One for the loons.

[PTH]

I do not know. I do not know what a 'Wittgenstein' is, nor what it actually means.

Strangely enough, no-one is completely sure what he meant.

[Skepdick]

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

Why?

Why not?

[Age]

The observance of red shift is not evidence of expansion.

That's exactly what it is Age. It's also evidence for explanations like 'tired light' and 'plasma redshift', even that the devil is trying to persuade us that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. There's lots of explanations for the evidence, it's just that some explanations are a bit crap.

The observance of red shift can be explained, without it necessarily meaning expansion.

The thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Physicists are very good at coming up with different explanations for exactly the same evidence, because they know perfectly well that no explanation we currently have explains everything.

The observance of blue shift also exists, which obviously contradicts expansion.

You really have to do the maths. A few dozen relatively local galaxies, that are blue shifted, do not contradict the hundreds of billions that are red shifted.

To me, there are NO rules of 'philosophy'.

I've noticed.

You may have missed the lesson on: Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

That was in my basic epistemology class 30 years ago. I was there, me old china.

And, what you observe a word to mean is NOT necessarily how "others" observe it to mean.

Ya don't say. When Samuel Johnson complied his first dictionary of English, he travelled all over the British Isles to find out how words were used in practise, precisely because anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that words are context dependent.

But anyway, and contrary to your belief, there is some thing that I know for certain.

We've been here before Age. If it ain't anything said by Parmenides or Descartes, your name in history is assured.

Well, seeing that you are completely closed and that your beliefs are being held onto for dear life, then every thing you insist MUST BE true.

Therefore, with out any doubt at all the Universe MUST really BE expanding, ever since It began. End of story.

[uwot]

Well, seeing that you are completely closed and that your beliefs are being held onto for dear life, then every thing you insist MUST BE true.

Therefore, with out any doubt at all the Universe MUST really BE expanding, ever since It began. End of story.

Quite how you managed to reach that conclusion is mystery. Either you only read the first sentence, or you have the comprehension skills of an omelette.

[Age]

Well, seeing that you are completely closed and that your beliefs are being held onto for dear life, then every thing you insist MUST BE true.

Therefore, with out any doubt at all the Universe MUST really BE expanding, ever since It began. End of story.

Quite how you managed to reach that conclusion is mystery. Either you only read the first sentence, or you have the comprehension skills of an omelette.

This is what you keep persisting with about what is True.

You even insist there is evidence for this. If there is 'evidence', then it MUST BE true.

I have kept trying to discuss with you about what the 'evidence'could actually be pointing to. But you believe that I am insane, so OBVIOUSLY you will not want to discuss any thing with me. Obviously, the insane would not know any thing more, newer, nor better that the sane.

Read your own words and become aware of your own thoughts. Your beliefs speak loud and clear.

[uwot]

You even insist there is evidence for this. If there is 'evidence', then it MUST BE true.

Read this bit again:

The observance of red shift is not evidence of expansion.

That's exactly what it is Age. It's also evidence for explanations like 'tired light' and 'plasma redshift', even that the devil is trying to persuade us that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. There's lots of explanations for the evidence, it's just that some explanations are a bit crap.
...
The thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Physicists are very good at coming up with different explanations for exactly the same evidence, because they know perfectly well that no explanation we currently have explains everything.

Evidence is just evidence, it is not proof. The fact that Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe actually works is evidence that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Yer might not be aware of it Age, but there is also a truckload of evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Does that prove it isn't? Frankly, no, but the odds are tiny.

I have kept trying to discuss with you about what the 'evidence'could actually be pointing to.

I'm all ears. What do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

But you believe that I am insane...

Well again; what do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

[Age]

You even insist there is evidence for this. If there is 'evidence', then it MUST BE true.

Read this bit again:

The observance of red shift is not evidence of expansion.

That's exactly what it is Age. It's also evidence for explanations like 'tired light' and 'plasma redshift', even that the devil is trying to persuade us that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. There's lots of explanations for the evidence, it's just that some explanations are a bit crap.
...
The thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Physicists are very good at coming up with different explanations for exactly the same evidence, because they know perfectly well that no explanation we currently have explains everything.

Evidence is just evidence, it is not proof. The fact that Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe actually works is evidence that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Yer might not be aware of it Age, but there is also a truckload of evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Does that prove it isn't? Frankly, no, but the odds are tiny.

I have kept trying to discuss with you about what the 'evidence'could actually be pointing to.

I'm all ears. What do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

But you believe that I am insane...

Well again; what do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

Not to what you believe is true.

When you able to admit the the Universe may not be getting bigger, then I know you are somewhat open. Until then your words that the Universe IS getting bigger, remains as evidence and proof that you are closed off to any thing else.

[uwot]

When you able to admit the the Universe may not be getting bigger, then I know you are somewhat open.

I, uwot, solemnly admit the universe may not be getting bigger.

Until then your words that the Universe IS getting bigger, remains as evidence and proof that you are closed off to any thing else.

So: what do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

[Age]

When you able to admit the the Universe may not be getting bigger, then I know you are somewhat open.

I, uwot, solemnly admit the universe may not be getting bigger.

Until then your words that the Universe IS getting bigger, remains as evidence and proof that you are closed off to any thing else.

So: what do you think the evidence could be pointing to?

What evidence?

And, how do you define the word 'evidence'?

[uwot]

What evidence?

Yep, you're insane.

[Skepdick]

And, how do you define the word 'evidence'?

How do you define the words 'define' and 'you'?

[Age]

What evidence?

Yep, you're insane.

These are your words:
Evidence is just evidence, it is not proof. which actually says nothing at all.

You have previously implied that there is "evidence" that the Universe is expanding. Therefore, the conclusion IS the Universe is getting bigger.

I am just trying to gain some understanding of what the word 'evidence' actually means, to you.

Saying, "Evidence is just evidence, it is not proof" infers that evidence does not prove any thing, and, if evidence does not prove any thing, then what is the definition of the word 'evidence', that you use?

If you are incapable of clarifying yourself, then what use is there discussing things with you?

Maybe you think/believe that attempts at using 'less than' words towards "others" may make yourself look smarter. But some can see straight past this.

You are not even capable of clarifying what "evidence" you are actually referring to. Obviously, until you clarify this, then I have no idea what particular "evidence" you are wanting me to talk about. Obviously I just wanted to make sure we are talking about the SAME evidence. For all I know you could be thinking of some thing else.

[Age]

And, how do you define the word 'evidence'?

How do you define the words 'define' and 'you'?

In relation to 'what' exactly?

'you' are just the thoughts and feelings, within a human body.

[Skepdick]

In relation to 'what' exactly?

In relation to their meaning to 'you'.

'you' are just the thoughts and feelings, within a human body.

[Age]

In relation to 'what' exactly?

In relation to their meaning to 'you'.

Why do you want to know?

Is there some thing in particular that you want to discuss?

'you' are just the thoughts and feelings, within a human body.