The Ealing Interpretation

[attofishpi]

You shouldn't even be on this forum, you are clearly too clever for us all.

[Will Bouwman]

Will you share here what some of the craziest ideas, out there, are, to you?

Well, your idea that you know what you are talking about is up there.
Have another look:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
The idea that the universe was once smaller than an atom might be crazy, but it is supported by evidence.

[Impenitent]

size is relative...

Albert's your uncle ... no, not that relativity...

besides, if the universe expands and contracts are we trapped in a bellows?

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

Ok, you win. That's the craziest.

[Age]

You shouldn't even be on this forum, you are clearly too clever for us all.

Are you talking to any one in particular here?

If yes, then who is 'that', exactly?

Also, if one just wants to or likes to share and express what it has just stumbled or just come across, but which all of the others disagree with, then so be it. This in and of itself never ever makes 'that one' 'too clever' for absolutely any or all of 'the rest'?

Was 'the one' who just wanted to and just like to keep sharing and expressing its (newly discovered) view that, actually, it is the earth that is revolving around the sun, and not the other way around which is what everyone else was believing at 'the time', 'too clever' for all of the others?

Or, was 'that one' just 'trying to' get a message, view, or idea across that it just 'knew' was True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, only, or essentially?

[Age]

Will you share here what some of the craziest ideas, out there, are, to you?

Well, your idea that you know what you are talking about is up there.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' have ANOTHER poster here who it appears is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just CLARIFYING.

LAUGHINGLY, to this one, my idea that I know what I am talking about, in regards to what 'this body' is doing 'now', and in regards to what are before 'these eyes' 'now', as some of the CRAZIEST IDEAS, out there.

Which, as some can CLEARLY SEE MEANS, and PROVES, that "will bouwman", literally, does not have A clue at all in regards to what it is talking about, here, exactly.

Have another look:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
The idea that the universe was once smaller than an atom might be crazy, but it is supported by evidence.

And, ONCE MORE, for the VERY, VERY SLOW of LEARNING, and of UNDERSTANDING. 'Evidence', itself, is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT PROOF.

And, it is ONLY 'proof' that backs up, supports, and substantiates views and ideas ABSOLUTELY, and IRREFUTABLY.

Let 'us' not forget that the observation of the sun, in relation to when one is on earth, is 'evidence' that it is the sun that revolves around the earth, and not the earth revolving around the sun.

So, and NEVER EVER FORGET this, what is 'supported' by 'evidence' NEVER EVER means that what is being claimed is True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

Now, since the PROOF, which obviously no one could refute, that the Universe could NEVER EVER be in the shape, form, nor way that "will bouwman" keeps 'trying to' CLAIM that It was, once, here, is, literally, IRREFUTABLE. And, since absolutely NO one can refute 'proof', itself, what "will bouwman" is 'trying to' claim here regarding the WHOLE Universe was once smaller than atom is just, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

As THE PROOF, which exists, SHOWS.

Now, OF COURSE, some human beings, in the 'olden days' when this was being written, had 'an idea', and/or held 'the idea' that the WHOLE Universe was once smaller than an atom. But, there is NO proof for 'this idea' AT ALL.

And, even the, 'laughable', so-called 'evidence' for 'that idea' has been SHOWN to NOT be 'evidence' for 'the idea' that the Universe was once smaller than an atom, at all. ONCE AGAIN, and AGAIN for the SLOW of LEARNING, and COMPREHENDING, it was people's Wrong 'interpretation/s', which led to the FAULTY 'finding' that the Universe was once smaller than an atom.

And again, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to put me to A TEST over this, then PLEASE let 'us' BEGIN.

[attofishpi]

Ok, you win. That's the craziest.

FFS Will..Y don't U insist on getting the Queen of the hive get rid of the pesky infestation of the parasights.

[Will Bouwman]

Have another look:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
The idea that the universe was once smaller than an atom might be crazy, but it is supported by evidence.

And, ONCE MORE, for the VERY, VERY SLOW of LEARNING, and of UNDERSTANDING. 'Evidence', itself, is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT PROOF.

ken, have you noticed the title of this thread? In case you can't see above your furrowed brow it is 'The Ealing Interpretation'. It seems you cannot grasp the implication that I know perfectly well that what I am presenting is not meant to be any sort of proof. It is, as any competent reader of English will understand, an interpretation of the evidence. I am all over this forum insisting that any hypothesis that is consistent with the available evidence could be true, and that therefore, all theories are underdetermined. In short there are any number of stories which might be true, we just don't know which one it is. That includes my own stories.

[Will Bouwman]

Ok, you win. That's the craziest.

FFS Will..Y don't U insist on getting the Queen of the hive get rid of the pesky infestation of the parasights.

Well, I don't care for impenitent's politics, but he has wit. And he doesn't call me names. Besides, I'm simply a drone, I have no influence on the powers that be.

[attofishpi]

Ok, you win. That's the craziest.

FFS Will..Y don't U insist on getting the Queen of the hive get rid of the pesky infestation of the parasights.

Well, I don't care for impenitent's politics, but he has wit. And he doesn't call me names. Besides, I'm simply a drone, I have no influence on the powers that be.

I wasn't referring to Impenitent to wit i agree. I was talking about the Age of times lest we regret.

RE the powers that bee then pull your weight when enuf is enuf.

PS. I reserve everyone's right to call anyone any "name" and offend anyone as much as I insist that anyone has the right to call me names, including racist fascist homophobe woteva ....simply because I am man enough to let it flow off my ducks back and because they are likely being daft.

[Age]

Have another look:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
The idea that the universe was once smaller than an atom might be crazy, but it is supported by evidence.

And, ONCE MORE, for the VERY, VERY SLOW of LEARNING, and of UNDERSTANDING. 'Evidence', itself, is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT PROOF.

ken, have you noticed the title of this thread? In case you can't see above your furrowed brow it is 'The Ealing Interpretation'.

"will bouwman" did you forget that you just CLAIMED that 'the idea that the Universe was once smaller than an atom is 'supported by evidence'?

If you did forget, then it can be SEEN in the very quote of yours, here, which is in your response here.

I was RESPONDING TO your words in 'this thread', and NOT your words in 'the title of this thread'.

It seems you cannot grasp the implication that I know perfectly well that what I am presenting is not meant to be any sort of proof.

This is ABSOLUTELY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. Especially considering the Fact that the ONLY thing that you have to back up and support your claims here is 'evidence' ONLY.

Why are you, still, NOT fathoming that it does not matter, one iota, how many times you claim that 'an idea' is 'supported by evidence'. 'evidence' is ALWAYS TRUMPED BY 'proof'. And, there IS PROOF that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than an atom.

I have NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO INFORM you of this BEFORE it 'SINKS IN', as some would say.

It is, as any competent reader of English will understand, an interpretation of the evidence.

And, any competent reader of the "english language" would understand, I have, on MANY OCCASIONS, INFORMED you that it IS, exactly, 'the MIS/interpretations/s' of 'the data' that has led to the ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'conclusion' that the Universe was once smaller than an atom. Again, how many times do you have to be told of this to understand and comprehend this?

Also THE PROOF that you people have been MISINTERPRETING things here, which some of you call 'evidence', I have, also, already, started to expressing and sharing.

I am all over this forum insisting that any hypothesis that is consistent with the available evidence could be true, and that therefore, all theories are underdetermined.

Yet, here you are, once again, CLAIMING that, 'The idea that the Universe was once smaller than an atom is supported by 'evidence''. Which is EXACTLY THE SAME as CLAIMING, 'The idea that the sun revolves around the earth is supported by 'evidence'.

AGAIN, just because 'an idea' is claimed to be 'supported by evidence' will never ever mean that 'the idea' is True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

ONCE MORE, the ONLY thing that makes, or means, 'an idea' IS True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct IS 'proof', itself.

And, for the VERY, VERY SLOW of COMPREHENDING and LEARNING, the PROOF that the Universe did NOT begin, is NOT expanding, and was NOT once smaller than an atom, ALREADY EXISTS, and IS HERE for absolutely ANY one who wants to 'look a it' and 'discuss it'.

Now, you can keep writing as many books as you like, or writing as many interpretations as you like, and keep editing and/or re-wording 'your OWN interpretations of things', but this will never in and of itself make what you are trying to claim is true, true. ONLY what can be PROVED True, is True.

In short there are any number of stories which might be true, we just don't know which one it is.

you keep thinking, believing, and saying this. However, 'we' ALREADY DO KNOW which one IS the True One.

Why do you keep INSIST on BELIEVING, SAYING, and WRITING otherwise?

That includes my own stories.

The VERY SIMPLE REASON WHY 'you' do NOT YET KNOW which one of 'your OWN stories' are True is for the VERY SIMPLE Fact that 'you' have just NOT YET been PREPARED to LISTEN to 'others', here.

[Age]

Ok, you win. That's the craziest.

FFS Will..Y don't U insist on getting the Queen of the hive get rid of the pesky infestation of the parasights.

Well, I don't care for impenitent's politics, but he has wit. And he doesn't call me names.

WHO calls 'you' names here, exactly?

And, what were 'those names', exactly?

Besides, I'm simply a drone, I have no influence on the powers that be.

[Age]

FFS Will..Y don't U insist on getting the Queen of the hive get rid of the pesky infestation of the parasights.

Well, I don't care for impenitent's politics, but he has wit. And he doesn't call me names. Besides, I'm simply a drone, I have no influence on the powers that be.

I wasn't referring to Impenitent to wit i agree.

So, if you were not referring to 'that one', then WHY quote a response of "will bouwman's", which was in relation to 'that one'?

[Will Bouwman]

...there IS PROOF that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than an atom.

No there isn't.

[Age]

...there IS PROOF that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than an atom.

No there isn't.

This here is another prime example of, REALLY, HOW CLOSED, and thus HOW STUPID, adult human beings had become, in the days when this was being written.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here not one but of CURIOSITY remained, again, because of their 'current' pre-existing beliefs and pre-assumptions, so any and all INTEREST, which is NEED for LEARNING, was completely DIMINISHED.

Just out of CURIOSITY "will bouwman" how do you know, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?

If you have the courage to answer and clarify this question, then great.

I, for One, look forward to hearing and seeing it.