Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[lancek4]

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"
We have examples of the mechanics of the universe ,
with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,
and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges,
So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???
The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

I reterate AUKs post that is the second post on page one of ths thread.
And add:
If we are talking science then I probably have as little to say as Godfree has.
If we are talking philosophy then I might have a little more -
The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is rediculous. For when or if we were to find a 'beginning', or 'end' or 'edge', for that matter, we would necessarily have found at least something 'before' or 'after' or 'on the other side' by which to have our 'beginning'. This means that we would have found no actual beginning but merely a 'beginning' situated in defintion, which means knowledge. Our unviverse, in finding its 'beginning' would become another proverbial 'thing in itself', a whole dstingushed in relation to another identifed thing that we would call 'before the beginnng'.
Presently, our 'human being' is still informed by a ubquitous 'all' that we call the universe, and thereby conflated to meaning for our exstance, equates to cosmological justification, and so our beginning was equivocal to a point, a Big Bang.

So our way of describing the universe is changing correspondantly with the way we have to accomodate of world of humanity with varying ideas religions and ideologies. There thus, right now, no seeable one way to come upon reality, thus our 'scientific' explanation, the data and the interpretation, reflects our human condition at every turn and the idea that there is One beginning point of an expanding universe is fading, just as humanity seems to not be expanding as much as it has stalled for its newness. 'Bubbles' of 'identity centered' realities existing together, stagnant in their individual self righteous freedom.
I am sure, that as humanity works the variation of human experience into an encompassing explanation, again we will have another emergent scientific explanation that poses a Point beginning.

[lancek4]

If we can account in an explanation for the whole possibility of existance, which includes the beginning of the universe as well as the before the beginning other-verse, we have the 'rabbit-stew universe'.

[John]

I checked plentyoffish , the other day, a dating site I started ,
Big/little bang are we being deceived,,???
and it's still there after about five years

If this is the sort of stuff you discuss on dating sites I'd lay short odds that you're still single.

at 10 billion light years away, 10 + 10=20 ,
they keep suggesting I learn some maths , but how hard is it , to ad those two and conclude that the universe is at least 20 billion years old,,??

If you can't accept the metric expansion of space then your basic arithmetic approach would indeed lead you to the wrong conclusions. It's not just about you learning some mathematics it's about actually understanding the models cosmologists are working with and, let's face it, that's not going to happen. I'll be interested to see what response you get on the physics forums mind you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"
We have examples of the mechanics of the universe ,
with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,
and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges,
So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???
The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

I reterate AUKs post that is the second post on page one of ths thread.
And add:
If we are talking science then I probably have as little to say as Godfree has.
If we are talking philosophy then I might have a little more -
The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is rediculous.
I take it you have a crystal ball in your pocket, Miss Cleo!

For when or if we were to find a 'beginning', or 'end' or 'edge', for that matter, we would necessarily have found at least something 'before' or 'after' or 'on the other side' by which to have our 'beginning'. This means that we would have found no actual beginning but merely a 'beginning' situated in defintion, which means knowledge. Our unviverse, in finding its 'beginning' would become another proverbial 'thing in itself', a whole dstingushed in relation to another identifed thing that we would call 'before the beginnng'.
Here you assume that 'all' things beyond comprehension are bound by the same constraints that we currently believe we are bound.

Presently,
This then is what I'm talking about, and in it's inclusion you finally redeem yourself. I shall not continue to read for fear that you may regress!

our 'human being' is still informed by a ubquitous 'all' that we call the universe, and thereby conflated to meaning for our exstance, equates to cosmological justification, and so our beginning was equivocal to a point, a Big Bang.

So our way of describing the universe is changing correspondantly with the way we have to accomodate of world of humanity with varying ideas religions and ideologies. There thus, right now, no seeable one way to come upon reality, thus our 'scientific' explanation, the data and the interpretation, reflects our human condition at every turn and the idea that there is One beginning point of an expanding universe is fading, just as humanity seems to not be expanding as much as it has stalled for its newness. 'Bubbles' of 'identity centered' realities existing together, stagnant in their individual self righteous freedom.
I am sure, that as humanity works the variation of human experience into an encompassing explanation, again we will have another emergent scientific explanation that poses a Point beginning.

[Arising_uk]

...
a science model for the universe , that is infinite , no beginning and no end,
but you would say he is wasting his time , I presume,,???

No, because unlike you he's a mathematical physicist but I suspect he'd be the first to say that what he proposed was just a theory amongst others and I very much doubt that he doubts the BBT as what you say he's said is exactly a sequence of Big Bangs. However, given that the current experimental data points to a heat death for the universe and not a big-crunch I'd guess that he's now changed his mind.

[lancek4]

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"
We have examples of the mechanics of the universe ,
with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,
and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges,
So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???
The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

I reterate AUKs post that is the second post on page one of ths thread.
And add:
If we are talking science then I probably have as little to say as Godfree has.
If we are talking philosophy then I might have a little more -
The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is rediculous.
I take it you have a crystal ball in your pocket, Miss Cleo!

For when or if we were to find a 'beginning', or 'end' or 'edge', for that matter, we would necessarily have found at least something 'before' or 'after' or 'on the other side' by which to have our 'beginning'. This means that we would have found no actual beginning but merely a 'beginning' situated in defintion, which means knowledge. Our unviverse, in finding its 'beginning' would become another proverbial 'thing in itself', a whole dstingushed in relation to another identifed thing that we would call 'before the beginnng'.
Here you assume that 'all' things beyond comprehension are bound by the same constraints that we currently believe we are bound.

Presently,
This then is what I'm talking about, and in it's inclusion you finally redeem yourself. I shall not continue to read for fear that you may regress!

our 'human being' is still informed by a ubquitous 'all' that we call the universe, and thereby conflated to meaning for our exstance, equates to cosmological justification, and so our beginning was equivocal to a point, a Big Bang.

So our way of describing the universe is changing correspondantly with the way we have to accomodate of world of humanity with varying ideas religions and ideologies. There thus, right now, no seeable one way to come upon reality, thus our 'scientific' explanation, the data and the interpretation, reflects our human condition at every turn and the idea that there is One beginning point of an expanding universe is fading, just as humanity seems to not be expanding as much as it has stalled for its newness. 'Bubbles' of 'identity centered' realities existing together, stagnant in their individual self righteous freedom.
I am sure, that as humanity works the variation of human experience into an encompassing explanation, again we will have another emergent scientific explanation that poses a Point beginning.

Where and whenever there be human knowledge it will be knowledge. There is and can never be different forms of knowledge because as soon as it is qualified as knowledge it is thus knowledge. Merely making different definitions of knowledge does not make knowledge defferent. It is all knowledge. If there comes in the future a different kind of knowledge that is not knowledge I would say that the humans then are concordantly not humans but something else.
Thus my posts.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I reterate AUKs post that is the second post on page one of ths thread.
And add:
If we are talking science then I probably have as little to say as Godfree has.
If we are talking philosophy then I might have a little more -
The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is rediculous.
I take it you have a crystal ball in your pocket, Miss Cleo!

For when or if we were to find a 'beginning', or 'end' or 'edge', for that matter, we would necessarily have found at least something 'before' or 'after' or 'on the other side' by which to have our 'beginning'. This means that we would have found no actual beginning but merely a 'beginning' situated in defintion, which means knowledge. Our unviverse, in finding its 'beginning' would become another proverbial 'thing in itself', a whole dstingushed in relation to another identifed thing that we would call 'before the beginnng'.
Here you assume that 'all' things beyond comprehension are bound by the same constraints that we currently believe we are bound.

Presently,
This then is what I'm talking about, and in it's inclusion you finally redeem yourself. I shall not continue to read for fear that you may regress!

our 'human being' is still informed by a ubquitous 'all' that we call the universe, and thereby conflated to meaning for our exstance, equates to cosmological justification, and so our beginning was equivocal to a point, a Big Bang.

So our way of describing the universe is changing correspondantly with the way we have to accomodate of world of humanity with varying ideas religions and ideologies. There thus, right now, no seeable one way to come upon reality, thus our 'scientific' explanation, the data and the interpretation, reflects our human condition at every turn and the idea that there is One beginning point of an expanding universe is fading, just as humanity seems to not be expanding as much as it has stalled for its newness. 'Bubbles' of 'identity centered' realities existing together, stagnant in their individual self righteous freedom.
I am sure, that as humanity works the variation of human experience into an encompassing explanation, again we will have another emergent scientific explanation that poses a Point beginning.

Where and whenever there be human knowledge it will be knowledge. There is and can never be different forms of knowledge because as soon as it is qualified as knowledge it is thus knowledge. Merely making different definitions of knowledge does not make knowledge defferent. It is all knowledge. If there comes in the future a different kind of knowledge that is not knowledge I would say that the humans then are concordantly not humans but something else.
Thus my posts.

You misunderstood my point, what if the universe turns out to be a mobius strip of sorts. In that case your assertion above would be a falsehood.

[lancek4]

If the universe is a mobious strip and we come to know how this is so, our conception of reality may change in relation to us now, but not in itself being knowledge, and the human being will have a correspondant cosmological justification that will completely remove itself from the possibility of our knowledge now, just as we are removed from theirs, but will explain the universe in the same manner for truth as we do now, having the explanations that amount to truth. This is the nature of knowledge.

The Big Bang beginning of our universe corresponds in data and explanation to how we are able to know ourselves as an indvidual in the world- which is to say the individual was supposed to be the maxim of social good; but we are finding that this is not really so. So we have the non expandning bubble theory of the universe.
If you read Foucault's archeology of the development of 'man' as a creature of science (the order of things) you might follow my proposition here also.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If the universe is a mobious strip and we come to know how this is so, our conception of reality may change in relation to us now, but not in itself being knowledge, and the human being will have a correspondant cosmological justification that will completely remove itself from the possibility of our knowledge now, just as we are removed from theirs, but will explain the universe in the same manner for truth as we do now, having the explanations that amount to truth. This is the nature of knowledge.

The Big Bang beginning of our universe corresponds in data and explanation to how we are able to know ourselves as an indvidual in the world- which is to say the individual was supposed to be the maxim of social good; but we are finding that this is not really so. So we have the non expandning bubble theory of the universe.
If you read Foucault's archeology of the development of 'man' as a creature of science (the order of things) you might follow my proposition here also.

So then you agree that it was a falsehood to say:

The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is ridiculous.

As you are now saying that it is possible.

[lancek4]

If the universe is a mobious strip and we come to know how this is so, our conception of reality may change in relation to us now, but not in itself being knowledge, and the human being will have a correspondant cosmological justification that will completely remove itself from the possibility of our knowledge now, just as we are removed from theirs, but will explain the universe in the same manner for truth as we do now, having the explanations that amount to truth. This is the nature of knowledge.

The Big Bang beginning of our universe corresponds in data and explanation to how we are able to know ourselves as an indvidual in the world- which is to say the individual was supposed to be the maxim of social good; but we are finding that this is not really so. So we have the non expandning bubble theory of the universe.
If you read Foucault's archeology of the development of 'man' as a creature of science (the order of things) you might follow my proposition here also.

So then you agree that it was a falsehood to say:

The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is ridiculous.

As you are now saying that it is possible.

No; a knowing of an actual beginning of the objective universe it is not possible. As I have said: such a knowing can only occur as a definition in relation to another object of knowledge, which would be in this case the 'before the beginning'. It is possible only so far as we are not concerned with truth, and more concerned with justifying our reality.
The problem here is evidenced in Godfree thinking he is addressing some actual beginning of the universe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If the universe is a mobious strip and we come to know how this is so, our conception of reality may change in relation to us now, but not in itself being knowledge, and the human being will have a correspondant cosmological justification that will completely remove itself from the possibility of our knowledge now, just as we are removed from theirs, but will explain the universe in the same manner for truth as we do now, having the explanations that amount to truth. This is the nature of knowledge.

The Big Bang beginning of our universe corresponds in data and explanation to how we are able to know ourselves as an indvidual in the world- which is to say the individual was supposed to be the maxim of social good; but we are finding that this is not really so. So we have the non expandning bubble theory of the universe.
If you read Foucault's archeology of the development of 'man' as a creature of science (the order of things) you might follow my proposition here also.

So then you agree that it was a falsehood to say:

The idea that there is or will be a knowable actual beginning of the universe is ridiculous.

As you are now saying that it is possible.

No; a knowing of an actual beginning of the objective universe it is not possible. As I have said: such a knowing can only occur as a definition in relation to another object of knowledge, which would be in this case the 'before the beginning'. It is possible only so far as we are not concerned with truth, and more concerned with justifying our reality.
The problem here is evidenced in Godfree thinking he is addressing some actual beginning of the universe.

As far as godfree goes, it appears that you haven't been listening to him as he believes that the universe is infinite, has always been here, unless of course he's changing his story.

As far as you and I are concerned, apply the mobius strip idea to your above point, to see it go down in flames!

Which has been my point all along. It is a falsehood to judge future understandings with those currently believed.

[lancek4]

Well then, it seems I may have made an error as to Godfree. Except maybe how he justfies his reasoning; it would seem then that he uses science to rebuke its findings, when science itself declares truth only as a colloquialism, a hypothesis. It is an admittedly tenative truth, but yet still founded in a notion of actual truth, which Godfree attempts to use to show infinity, thus, it seems, he misses the distinction involved in his conflation and thus his point is an accidental sophistry.

I argue the mobious strip, which then denies itself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well then, it seems I may have made an error as to Godfree. Except maybe how he justfies his reasoning; it would seem then that he uses science to rebuke its findings, when science itself declares truth only as a colloquialism, a hypothesis. It is an admittedly tenative truth, but yet still founded in a notion of actual truth, which Godfree attempts to use to show infinity, thus, it seems, he misses the distinction involved in his conflation and thus his point is an accidental sophistry.

I argue the mobious strip, which then denies itself.
Only when you apply today's understanding of things.
For many years, since I was maybe 10, I've said what you're saying but in much simpler terms, basically that if there is an end, what is it, a wall? Then whats on the other side of the wall. Same thing but much simpler! But with a mobius strip there is no beginning or end much like his universe always being, it has no beginning or end, it is continuous!

[lancek4]

Well then, it seems I may have made an error as to Godfree. Except maybe how he justfies his reasoning; it would seem then that he uses science to rebuke its findings, when science itself declares truth only as a colloquialism, a hypothesis. It is an admittedly tenative truth, but yet still founded in a notion of actual truth, which Godfree attempts to use to show infinity, thus, it seems, he misses the distinction involved in his conflation and thus his point is an accidental sophistry.

I argue the mobious strip, which then denies itself.
Only when you apply today's understanding of things.
For many years, since I was maybe 10, I've said what you're saying but in much simpler terms, basically that if there is an end, what is it, a wall? Then whats on the other side of the wall. Same thing but much simpler! But with a mobius strip there is no beginning or end much like his universe always being, it has no beginning or end, it is continuous!

So, in our mobuisiverse, what does it mean to say 'beginning of the universe'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well then, it seems I may have made an error as to Godfree. Except maybe how he justfies his reasoning; it would seem then that he uses science to rebuke its findings, when science itself declares truth only as a colloquialism, a hypothesis. It is an admittedly tenative truth, but yet still founded in a notion of actual truth, which Godfree attempts to use to show infinity, thus, it seems, he misses the distinction involved in his conflation and thus his point is an accidental sophistry.

I argue the mobious strip, which then denies itself.
Only when you apply today's understanding of things.
For many years, since I was maybe 10, I've said what you're saying but in much simpler terms, basically that if there is an end, what is it, a wall? Then whats on the other side of the wall. Same thing but much simpler! But with a mobius strip there is no beginning or end much like his universe always being, it has no beginning or end, it is continuous!

So, in our mobuisiverse, what does it mean to say 'beginning of the universe'?

Hey don't ask me, you're the one that started talking about Godfree's universe as if it had a beginning.

My point is that one can't honestly see the truth of the future from the past because a future understanding may turn the past's understanding upside down. The mobius strip is just one possibility that I can conceive of, the truth that may unfold as to the beginning of the universe may be like trying to visualized the tesseract within a universe of 4 dimensions from our 3 dimensional universe.

I just really try and not say that something is impossible, and prefer to say that I believe something is improbable, and I believe it makes ones assertion more credible.

Obviously, you can say what ever you want, just trying to make a point for those willing to consider it.

Later!