Relativity - Aristotle, Galileo, Einstein, Einstein

[Age]

you keep speaking, writing, and insisting here that 'yours' and other's interpretations here are the truth, and worse still are the only truth.

No Age, I keep writing about underdetermination.

So, what 'we' have here now, once more, is another prime example of one who has no curiosity at all left. Instead of just being open in anyway and just seeking out why I am saying and claiming what I am here this one, once again, speaks, writes, and insists that it knows the absolute truth.

I say again and again that there are always different ways to interpret the same data.

you may well say and write these words, but when you use, say, and write other words that contradicts then words, then as I keep informing you what you are doing here is very hypocritical. And, your very words prove so.

You are the one who thinks he knows the truth.

No I do not.

Obviously you have misinterpreted what I have been saying and writing here.

Now, for absolutely any one here who has any curiosity left and would be interested in me providing examples of where "will bouwman" claims and insists things are true, when they are not, then just let me know. Obviously "will bouwman" will not while it keeps believing that it absolutely is not doing this, at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Now, for absolutely any one here who has any curiosity left and would be interested in me providing examples of where "will bouwman" claims and insists things are true, when they are not, then just let me know. Obviously "will bouwman" will not while it keeps believing that it absolutely is not doing this, at all.

Let me get you started:

Well, if analytic philosophy has shown us anything, it is, to paraphrase Parmenides and Descartes, there are phenomena. Anything we know about reality beyond that is theory laden, so we can know all sorts of things in context, but only one we know absolutely.

Well philosophically sound is a ridiculously stringent criterion. To be philosophically sound, a proposition has to such that its denial is self refuting. As I have said frequently, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved this. There is something, and there is thought cannot be expressed without being true. All other propositions, however absurd you personally find them, can be coherently held. Doing so is an aesthetic choice.

Well, both Parmenides and Descartes were rationalists. Their aim was to build a body of knowledge based on sound premises. Both invoked gods, in the case of Parmenides, this is thought to be Hemera, the Greek goddess of day. She was brought in to add weight to Parmenides' assertion that something exists; it doesn't actually take a god to prove that, but Parmenides knew his audience. Parmenides inference that the universe is an eternal and perfect sphere is flawed, but if you were to bring him forward by two and a half thousand Earth rotations, or however many shakes of caesium that is, there are parallels with modern block universe theories. Descartes' god was the regular Vatican approved example. This god was brought in after Descartes had arrived at 'I think, therefore I am', because without God, Descartes realised there was absolutely nothing that follows from 'therefore I am'.

...there are, in case you haven't heard me say so, only two philosophical truths. One courtesy of Parmenides is that there is not nothing - something exists, in other words. The second we owe to Descartes, is the fact that consciousness exists. What makes those necessarily true is that they cannot be expressed without being true. Beyond that, everything is theory laden and underdetermined.

All knowledge is theory laden. All hypotheses are underdetermined.

[Age]

Now, for absolutely any one here who has any curiosity left and would be interested in me providing examples of where "will bouwman" claims and insists things are true, when they are not, then just let me know. Obviously "will bouwman" will not while it keeps believing that it absolutely is not doing this, at all.

Let me get you started:

Well, if analytic philosophy has shown us anything, it is, to paraphrase Parmenides and Descartes, there are phenomena. Anything we know about reality beyond that is theory laden, so we can know all sorts of things in context, but only one we know absolutely.

Well philosophically sound is a ridiculously stringent criterion. To be philosophically sound, a proposition has to such that its denial is self refuting. As I have said frequently, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved this. There is something, and there is thought cannot be expressed without being true. All other propositions, however absurd you personally find them, can be coherently held. Doing so is an aesthetic choice.

Well, both Parmenides and Descartes were rationalists. Their aim was to build a body of knowledge based on sound premises. Both invoked gods, in the case of Parmenides, this is thought to be Hemera, the Greek goddess of day. She was brought in to add weight to Parmenides' assertion that something exists; it doesn't actually take a god to prove that, but Parmenides knew his audience. Parmenides inference that the universe is an eternal and perfect sphere is flawed, but if you were to bring him forward by two and a half thousand Earth rotations, or however many shakes of caesium that is, there are parallels with modern block universe theories. Descartes' god was the regular Vatican approved example. This god was brought in after Descartes had arrived at 'I think, therefore I am', because without God, Descartes realised there was absolutely nothing that follows from 'therefore I am'.

...there are, in case you haven't heard me say so, only two philosophical truths. One courtesy of Parmenides is that there is not nothing - something exists, in other words. The second we owe to Descartes, is the fact that consciousness exists. What makes those necessarily true is that they cannot be expressed without being true. Beyond that, everything is theory laden and underdetermined.

All knowledge is theory laden. All hypotheses are underdetermined.

So, if you believe the above here is true, then this makes my question, 'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', even more relevant.

[Will Bouwman]

So, if you believe the above here is true, then this makes my question, 'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', even more relevant.

Very well, give me an example.

[Age]

So, if you believe the above here is true, then this makes my question, 'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', even more relevant.

Very well, give me an example.

1. [The further away a galaxy is, then the more that galaxy's light is red shifted] implies that the further away a galaxy is, from 'us', the faster [the galaxy] is moving away from 'us'.

'Data', itself. does not 'imply' absolutely any thing at all. you observers, however, 'imply' things, from 'data' and from other things.

2. It sounds weird [that the further away a galaxy is then the faster it is moving from 'us', but that is what happens when things expand. In an expanding Universe, it is galaxies rather than currants, which are moving apart.

So, there are two examples, well to start off with anyway.

[Will Bouwman]

So, if you believe the above here is true, then this makes my question, 'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', even more relevant.

Very well, give me an example.

1. [The further away a galaxy is, then the more that galaxy's light is red shifted] implies that the further away a galaxy is, from 'us', the faster [the galaxy] is moving away from 'us'.

'Data', itself. does not 'imply' absolutely any thing at all. you observers, however, 'imply' things, from 'data' and from other things.

2. It sounds weird [that the further away a galaxy is then the faster it is moving from 'us', but that is what happens when things expand. In an expanding Universe, it is galaxies rather than currants, which are moving apart.

So, there are two examples, well to start off with anyway.

I see. So that's the sort of speaking, writing, and insisting that my and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', that upsets you so much. That being so, I see no way of writing English that will not offend you. While I am sorry for you that you are so easily triggered, I can't apologise for language that most people would read in it's appropriate context.

[Age]

Very well, give me an example.

1. [The further away a galaxy is, then the more that galaxy's light is red shifted] implies that the further away a galaxy is, from 'us', the faster [the galaxy] is moving away from 'us'.

'Data', itself. does not 'imply' absolutely any thing at all. you observers, however, 'imply' things, from 'data' and from other things.

2. It sounds weird [that the further away a galaxy is then the faster it is moving from 'us', but that is what happens when things expand. In an expanding Universe, it is galaxies rather than currants, which are moving apart.

So, there are two examples, well to start off with anyway.

I see. So that's the sort of speaking, writing, and insisting that my and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth', that upsets you so much. That being so, I see no way of writing English that will not offend you. While I am sorry for you that you are so easily triggered, I can't apologise for language that most people would read in it's appropriate context.

Saying, writing, and insisting that the sun revolves around the earth was, a 'very long time ago', also a language that 'most people', in those 'very olden days', would also read in so-called 'appropriate context' as well, that is; 'in context' with their 'current' understanding and beliefs. No matter how Truly False and Wrong they were.

Also, why do you perceive that 'your writings' here 'upset me so much?

Just maybe 'your writings' are, literally, just the literal proof of what I have been talking about, and saying and writing about here. Which, for me, is, literally, not 'upsetting: at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Saying, writing, and insisting that the sun revolves around the earth was, a 'very long time ago', also a language that 'most people', in those 'very olden days', would also read in so-called 'appropriate context' as well, that is; 'in context' with their 'current' understanding and beliefs. No matter how Truly False and Wrong they were.

Well Age, we can only interpret the information available to us, and as I have said over and over, there are always alternative interpretations. Even in "those 'very olden days'", people like Philolaus and Aristarchus proposed alternatives to the geocentric model. The human imagination is such that as long as our species survives, there always will be alternative interpretations for whatever data our descendants uncover. So this:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

is a spectacularly stupid question. I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.
It clearly has gone over your head that the work you cite in giving examples of of me "insisting" that my interpretation is the truth, is called The Ealing Interpretation. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Age]

Saying, writing, and insisting that the sun revolves around the earth was, a 'very long time ago', also a language that 'most people', in those 'very olden days', would also read in so-called 'appropriate context' as well, that is; 'in context' with their 'current' understanding and beliefs. No matter how Truly False and Wrong they were.

Well Age, we can only interpret the information available to us, and as I have said over and over, there are always alternative interpretations. Even in "those 'very olden days'", people like Philolaus and Aristarchus proposed alternatives to the geocentric model. The human imagination is such that as long as our species survives, there always will be alternative interpretations for whatever data our descendants uncover.

So again:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

still stands.

is a spectacularly stupid question.

That you think or believe that 'that' is a 'spectacularly stupid question', is just your interpretation, but it will remain 'a question', asked to you, while you keep presenting your views/interpretations as being true especially when it is already known that they are not. So 'my question' here remains valid while you keep saying things like; 'In an expanding universe, ...'.

Why do you keep claiming and insisting that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

And, why do you keep doing this when it is both empirically/physically AND theoretically/logically and impossibility?

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.

But, 'your words' clearly show and say otherwise, obviously.

It clearly has gone over your head that the work you cite in giving examples of of me "insisting" that my interpretation is the truth, is called The Ealing Interpretation. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

you can say this, but still saying things like, 'In an expanding Universe', as though this could be true is just contradictory.

And, this is without even going into the Fact of how and why it is impossible for the Universe to be expanding.

Now, is it your interpretation that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If yes, then could 'your interpretation' here be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

[Will Bouwman]

So again:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

still stands.

is a spectacularly stupid question.

That you think or believe that 'that' is a 'spectacularly stupid question', is just your interpretation...

Yes Age, and so is The Ealing Interpretation.

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.

But, 'your words' clearly show and say otherwise, obviously.

Well Age, that is your interpretation.

It clearly has gone over your head that the work you cite in giving examples of of me "insisting" that my interpretation is the truth, is called The Ealing Interpretation. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

you can say this, but still saying things like, 'In an expanding Universe', as though this could be true is just contradictory.

Saying something as though it could be true is a bit of a step down from insisting.

And, this is without even going into the Fact of how and why it is impossible for the Universe to be expanding.

Again:

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.

Now, is it your interpretation that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

It is.

If yes, then could 'your interpretation' here be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Yes Age, it could be. If you could grow up a bit and stop accusing me of something I demonstrably haven't done, perhaps we could have an adult conversation. But if you ask me once more:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

I will stop wasting my time and just tell you to fuck off.

[Age]

So again:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

still stands.

is a spectacularly stupid question.

That you think or believe that 'that' is a 'spectacularly stupid question', is just your interpretation...

Yes Age, and so is The Ealing Interpretation.

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.

But, 'your words' clearly show and say otherwise, obviously.

Well Age, that is your interpretation.

It clearly has gone over your head that the work you cite in giving examples of of me "insisting" that my interpretation is the truth, is called The Ealing Interpretation. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

you can say this, but still saying things like, 'In an expanding Universe', as though this could be true is just contradictory.

Saying something as though it could be true is a bit of a step down from insisting.

If you did it just once, then maybe so. But, because you 'keep' claiming the exact same thing you are 'insisting'.

And, you are claiming and insisting some thing that could not even be true anyway

And, this is without even going into the Fact of how and why it is impossible for the Universe to be expanding.

Again:

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not pretend to know the truth; that is the preserve of nutjobs.

Now, is it your interpretation that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

It is.

How do you define the 'Universe' word, exactly?

If yes, then could 'your interpretation' here be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Yes Age, it could be.

Great. So, why would you keep saying some thing, as though it is true, when you do not even yet know if it is False or not?

Why do you not just express and say only what is actually True?

Why do you mislead, and especially so considering your target audience?

If you could grow up a bit and stop accusing me of something I demonstrably haven't done, perhaps we could have an adult conversation.

That you want to keep saying things like; 'In an expanding Universe', laughingly as though the Universe could even expand, and then say to me if I could grow up.

How immature would one have to be to keep saying, 'On a flat earth', 'In a geocentric Universe', or 'In an expanding Universe', as though these things are true?

And, especially doing so when the actual proof exists for the opposite?

But if you ask me once more:

'Why do you keep speaking, writing, and insisting that 'yours', and other's, interpretations are the truth, and worse still are the 'only truth'?

I will stop wasting my time and just tell you to fuck off.

Here 'we' have another one who after I show just how Wrong and False their claims are, and/or show their contradictions or inconsistent claims they then want 'me' to leave.

Why do not just admit that you believe that the Universe expands, and that you will keep saying and insisting this?

If you ever become open and honest and do this, and you start challenging me, then I will prove what the actual Truth is here. Until then 'we' just have to watch you try to squirm out of what you keep doing and keep watching you try to claim and/or insist that the Universe is expanding.

[Will Bouwman]

Why do not just admit that you believe that the Universe expands...

Do you mean like I did here?

Now, is it your interpretation that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

It is.

If you ever become open and honest and do this, and you start challenging me, then I will prove what the actual Truth is here.

What, like this?

...could 'your interpretation' here be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Yes Age, it could be.

Until then 'we' just have to watch you try to squirm out of what you keep doing and keep watching you try to claim and/or insist that the Universe is expanding.

I am not insisting anything, but if you read the first bit again, you might understand why spectroscopic data of distant galaxies and our understanding of the Doppler effect can be interpreted as a universe that is expanding. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Flannel Jesus]

It's so weird how much age talks about honesty while being so dishonest.

[mickthinks]

... I will stop wasting my time and just tell you to fuck off.

Screen Shot 2024-07-16 at 10.34.53.png

I gave up years ago.

[Age]

Why do not just admit that you believe that the Universe expands...

Do you mean like I did here?

Now, is it your interpretation that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

It is.

If you ever become open and honest and do this, and you start challenging me, then I will prove what the actual Truth is here.

What, like this?

...could 'your interpretation' here be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Yes Age, it could be.

No, not like this at all, obviously, you had already answered and clarified 'that one'

But, in regards to when I ask you clarifying questions like, for example, 'How do you define the 'Universe' word, exactly?' and you do not clarify and answer.

See, if you want to keep saying or stating and writing things like, 'In an expanding Universe', but never ever define your terms of what you are actually meaning and/or referring to, exactly, then this, hiding or refusal to answer and clarify, tends to mean some actual thing.

And, since you brought up the 'grow up' words here, when Truly 'grown up' ones want to have a discussion about some thing/s, then they do not try to hide from challenges, and/or refuse to answer, clarifying questions.

Until then 'we' just have to watch you try to squirm out of what you keep doing and keep watching you try to claim and/or insist that the Universe is expanding.

I am not insisting anything, but if you read the first bit again, you might understand why spectroscopic data of distant galaxies and our understanding of the Doppler effect can be interpreted as a universe that is expanding. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

But, I have already informed you that 'yours', and 'other's', interpretations here are Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. I also already know why what you and them have interpreted can be interpreted in the way you and them have. I also know why you and them have made the Wrong interpretation/s.

And, while you keep believing that yours and their interpretations are the right, accurate, correct, and/or best interpretation you will not learn and come-to-know why they are not. Nor will you learn and come-to-know what the best and most Accurate and Correct interpretation is.

As I keep informing you.