Einstein on the train

[Age]

LOL So once again you propose with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you KNOW what thee Truth IS.

i haven't, you merely have comprehension issues.

Agree. I AGAIN mistook what you wrote.

I do NOT believe any thing here. You are the only one with BELIEFS here.

And, you ONLY BELIEVE that there is NO True Self. You have absolutely zero evidence for this BELIEF.

In fact are you even ABLE to define what the 'True Self' IS at all?

Wrong, you are the one with a belief here: the "True Self" knows things.

Are you suggesting the 'I' within human beings does NOT know things?

i don't have that belief.

Neither do I.

If you do not have the belief that the True Self knows things, then do you have the belief that there is NO such thing as True Self?

HOW do you KNOW that what you present as facts is NOT different from what is presented as facts within the book?

Do you even KNOW exactly what part I am actually referring to?

And do NOT ask for it now. You have ALREADY STATED, "No it doesn't". Therefore, you are coming across as KNOWING with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what IS True, Right, and Correct. So now I will ask you to back up what you say here, AND we will SEE what occurs.

The reason I write the way I do is to evoke responses from you, which brings out YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, then I have examples to SHOW how you have these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, yet you are completely INCAPABLE of being able to back them up. Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove me WRONG by proving that you can back up what you say here. Are you able to prove that you can back up what you are INSISTING here is True, Right, and Correct? Are you able to SHOW how what you say are facts are NOT different to what is proposed as being facts within the book in question?

you're an idiot.

Okay. But before I was a "profound idiot" to you. Am I getting better or worse now?

Also, if I am the idiot, then why is it you who appears to be completely incapable of answering very simple clarifying questions?

Or, is just the case that you do not want to or could not be bothered to, or is some thing else going on here?

The book also explains that the farther galaxies are, the more redshifted they are.

So what? Absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I am thinking.

What you wrote is still in contention with what is in the book.

You, however, disagree with this and say, it is not.

Do you even KNOW what I have even been inferring?

If no, then okay.
If yes, then what is it?

By the way pulling little snippets out of what I write, and only responding to those little bits, is NOT helping you at all here.

i'm not,

If you are not doing this, then what exactly are you doing?

but you are incapable of understanding this as well,

Why do you say this?

I just asked you to clarify that if you are not doing that, then what exactly are you doing? So, how is this being incapable of understanding? If you are able to clarify this and express it clearly enough to me to understand, then I am capable of understanding.

If, however, you do NOT clarify this question, like you do NOT clarify the other questions I ask you, then you are RIGHT I am incapable of understanding. In fact, If you do NOT clarify in any way, then I am COMPLETELY 'incapable of understanding' AT ALL, in regards to you.

just as you are incapable of understanding what i wrote or responding properly

If this is what you BELIEVE, then would care to provide some actual evidence of when I have done this. Then "others" might be able to explain it in a what that I would then be 'capable of understanding'.

Also, if you KNOW I am incapable of understanding what you write or respond with properly, then WHY do you write or respond to me?

Or, if you KNOW I am incapable of understanding what you write or respond with properly, and you WANT me to understand, then WHY not just write or respond in a way that I would be capable of understanding you, instead?

To me, it seems rather pointless and a complete waste of time to write to or respond to some one who you KNOW who is INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING you.

[uwot]

Are you able to SHOW how what you say are facts are NOT different to what is proposed as being facts within the book in question?

you're an idiot. The book also explains that the farther galaxies are, the more redshifted they are.

Good to see that someone has actually read the bloody thing.

[Age]

The speed between galaxies not gravitationally bound to each other is known as intergalatic speed

This is 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec

A parsec is the distance a distant star moves one second in relation to the Earth which is 3 . 26 light years

The speed of light is 299 458 kilometres per second

To calculate the distance at which light speed occurs

Divide 299 458 by 72 000 [ intergalatic speed x I000 ] which = 4 . I59 and 4 . I59 x 3 . 26 = I3 . 55834

Therefore galaxies I3 . 55834 billion light years or more from Earth are expanding beyond light speed

This is the mathematical proof that demonstrates that the Universe - beyond a certain point - is expanding beyond light speed

OR all of this could be as simple as being 'just an optical illusion' just like the sun revolving around the earth is 'just an optical illusion'.

Remember these are just numbers, which can have no real bearing on facts, and the maths is only used AFTER the idea that the Universe IS expanding is well set into the BELIEF-system.

1. Is the saying 'the Universe is expanding' a fact or a theory?
2. If the 'expanding Universe' is a theory, then it just remains so until proven true or it is falsified.
3. If the 'expanding Universe' is fact, then what were the facts used as evidence to prove that this is really happening now?

In other words what facts do you human beings have, which links to evidence, which proves that the ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that you human beings now have that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

Just providing numbers and maths to explain how fast things appear to be moving away from earth can be very easily and simply explained, but that is NO proof whatsoever that thee Universe, Itself, is expanding.

[Age]

Are you able to SHOW how what you say are facts are NOT different to what is proposed as being facts within the book in question?

you're an idiot. The book also explains that the farther galaxies are, the more redshifted they are.

Good to see that someone has actually read the bloody thing.

On the contrary. Your own book does NOT agree with what was being said by "atla".

I have been alluding to this, to POINT THIS OUT, but every one here seems to BELIEVE that this COULD NOT BE THE CASE.

[Atla]

Are you suggesting the 'I' within human beings does NOT know things?

there's zero evidence that there's an 'I' within human beings that could knows things

instead, human beings are part of the 'I' just like rocks and birds are, the 'I' as a whole doesn't know shit

the idea that the 'I' knows things is your belief

So what? Absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I am thinking.

What you wrote is still in contention with what is in the book.

no, it's not in contention

[Age]

Are you suggesting the 'I' within human beings does NOT know things?

there's zero evidence that there's an 'I' within human beings that could knows things

Who is this, EXACTLY, that (thinks it) KNOWS that there is zero evidence that there is an 'I' within human beings?

instead, human beings are part of the 'I' just like rocks and birds are, the 'I' as a whole doesn't know shit

Although shit is also part of 'I' correct?

And, what evidence is there that human beings are part of the 'I', just like rocks and birds are?

Also, what is this 'I' EXACTLY, which you speak of here?

the idea that the 'I' knows things is your belief

But it is NOT a belief 'I' have at all.

What and who is this 'I' that is saying that the 'I' knows things is your belief?

What is that thing called, which is stating that there is zero evidence that there is an 'I' within human beings that could know things?

So what? Absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I am thinking.

What you wrote is still in contention with what is in the book.

no, it's not in contention

Once again, spoken WITH 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

How do you KNOW that it is NOT in contention when you do NOT even know what it is that is being discussed here?

Also, WHY are you so totally incapable of answering my clarifying questions?

What is it, EXACTLY, that you are so afraid of IF you ever did answer my clarifying questions?

[Atla]

Although shit is also part of 'I' correct?

And, what evidence is there that human beings are part of the 'I', just like rocks and birds are?

Also, what is this 'I' EXACTLY, which you speak of here?

'I' = the 'True Self' = the world = the Universe (all there is) = 'Consciousness' = existence = reality = the Absolute
so you don't even know that humans are part of the world?

But it is NOT a belief 'I' have at all.

What and who is this 'I' that is saying that the 'I' knows things is your belief?

What is that thing called, which is stating that there is zero evidence that there is an 'I' within human beings that could know things?

Stop lying, this belief of yours is all you talk about. And you are the i not the 'I'

Once again, spoken WITH 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

How do you KNOW that it is NOT in contention when you do NOT even know what it is that is being discussed here?

Also, WHY are you so totally incapable of answering my clarifying questions?

What is it, EXACTLY, that you are so afraid of IF you ever did answer my clarifying questions?

you aren't addressing what i write with your "questions"
you merely keep lying and lying

[uwot]

What you wrote is still in contention with what is in the book.

no, it's not in contention

Once again, spoken WITH 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Probably because Atla has read the book.

How do you KNOW that it is NOT in contention when you do NOT even know what it is that is being discussed here?

Everyone apart from you knows that this is what is being discussed:

(You also don't understand Hubble's law as it seems. Only a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so very nearby galaxies are slightly blueshifted.

But this goes completely against what is proposed as being the facts, expressed in the book that this thread is about. So, who do you want me to accept as knowing and expressing the real truth of things? Should I accept that you are telling the true and right version, or, should i accept the other version, which is in the book?

In the book it says:
"In a few nearby galaxies, like Andromeda, the fingerprint is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum.
But apart from those close neighbours, in the vast majority of more distant galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end."
Which is exactly what Atla is saying.

Also, WHY are you so totally incapable of answering my clarifying questions?

They have been answered - clearly and at length.

What is it, EXACTLY, that you are so afraid of IF you ever did answer my clarifying questions?

No one is afraid of your dreary questions - it is you that is afraid of the answers.

[Age]

Although shit is also part of 'I' correct?

And, what evidence is there that human beings are part of the 'I', just like rocks and birds are?

Also, what is this 'I' EXACTLY, which you speak of here?

'I' = the 'True Self' = the world = the Universe (all there is) = 'Consciousness' = existence = reality = the Absolute
so you don't even know that humans are part of the world?

That is one very WRONG assumption you have here now. I was asking you to clarify IF shit is part of 'I' AND what evidence is there that human beings are part of the 'I'. You FAILED, ONCE AGAIN, to answer and clarify BOTH of these.

Although you put a question mark at the end of your STATEMENT it is therefore NOT a question. It is just your ASSUMPTION.

Also, if 'I' is 'ALL-THERE-IS', which OBVIOUSLY does include KNOWING, then WHY do you INSIST that 'I', which equals the True Self, does NOT know things?

But it is NOT a belief 'I' have at all.

What and who is this 'I' that is saying that the 'I' knows things is your belief?

What is that thing called, which is stating that there is zero evidence that there is an 'I' within human beings that could know things?

Stop lying, this belief of yours is all you talk about. And you are the i not the 'I'

But I have NO belief.

If the VIEW, which I do have, and express, IS WRONG. Then provide EVIDENCE of WHY it is WRONG. Just expressing YOUR BELIEF and saying "IT IS WRONG" carries absolutely NO substance to it at all.

Because I do NOT have beliefs, I am OPEN to ALL and EVERY thing. But if you continue to NEVER provide ANY evidence, then there is OBVIOUSLY nothing to be OPEN to, nor to LOOK AT and SEE.

Also, there is TWO MORE clarifying questions I posed to you, which you have, ONCE AGAIN, FAILED to reply to.

Once again, spoken WITH 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

How do you KNOW that it is NOT in contention when you do NOT even know what it is that is being discussed here?

Also, WHY are you so totally incapable of answering my clarifying questions?

What is it, EXACTLY, that you are so afraid of IF you ever did answer my clarifying questions?

you aren't addressing what i write with your "questions"
you merely keep lying and lying

This is NOW THREE MORE questions, which you just WILL NOT ANSWER.

That is seven questions in just one post, which you HAVE FAILED to answer. Now, imagine how many other clarifying questions that I have asked, and which you have FAILED TO ANSWER just this thread alone, let alone in this forum.

Also, I HAVE addressed what you write. I just do NOT write according to what you ASSUME I should be addressing. This is because what you ASSUME is usually WRONG anyway. Just one of many examples of this is when you have been ASSUMING you KNOW what it is that I have been referring to, in regards to what you say and how it goes against what is in the book, but in all Truth you have absolutely NO idea what it is, correct?

Here is ANOTHER clarifying question addressed to you now, WHERE is the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that I am "lying"?

[Scott Mayers]

The forms aren't meant to fix the world. The forms (models) are for your mind so you can cope with the mess.

Kinda like mathematical and philosophical models used by scientists.

Heuristics are useful to humans in general.

Yes indeedy. Have I mentioned my book lately? It's loaded with heuristics. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

I relate a lot to your style, Will, and want to actually get into a comparative conversation of your book to my theory I've been working on for so long.

In particular, I like how you modeled the space per General Relativity's meaning and treating matter, space, and time, as all one concept related merely to the "shape" of space.

To get a sense of my own thinking, I begun asking long ago if you could find a description of reality ideally WITHOUT actual direct sensation. Of course this ideal is impossible given we need to first 'sense' things before we even learn to question reality. But I figured if Totality had its own rationale without a need for gods (or, for the gods themselves or the gods of the gods, etc.) If nature has form that derives our reality WITHOUT a mind, it would have to be able to be caused by nothing itself. If we are an evolved advancement on this, then technically, if given an ideally long time, we should be able to figure out HOW to recreate Totality from scratch, ...or less than that.

My main distinction to Einstein is first that ALL POINTS IN SPACE MOVE AT ONE SPEED, BUT DIFFER BY THEIR DIRECTION AND DIMENSION. In this way, matter itself can be determined to BE the 'curves' rather than space itself BEING curved by some undetermined/undefined meaning of mass.

I also know that contrary to some, Einstein also held a belief in a Steady State type system OR, given how he took issue with the Copenhagen interpretation in QM, felt that the Big Bang interpretation was similar to the concern of requiring Nature to treat us 'special'. His statement that the Nature (God) doesn't play dice, was to emphasize this point. Why would nature have all possibilities but ONLY select a random SPECIAL of equal potential odds? I always agreed with this thinking and find that a Steady State interpretation is more 'open' to all possibilities by default.

I do think you did justice FOR the present Big Bang theory without bias and it still shows appropriately (and more fittingly) the perception of how Einstein would have been thinking. What is needed is some argument that at least closes the door on a static interpretation of space. I did this in "The Expanding Universe" thread with an argument I want you to look at. It is here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&start=150#p407677. I would like you to look at that small post argument and tell me what you think in light of your own thinking. It is a "Reduction to Absurdity" type argument in a rough form that I can expand on here. But I see it as potentially something that you might be interested in regarding closure on that point. Instead of arguing THAT space expands, assume it doesn't, list all possible exhaustive repercussions of the assumption and then eliminate them. Thus, while it wouldn't 'prove' what might be missing of missed alternatives, within the limits of the expressed odds, you can eliminate what isn't the case until some novel and viable alternative could counter it.

I'll stop at this for now. I want to discuss more with relation to your book but hope this is more interesting back onto your own thread.

[Age]

no, it's not in contention

Once again, spoken WITH 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Probably because Atla has read the book.

So here is another one who is speaking with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, yet ALSO has absolutely NO idea about what I am ACTUALLY REFERRING TO.

How do you KNOW that it is NOT in contention when you do NOT even know what it is that is being discussed here?

Everyone apart from you knows that this is what is being discussed:

But I am the ONLY one who KNOWS what is in this head, which I have been alluding to, for quite some time now. I have been asking clarifying questions so that when they are answered, THEN I will POINT OUT where EXACTLY the contention IS. Until then absolutely NONE of you has absolutely NO idea what it is that I have SEEN and have YET to bring to light.

How much MORE obvious could it be HOW your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS are PREVENTING and STOPPING you from LOOKING, DISCOVERING, LEARNING, SEEING, KNOWING, and UNDERSTANDING more and anew?

If, and when, people are to LOOK BACK in these writings it IS BLINDLY OBVIOUS.

No one, besides me, KNOWS the part in contention because i am the ONLY one who has brought it up. Therefore, IF I have NOT yet expressed it, and none of you have yet recognized it for yourselves, which none of you have said you have yet, then NO one KNOWS what is being discussed, in relation to THIS CONTENTION, other than me, OBVIOUSLY.

(You also don't understand Hubble's law as it seems. Only a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so very nearby galaxies are slightly blueshifted.

But this goes completely against what is proposed as being the facts, expressed in the book that this thread is about. So, who do you want me to accept as knowing and expressing the real truth of things? Should I accept that you are telling the true and right version, or, should i accept the other version, which is in the book?

In the book it says:
"In a few nearby galaxies, like Andromeda, the fingerprint is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum.
But apart from those close neighbours, in the vast majority of more distant galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end."
Which is exactly what Atla is saying.

But that is EXACTLY NOT what "atla" IS saying at all. And this is the EXACT part, which I am saying IS IN CONTENTION.

How can you NOT see that what "atla" says is NOT the same as in the book?

What is 'preventing' and/or 'stopping' you from SEEING what the actual and real Truth of things here?

What do you THINK is the answer to what IS 'IT', which is PREVENTING and STOPPING you from LOOKING AT, DISCOVERING, and SEEING what I am addressing and SHOWING here, which is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS?

The ANSWERS should also be extremely OBVIOUS by now. I have told you the ANSWERS enough times ALREADY.

Also, WHY are you so totally incapable of answering my clarifying questions?

They have been answered - clearly and at length.

Replies are given. But that are NOT answers to the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I ask.

Any, if any one cares to go back and SEE just how many of my questions are answered, then they will FIND that the answer is relatively NONE.

You only have to go back one post to SEE that seven out of eight of my clarifying questions just in one post WERE NOT ANSWERED.

And as for answering "clearly and at length", then you really are BLINDED by those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS you have.

List the number of things that are used by you human beings, which EVIDENCES that the Universe is expanding.

Then I can AT LEAST be given a chance to SHOW how each one of them could be explained away, as easily as the sun does NOT revolve around the earth can be explained away.

What is it, EXACTLY, that you are so afraid of IF you ever did answer my clarifying questions?

No one is afraid of your dreary questions - it is you that is afraid of the answers.

Am I?

If you THINK or BELIEVE I am, then WHY do you THINK or BELIEVE that I am constantly WANTING you to provide them, AND MORE?

I LOVE your answers. I actually THRIVE on them, as they give me MORE guidance in HOW to communicate and explain things to you BETTER. I just WISH you could and would provide the True and Honest answers, which I am LOOKING for, FROM YOU, as quick as I am asking the clarifying questions to you. That way this WHOLE process could be sped up tremendously.

This is what I wrote on page 1 (underlined):

Just as long as you are aware that sometimes so called "facts" end up NOT actually being FACTS at all, then we are on the same path.

Human beings do sometimes tend to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on hearing/seeing "facts", which really were NOT even facts to start out with.

And now we are on page 37 and we are still going at the same pace of 'getting nowhere'.

[Arising_uk]

...
And now we are on page 37 and we are still going at the same pace of 'getting nowhere'.

Probably because you don't seem to understand the idea of 'constructive criticism' and really, really, like the sound of your own voice. As uwot pointed-out to you, start your own thread on your ideas of what is going on or even better write your own book to explain them.

[Atla]

In the book it says:
"In a few nearby galaxies, like Andromeda, the fingerprint is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum.
But apart from those close neighbours, in the vast majority of more distant galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end."
Which is exactly what Atla is saying.

But that is EXACTLY NOT what "atla" IS saying at all. And this is the EXACT part, which I am saying IS IN CONTENTION.

How can you NOT see that what "atla" says is NOT the same as in the book?

What is 'preventing' and/or 'stopping' you from SEEING what the actual and real Truth of things here?

What do you THINK is the answer to what IS 'IT', which is PREVENTING and STOPPING you from LOOKING AT, DISCOVERING, and SEEING what I am addressing and SHOWING here, which is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS?

The ANSWERS should also be extremely OBVIOUS by now. I have told you the ANSWERS enough times ALREADY.

Which is what I wrote too.
Maybe Age is going crazy about "vast majority". Yes, there are some blueshifted galaxies a little further away from us too, because we are breing drawn towards the centre of the Virgo supercluster. Look further than that and everything is redshifted.

[Age]

...
And now we are on page 37 and we are still going at the same pace of 'getting nowhere'.

Probably because you don't seem to understand the idea of 'constructive criticism' and really, really, like the sound of your own voice.

I KNOW it is NOT because I like the sound of my own voice, but I agree that we are not getting anywhere because it is more than just probable and most likely because I do NOT understand the idea of 'constructive criticism', from the perspective of what you and "others" understand it.

Would you care to help me understand just what exactly is the 'idea of constructive criticism'? How do you 'constructively criticize'?

As uwot pointed-out to you, start your own thread on your ideas of what is going on or even better write your own book to explain them.

Maybe you have MISSED it BUT that is EXACTLY what I am in the process of doing. But first I NEED to LEARN how to communicate views/ideas BETTER, and to do this I want to understand what it is EXACTLY that people use to TRY TO "justify" their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And, what better way to do than to ask those who say and write that the Universe is 'getting bigger' what do they use as facts, which provides the evidence, that proves the ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS that they are now HOLDING?

If I know that the views and ideas I want to share are going to be INSTANTLY DISMISSED, just like the view and idea that the earth revolves around the sun was, then I first want to gauge the way those human beings who think they are "experts" will react, and what better place is there to find those kind of human beings who think that they are "experts" than in a 'philosophy forum'? See unlike that view/idea that the earth revolves around the sun, which could be proven with observable empirical evidence I am UNABLE to provide any actual observable evidence for my views/ideas on this topic, because of the distances involved.

Now if my clarifying questions were answered OPENLY and Honestly in the first few pages, then I would have the information about what are the so called "facts", which is what is used as "evidence" for the view/idea that they came to have that the Universe is expanding. I would also then have the exact "justifications" that these people now TRY TO use to support their BELIEF that the Universe REALLY IS expanding, which is what would REALLY be helping me to LEARN how to communicate with human beings MUCH BETTER.

[Arising_uk]

I KNOW it is NOT because I like the sound of my own voice, ...

You could've fooled me what with all the SHOUTING all the time.

but I agree that we are not getting anywhere because it is more than just probable and most likely because I do NOT understand the idea of 'constructive criticism', from the perspective of what you and "others" understand it.

Would you care to help me understand just what exactly is the 'idea of constructive criticism'? How do you 'constructively criticize'? ...

A book? Well start with the typo's, then the grammar, then look for inconsistencies in the narrative thread, i.e. do some parts contradict others, then point out passages that seem confusing, etc.

What you don't do is question the whole premise based upon your own pet-theory as if this is the case then the answer is to go write your own book or rebuttal elsewhere as it is of no constructive use at all to the author.

Maybe you have MISSED it BUT that is EXACTLY what I am in the process of doing. But first I NEED to LEARN how to communicate views/ideas BETTER, and to do this I want to understand what it is EXACTLY that people use to TRY TO "justify" their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And, what better way to do than to ask those who say and write that the Universe is 'getting bigger' what do they use as facts, which provides the evidence, that proves the ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS that they are now HOLDING? ...

You really need to learn to read and comprehend what others say without filtering it through your personal lens first. Uwot has stated that his book is basically a dummies guide for the laymen as to what philosophically the Physicists have been saying and thinking with their theories and what they have been saying is evidence for their thoughts.

If I know that the views and ideas I want to share are going to be INSTANTLY DISMISSED, just like the view and idea that the earth revolves around the sun was, then I first want to gauge the way those human beings who think they are "experts" will react, and what better place is there to find those kind of human beings who think that they are "experts" than in a 'philosophy forum'? See unlike that view/idea that the earth revolves around the sun, which could be proven with observable empirical evidence I am UNABLE to provide any actual observable evidence for my views/ideas on this topic, because of the distances involved.

Now if my clarifying questions were answered OPENLY and Honestly in the first few pages, then I would have the information about what are the so called "facts", which is what is used as "evidence" for the view/idea that they came to have that the Universe is expanding. I would also then have the exact "justifications" that these people now TRY TO use to support their BELIEF that the Universe REALLY IS expanding, which is what would REALLY be helping me to LEARN how to communicate with human beings MUCH BETTER.

Try imagining you are a human being first and then think about how you would like to be better communicated with.
You are basically trolling this thread and every other one you are on. Start your own thread stating what it is you believe to be the truth about things and then see what the responses are rather than this endless SHOUTING that you KNOW the TRUTH as I don't know about the others but it's grating upon my ears and eyes.