Re: What is philosophy?
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:13 pm
if millions of blue shift galaxies visually merge with millions of red shift galaxies, will millions of purple shift galaxies be revealed?
-Imp
-Imp
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
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'.
Correct.
Correct.
If you say and BELIEVE so, then that is all you will SEE.
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.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:03 pm 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.
GREAT.
Now, Will you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here with some ACTUAL evidence or proof?
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.
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?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:25 pmYes. you might want to think about reading a whole post before you reply.All of known science up to this point and all evidence which shows red shift and limits to the size fo the universe.No light does not diminish.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?The most basic and fundemental laws of the conservation of energy and matter insist that light does not diminish.
And, light comes from stars, and stars, unlike the Universe, are NOT eternal anyway.You are flailing about desperately to protect your idiotic idea.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.
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.What do you think makes light diminish? Where does it all go.
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.
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.
It only becomes a 'problem', to me, when a question is posed, for a solution.
Maybe, for a very short duration, and then change again.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:13 pm if millions of blue shift galaxies visually merge with millions of red shift galaxies, will millions of purple shift galaxies be revealed?
-Imp
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).Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:02 amIt 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'?
What are those, alleged, 'right reasons'?Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:02 amSo 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).Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:02 amIt 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'?
LOL
ANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS.
It's all here Age:
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.
Wrong
Wrongpeople, 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, wrong, wrong, and the last one is your delusionAnd 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, delusionEven 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, delusionThis person here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what it says is NOT a DISTORTED VERSION of what is True and Reality, Itself.
Wrong, and I wouldn't answer because you wouldn't understand the clarification either, it would be a waste of time.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.