EVER get around to COMPREHENDING that I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, then you MIGHT come around to SEEING WHERE I am ACTUALLY COMING FROM.
Until it is EXPLAINED WHY the, so called, "evidence" points or leads to what is CLAIMED,
That the "evidence" exists has NEVER been in question. i have just asked what 'you', individually, use for the evidence for YOUR CLAIMS.
I have been TRYING TO.
'you', people, here, HOWEVER, BELIEVE 100% that I CAN NOT DO IT.
This is partly due to the FACT that you BELIEVE 100% that the Universe IS EXPANDING and DID BEGIN.
I can NOT provide ANY explanation to ANY one who BELIEVES OTHERWISE. This is BECAUSE they are NOT OPEN to IT. AS EVIDENCED and PROVED above.
What you have gleaned then is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong, and NOTHING like what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and WRITTEN, as EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
LOL "shitty medieval logic".
What are you suggesting is SHITTY about 'causal chains'? And, is SHITTY the word you REALLY ACTUALLY MEAN?
Some could call this a Truly SHITTY way of "counter arguing".
Does the Universe contain causal chains, to you?
Every action has a reaction, the cause and effect process, and, energy cannot be destroyed nor created, are pretty well thought about as being actually True, Right, and Correct, within the scientific community, correct? Or, is this WRONG ALSO?
By the way, EVERY chain exists within the Universe. So, ALL causal chains ACTUALLY exist within the Universe, and, If every action has a reaction, the cause and effect process, and energy cannot be destroyed nor created leads to a causal chain without beginning nor ending, then WHY would ANY one think, let alone BELIEVE, that there was even a "beginning" in the FIRST PLACE?
It has been said previously that if you want to PROVE some thing/theory/hypothesis is false, wrong, and/or incorrect, then you have to KNOW that thing/theory/hypothesis.
WELL, I can NOT prove your assumptions/theories/hypothesis/guesses/claims/suppositions/presumptions false, wrong, nor incorrect if you do NOT SHOW nor SHARE them with me.
All I have to go on here is that red shift is the PRIMARY evidence for an expanding Universe hypothesis and that cmbr is supporting evidence for just some bang, which is called a big one.
Red shift AND cmbr mean MANY DIFFERENT things to MANY DIFFERENT people. So, for me to be able to EXPLAIN to each and EVERY one of you WHY those things do NOT support what you ALREADY think or BELIEVE is true, I FIRST NEED to KNOW each and EVERY one of your OWN views and perspectives of this.
In case you have NOT YET NOTICED, people do NOT listen to me.
'you', people, much prefer to listen to "yourselves", and to those who you think or BELIEVE KNOW BETTER. It is NOT just the BELIEF/S in 'you', individually, which I have to LEARN how to circumvent and override, but it is ALL of your BELIEFS. So, until you start being Truly OPEN and Honest with me, about YOUR BELIEFS, and YOUR CLAIMS here, then I can NOT learn to find the RIGHT WORDS to make you SEE things FAR MORE CLEARLY.
So, what EXACTLY is in red shift that SUPPOSEDLY is evidence for the WHOLE of the Universe expanding, and, what EXACTLY about some cosmic microwave background radiation, which SUPPOSEDLY is evidence for the WHOLE of the Universe beginning?
If you EVER get around to EXPLAINING what EXACTLY in these things, SUPPOSEDLY, is "evidence", then I can SHOW and TELL you WHY they are NOT.
By the way, you can keep CHANGING your book, hoping that one day you will find the "right" words, which will back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. But just to inform you, you WILL NOT.
I suggest CHANGING your BELIEFS FIRST, instead of LOOKING FOR and CHANGING the, so called, "evidence" and "words".
Although 'beliefs', and 'words' and their 'definitions' can be CHANGED ACTUAL EVIDENCE can NOT. And, red shift and cmbr are NOT evidence for what some of 'you', people, BELIEVE they are.
Red shift BECAME "evidence" for an expanding Universe because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began, and, cosmic microwave background radiation BECAME "evidence" for the big bang because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began. Or, there was ALREADY an HYPOTHESIS, which some people went LOOKING FOR "evidence" for.