A World Without Men?

[FlashDangerpants]

You either use no rules whatsoever, or you have private rules but they apply only when you are using them and nobody can tell when that is.

Can, to you, there be ONLY these two options, ALONE?

Could there REALLY NOT be ANY other option here, to you here?

How many more do we need?

You are either the guy who pretended not to understand the purposes of the word "it". Or you are the guy who actually doesn't know the word "it" but only when it suits him not to.

[uwot]

Now, can we move along?

If no, then okay.

But if yes. then what is this OTHER EVIDENCE for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, which you CLAIM you have.

And, if the red shift data is evidence for "an ACTUAL expanding Universe", as you CLAIM it is, then what is the blue shift data evidence for EXACTLY, to you?

We can move on either: when you finally understand a point I made back in March 2019, which I have made several times since, and which you still don't understand:

Now, is this shift always to the red, or sometimes to the blue?

Off the top of my head, there are roughly 100 galaxies that show blue shift. They are either local, like Andromeda, and are being pulled together by gravity, or they are in the Virgo cluster, all of which is heading our way (if you buy the Doppler explanation)-part of the general turbulence of the universe, as far as we can tell. The other trillion or so all display redshift.

Or you finally tell us what your alternative explanation for red and blue shift is.

[Age]

I was right.

It wasn't a difficult to predict that you would have no acutal information about the future.

I ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of HOW I have ALREADY PROVEN HOW I KNEW what would happen, in the future.

And, I ALREADY TOLD you that I have ALREADY DONE THIS but you HAD MISSED THIS.

Are you REALLY just going to SIT there, BELIEVING what you ALREADY ASSUME is TRUE, without EVER making ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION?

If so, GREAT.

My POINT is PROVED ONCE AGAIN.

Go on then, what did I miss that proves you can know what will happen in the future.

What you appear to have MISSED or are just IGNORING is that I said;
if you are NOT YET AWARE, the 'future', from what was written a few years ago, when I first talked about this, has ALREADY arrived, and as such has ALREADY BEEN READ.

But why don't you know anything interesting about it?

How do you KNOW that I do NOT KNOW ANY thing interesting about 'it'?

Also, what 'you' find "interesting", is NOT necessarily 'interesting' to or for "others", and what you find "interesting" here is for your OWN monetary benefit and gain ONLY, and NOT REALLY "interesting" for humanity, nor for this 'world' itself, AT ALL.

[Age]

You either use no rules whatsoever, or you have private rules but they apply only when you are using them and nobody can tell when that is.

Can, to you, there be ONLY these two options, ALONE?

Could there REALLY NOT be ANY other option here, to you here?

How many more do we need?

I have asked you LOTS of clarifying questions ALREADY, which you just IGNORED, YET here you are asking me a clarifying question.

We do NOT 'need' ANY number of options. But if you can come up with two ONLY here, then this SHOWS just how narrowed or CLOSED your view of things REALLY IS.

You are either the guy who pretended not to understand the purposes of the word "it". Or you are the guy who actually doesn't know the word "it" but only when it suits him not to.

ONCE AGAIN, you JUMP straight into the ACCUSATION and CLAIM that: "you are ...", of which there are AGAIN two options ONLY.

Your first sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your second sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things, ALSO.

Thee ACTUAL Truth of things LIES in something else and somewhere else.

[Age]

Now, can we move along?

If no, then okay.

But if yes. then what is this OTHER EVIDENCE for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, which you CLAIM you have.

And, if the red shift data is evidence for "an ACTUAL expanding Universe", as you CLAIM it is, then what is the blue shift data evidence for EXACTLY, to you?

We can move on either: when you finally understand a point I made back in March 2019, which I have made several times since, and which you still don't understand:

Now, is this shift always to the red, or sometimes to the blue?

Off the top of my head, there are roughly 100 galaxies that show blue shift. They are either local, like Andromeda, and are being pulled together by gravity, or they are in the Virgo cluster, all of which is heading our way (if you buy the Doppler explanation)-part of the general turbulence of the universe, as far as we can tell. The other trillion or so all display redshift.

Or you finally tell us what your alternative explanation for red and blue shift is.

What is the ACTUAL POINT, which you SUPPOSEDLY made "back in March 2019"?

A definition of 'insanity'; is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

In other words if you do NOT explain what YOUR, supposed, ACTUAL POINT IS, but instead just keep doing the same thing over and over again, by posting the EXACT SAME thing, over and over again, expecting different results, then you will NOT necessarily get YOUR POINT ACROSS.

If the POINT you are making is some parts of the Universe ARE CONTRACTING while other parts ARE EXPANDING, then THIS POINT was ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. But if that is NOT THE POINT the were MAKING "back in March 2019", then what was THE POINT you were MAKING, to "yourself" ONLY?

The alternative explanation for red AND blue shift, which is what ACTUALLY EXISTS, and NOT just one OR the other, which some people ONLY LOOK AT and ONLY DISCUSS, is that BOTH red AND blue shift TOGETHER are evidence that the Universe is NOT expanding, and did NOT begin.

Now, what is your, SUPPOSED, OTHER EVIDENCE, that the Universe IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING?

Or, will you TRY AGAIN to get out of PROVIDING this, supposed and alleged, "other evidence"?

[FlashDangerpants]

I ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of HOW I have ALREADY PROVEN HOW I KNEW what would happen, in the future.

And, I ALREADY TOLD you that I have ALREADY DONE THIS but you HAD MISSED THIS.

Are you REALLY just going to SIT there, BELIEVING what you ALREADY ASSUME is TRUE, without EVER making ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION?

If so, GREAT.

My POINT is PROVED ONCE AGAIN.

Go on then, what did I miss that proves you can know what will happen in the future.

What you appear to have MISSED or are just IGNORING is that I said;
if you are NOT YET AWARE, the 'future', from what was written a few years ago, when I first talked about this, has ALREADY arrived, and as such has ALREADY BEEN READ.

So? Which of your predictions has actually come true? And how does that prove that you know other predictions you make will come true. And why can't you predict anything that wil happen next week?

[Age]

Go on then, what did I miss that proves you can know what will happen in the future.

What you appear to have MISSED or are just IGNORING is that I said;
if you are NOT YET AWARE, the 'future', from what was written a few years ago, when I first talked about this, has ALREADY arrived, and as such has ALREADY BEEN READ.

So? Which of your predictions has actually come true?

That 'future peoples' WILL READ THIS.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET been able to work this out?

After all, this is VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN in the quote DIRECTLY ABOVE what you JUST RESPONDED TO.

And how does that prove that you know other predictions you make will come true.

I NEVER CLAIMED I KNEW OTHER PREDICTIONS.

And why can't you predict anything that wil happen next week?

Considering the FACT that you COPIED MY WORDS DIRECTLY, POSTED THEM, upsized and colored them, then even surely 'you', "flashdangerpants", could RECOGNIZE the FACT about WHY I can NOT predict ANY thing that WILL happen next week?

Are you under the illusion that 'you' could predict some thing that WILL happen next week?

If yes, then what WILL happen next week?

[FlashDangerpants]

Can, to you, there be ONLY these two options, ALONE?

Could there REALLY NOT be ANY other option here, to you here?

How many more do we need?

I have asked you LOTS of clarifying questions ALREADY, which you just IGNORED, YET here you are asking me a clarifying question.

We do NOT 'need' ANY number of options. But if you can come up with two ONLY here, then this SHOWS just how narrowed or CLOSED your view of things REALLY IS.

You are either the guy who pretended not to understand the purposes of the word "it". Or you are the guy who actually doesn't know the word "it" but only when it suits him not to.

ONCE AGAIN, you JUMP straight into the ACCUSATION and CLAIM that: "you are ...", of which there are AGAIN two options ONLY.

Your first sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your second sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things, ALSO.

Thee ACTUAL Truth of things LIES in something else and somewhere else.

The facts of the matter are already established. When I wrote this...

2. Future generations will, and have ALREADY, read this website, out of CURIOSITY in 'things', which includes the 'me' and the 'you', and NOT necessarily in the 'your', so called, "wisdom" at all.

Now categorise this information. You insist it isn't a belief. It obviously isn't a memory even if you are going to try and do something cute by pretending you transcend time. It isn't something you know by virtue of having a memory of the event.

So it's something you .... "know" will happen but which might not happen because possibly nobody will have any interest in you after you are dead?

It was entirely clear to anyone who can use pronouns that "it" referred to the information to be categorised. But you repsonded with apparent ignorance of the rules that govern how words such as "it" "that" and so on refer to preceding objects and the general necessity of context in communiction.

You insist it isn't a belief.

What does 'it', refer to here?

And, I do NOT EVER recall insisting that 'it' is NOT a belief.

It obviously isn't a memory

What does the 'it' word refer to here?

But you use pronouns correctly whenever you want to as evidenced here and in pretty much every other post you have written

But I do NOT know what 'pronouns', 'nouns', 'adjectives', and those other types of words are. And, I purposely do NOT intend to learn what they are, for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

So either you pretend not to understand pronouns when it suits you because you are a liar. Or you fail to unerstand them by accident because you are incapable of applying basic rues of language.

There is no need for a third option.

But sure, tell us what you think the workable alternative my be, give us a slice of tHEeeEEEEEeeEEEEE ACtuAL TRUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuUUUUUUUUUtttHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[FlashDangerpants]

What you appear to have MISSED or are just IGNORING is that I said;
if you are NOT YET AWARE, the 'future', from what was written a few years ago, when I first talked about this, has ALREADY arrived, and as such has ALREADY BEEN READ.

So? Which of your predictions has actually come true?

That 'future peoples' WILL READ THIS.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET been able to work this out?

After all, this is VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN in the quote DIRECTLY ABOVE what you JUST RESPONDED TO.

And how does that prove that you know other predictions you make will come true.

I NEVER CLAIMED I KNEW OTHER PREDICTIONS.

And why can't you predict anything that wil happen next week?

Considering the FACT that you COPIED MY WORDS DIRECTLY, POSTED THEM, upsized and colored them, then even surely 'you', "flashdangerpants", could RECOGNIZE the FACT about WHY I can NOT predict ANY thing that WILL happen next week?

Are you under the illusion that 'you' could predict some thing that WILL happen next week?

If yes, then what WILL happen next week?

I am not the one making predictions about future generations so I don't need to show that I can make accurate predictions about the future.

You are, so you do.

You can't, so you are trying to worm your way out of it.

[uwot]

What is the ACTUAL POINT, which you SUPPOSEDLY made "back in March 2019"?

A definition of 'insanity'; is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Well Age, since March 2019 I have explained why the Doppler effect implies that things moving towards you appear 'bluer' and things moving away are 'redder'. I have given you the analogy of a bubble. I have pointed out the vast disparity between one hundred and one trillion. I have pointed out that the fact that gravity is not causing the universe to collapse is further evidence, and that the CMBR is evidence of a big bang. What is now dangerously close to insanity is any residual hope I have that someone as dim as you could ever understand any of it.

The alternative explanation for red AND blue shift, which is what ACTUALLY EXISTS, and NOT just one OR the other, which some people ONLY LOOK AT and ONLY DISCUSS, is that BOTH red AND blue shift TOGETHER are evidence that the Universe is NOT expanding, and did NOT begin.

I must be mad, but why do you think red shift is visible in one trillion galaxies, whereby blue shift is recorded in only one hundred?

[FlashDangerpants]

We can move on either: when you finally understand a point I made back in March 2019, which I have made several times since, and which you still don't understand

I just checked when first I told him he has an untranslatable private language problem. He's been failing to understand that since 2016.

[Age]

How many more do we need?

I have asked you LOTS of clarifying questions ALREADY, which you just IGNORED, YET here you are asking me a clarifying question.

We do NOT 'need' ANY number of options. But if you can come up with two ONLY here, then this SHOWS just how narrowed or CLOSED your view of things REALLY IS.

You are either the guy who pretended not to understand the purposes of the word "it". Or you are the guy who actually doesn't know the word "it" but only when it suits him not to.

ONCE AGAIN, you JUMP straight into the ACCUSATION and CLAIM that: "you are ...", of which there are AGAIN two options ONLY.

Your first sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your second sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things, ALSO.

Thee ACTUAL Truth of things LIES in something else and somewhere else.

The facts of the matter are already established. When I wrote this...

And, going by this 'logic' the facts of the matter are already established. When I wrote what I have.

2. Future generations will, and have ALREADY, read this website, out of CURIOSITY in 'things', which includes the 'me' and the 'you', and NOT necessarily in the 'your', so called, "wisdom" at all.

Now categorise this information. You insist it isn't a belief. It obviously isn't a memory even if you are going to try and do something cute by pretending you transcend time. It isn't something you know by virtue of having a memory of the event.

So it's something you .... "know" will happen but which might not happen because possibly nobody will have any interest in you after you are dead?

It was entirely clear to anyone who can use pronouns that "it" referred to the information to be categorised.

And, I am some one, OBVIOUSLY, who can USE 'pronouns'. Therefore, by your own 'logic' again I am ENTIRELY CLEAR what "information" you WANTED "categorized". YET here I am STILL ENTIRELY UNCLEAR what "information" you WANT "categorized".

But you repsonded with apparent ignorance of the rules that govern how words such as "it" "that" and so on refer to preceding objects and the general necessity of context in communiction.

WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and WHY do you JUMP to this ASSUMPTION?

WHAT, EXACTLY, lead 'you' to MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION?

You insist it isn't a belief.

What does 'it', refer to here?

And, I do NOT EVER recall insisting that 'it' is NOT a belief.

It obviously isn't a memory

What does the 'it' word refer to here?

But you use pronouns correctly whenever you want to as evidenced here and in pretty much every other post you have written

But I do NOT know what 'pronouns', 'nouns', 'adjectives', and those other types of words are. And, I purposely do NOT intend to learn what they are, for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

So either you pretend not to understand pronouns when it suits you because you are a liar. Or you fail to unerstand them by accident because you are incapable of applying basic rues of language.

AGAIN two options ONLY.

There is no need for a third option.

You are RIGHT there is NO 'need' for a third option, and this is because thee One and ONLY Truth suffices.

LOOK, I have NO IDEA what a 'pronoun' IS, and this is because I do NOT KNOW what the word 'pronoun' means NOR refers to. And the reason I do NOT YET KNOW these things is because of, as I have ALREADY INFORMED you, a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

Was this REALLY that HARD to UNDERSTAND?

But sure, tell us what you think the workable alternative my be, give us a slice of tHEeeEEEEEeeEEEEE ACtuAL TRUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuUUUUUUUUUtttHHHHHHHHHHHH.

I do NOT YET WANT TO KNOW what 'pronouns' are NOR what the word 'pronoun' means or refers to.

Now, IMAGINE if you did NOT JUMP TO ASSUMPTIONS earlier and JUST ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS from thee start?

[Age]

So? Which of your predictions has actually come true?

That 'future peoples' WILL READ THIS.

Have you REALLY STILL NOT YET been able to work this out?

After all, this is VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN in the quote DIRECTLY ABOVE what you JUST RESPONDED TO.

And how does that prove that you know other predictions you make will come true.

I NEVER CLAIMED I KNEW OTHER PREDICTIONS.

And why can't you predict anything that wil happen next week?

Considering the FACT that you COPIED MY WORDS DIRECTLY, POSTED THEM, upsized and colored them, then even surely 'you', "flashdangerpants", could RECOGNIZE the FACT about WHY I can NOT predict ANY thing that WILL happen next week?

Are you under the illusion that 'you' could predict some thing that WILL happen next week?

If yes, then what WILL happen next week?

I am not the one making predictions about future generations so I don't need to show that I can make accurate predictions about the future.

I KNOW you were NOT. I WAS. And, I have ALREADY SHOWN that I can and HAVE made accurate predictions.

Surely you are NOT GOING TO STILL say that you do NOT UNDERSTAND what has been HAPPENING and OCCURRING here?

You are, so you do.

You can't, so you are trying to worm your way out of it.

But I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN MY CLAIM here. So, that is ANOTHER ONE, which is FINALIZED and FINISHED WITH.

Just because you may NOT be ABLE TO SEE what has ACTUALLY been OCCURRING here does NOT mean that 'it' HAS NOT.

[Age]

What is the ACTUAL POINT, which you SUPPOSEDLY made "back in March 2019"?

A definition of 'insanity'; is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Well Age, since March 2019 I have explained why the Doppler effect implies that things moving towards you appear 'bluer' and things moving away are 'redder'.

But WHY did you FEEL the NEED to explain this, to me?

I have been MAKING THAT POINT to you, all along. In case you are STILL UNAWARE.

I have given you the analogy of a bubble.

I KNOW, and in case you are STILL UNAWARE I responded to that analogy, piece by piece, and SHOWED how that analogy helps in EXPLAINING how thee Universe is NOT expanding, and did NOT begin. But, did you MISS this POINT as well?

I have pointed out the vast disparity between one hundred and one trillion.

Well the ZEROS after another number SHOWED that by itself. You did NOT POINT ANY thing of such OUT.

I have pointed out that the fact that gravity is not causing the universe to collapse is further evidence,

Ah, ONLY now you can bring "yourself" to start PROVIDING the, so called, "other evidence" for YOUR CLAIM that the Universe is ACTUALLY EXPANDING.

And, let us NOT FORGET the FACT there is ACTUALLY NOTHING causing the Universe to EXPAND either.

and that the CMBR is evidence of a big bang.

AND, the big bang can OBVIOUSLY NOT BE THE BEGINNING. NO matter how much you WANT to BELIEVE it IS.

What is now dangerously close to insanity is any residual hope I have that someone as dim as you could ever understand any of it.

And what you OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE of IS; what I ACTUALLY DO UNDERSTAND.

The alternative explanation for red AND blue shift, which is what ACTUALLY EXISTS, and NOT just one OR the other, which some people ONLY LOOK AT and ONLY DISCUSS, is that BOTH red AND blue shift TOGETHER are evidence that the Universe is NOT expanding, and did NOT begin.

I must be mad, but why do you think red shift is visible in one trillion galaxies, whereby blue shift is recorded in only one hundred?

WHY can you SEE some of the words I write but NOT ALL of them.

I have SPECIFICALLY ALREADY STATED that red shift EXPLAINS the minuscule amount of a just a trillion galaxies moving away from the perspective of earth.

Now if they are the ONLY pieces of evidence you have for the EXPANDING and BEGINNING Universe HYPOTHESIS, which you ALREADY ASSUME or BELIEVE is true, then there is NO WONDER you are SO DELUDED.

Do you usually arrive at your OWN made up ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS without ANY ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL?

[FlashDangerpants]

I have asked you LOTS of clarifying questions ALREADY, which you just IGNORED, YET here you are asking me a clarifying question.

We do NOT 'need' ANY number of options. But if you can come up with two ONLY here, then this SHOWS just how narrowed or CLOSED your view of things REALLY IS.



ONCE AGAIN, you JUMP straight into the ACCUSATION and CLAIM that: "you are ...", of which there are AGAIN two options ONLY.

Your first sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your second sentence is so FAR OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things, ALSO.

Thee ACTUAL Truth of things LIES in something else and somewhere else.

The facts of the matter are already established. When I wrote this...

And, going by this 'logic' the facts of the matter are already established. When I wrote what I have.

Now categorise this information. You insist it isn't a belief. It obviously isn't a memory even if you are going to try and do something cute by pretending you transcend time. It isn't something you know by virtue of having a memory of the event.

So it's something you .... "know" will happen but which might not happen because possibly nobody will have any interest in you after you are dead?

It was entirely clear to anyone who can use pronouns that "it" referred to the information to be categorised.

And, I am some one, OBVIOUSLY, who can USE 'pronouns'. Therefore, by your own 'logic' again I am ENTIRELY CLEAR what "information" you WANTED "categorized". YET here I am STILL ENTIRELY UNCLEAR what "information" you WANT "categorized".

How can it be unclear? I gave you examples of available categories such as memory and belief and knowledge. What more do you need if you have actually read what I wrote?

But you repsonded with apparent ignorance of the rules that govern how words such as "it" "that" and so on refer to preceding objects and the general necessity of context in communiction.

WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and WHY do you JUMP to this ASSUMPTION?

WHAT, EXACTLY, lead 'you' to MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION?

The answer to that was in the next block of text. I coloured it green, it should have been obvious that it was there for some purpose.
But because you are lying when you say that you read posts before hitting reply, you ended up just ignoring it.

But you use pronouns correctly whenever you want to as evidenced here and in pretty much every other post you have written

So either you pretend not to understand pronouns when it suits you because you are a liar. Or you fail to unerstand them by accident because you are incapable of applying basic rues of language.

AGAIN two options ONLY.

There is no need for a third option.

You are RIGHT there is NO 'need' for a third option, and this is because thee One and ONLY Truth suffices.

LOOK, I have NO IDEA what a 'pronoun' IS, and this is because I do NOT KNOW what the word 'pronoun' means NOR refers to. And the reason I do NOT YET KNOW these things is because of, as I have ALREADY INFORMED you, a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

Was this REALLY that HARD to UNDERSTAND?

Fine, what specific reason do you need to not know that a pronoun is a word such as it, that, they or I which can represent nouns ... (a noun is a special sort of word that can specify or name things such as Ken, and bullshit)?

It doesn't matter that you don't know what 'pronoun' or 'noun' means, although if you are a native English speaker and you don't, then your education was highly questionable. The important thing is that you clearly do know how to use all the basic classes of words so this gambit is foolish.

But sure, tell us what you think the workable alternative my be, give us a slice of tHEeeEEEEEeeEEEEE ACtuAL TRUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuUUUUUUUUUtttHHHHHHHHHHHH.

I do NOT YET WANT TO KNOW what 'pronouns' are NOR what the word 'pronoun' means or refers to.

Now, IMAGINE if you did NOT JUMP TO ASSUMPTIONS earlier and JUST ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS from thee start?

No clarifying question has ever resulted in actual clarity. You just respond with even less intelligble nonsense.
For example, I asked you what "I" meant and you replied that it means God.

So what, then I have to ask 4 new CLAifYInG QUEstiONs just because you make up absurd meanings for normal words to represent nonviable objects in Kengrish? There's no route to understanding you via clarifing questions Ken, that's just a trip down the rabbit hole.