The Ealing Interpretation

[Age]

Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

What an ABSOLUTE Incorrect understanding.

Just out of CURIOSITY, what, exactly, led you to te first premise, as the one you presented here?

Well, the visible universe is all the stuff we can see. Because we can't see what we can't see, we have no way of telling what is there. But whatever it is, you think you have proof it is infinite.

ONCE AGAIN, what this one has concluded here is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Also, I MUST OF not made my question to you here, for clarity, NOT CLEAR ENOUGH. What, exactly, led you to the first premise, as the one you presented, to be a part of 'my argument'?

you said that as 'you understood' 'my argument' 'that premise' was part of 'my argument'.

Just so it becomes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, 'that premise', which 'you presented', is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have ever said nor written ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE.

Now, it is possible that beyond the visible universe, there is an infinity of empty space;

There is also the other, which you appear to have not looked into, nor maybe have ever even considered.

there is however an issue with any hypothesis that the universe is infinite and is filled with an infinite number of stars.

Again, this is why guesses, assumptions, and hypothesis are best never even made up and considered. Once more, why not just look at what actually exists, and thus is just actually True, instead, and only?

If it is also infinite in age, then every line of sight will end at a star and given an infinity of time, the light from that star will have reached Earth, and the night sky should be as light as day.

Oh, this very 'old' one. I have already commented on this one but I will now again.

1. If light diminishes over distance, then there would be spits of darkness, where the 'night sky' should not be and would not be as light as day.

2. If there are black holes, from which light can not and does not escape, then there would be areas of darkness, where the 'night sky' should not be and would not be as light as day.

Now,

1. Does light diminish over distance?

2. Are there black holes?

So either the universe is not full of infinitely many stars, it isn't infinitely old, or we have to make up some other hypothesis like 'tired light'. [/quote]

Or, the Universe is just different from what you have been believing, or still are 'currently' believing, is true.

Now, by the look of your conclusion here, you, still, have some more to consider. I have, also, have not even gone into the so-called 'big bang' and how 'they' work in, exactly, with the One and ONLY infinite and eternal Universe.

Another possibility is that beyond the visible universe, space is expanding faster than the speed of light, so light from the infinity of stars will never reach us, but that means expanding space, which is precisely what you are arguing against.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you, REALLY ARE, so far Wrong, DELUDED, and DISTORTED here.

you, STILL, have NO actual.idea and clause as to what I have been saying, claiming, and pointing out, here.

I will, AGAIN, that you human beings seek out and obtain ACTUAL CLARIFICATION and CLARITY before you even START to make False and Wrong conclusions, like this one has been continually making here.

Again, I will suggest you FIND OUT what I am saying and ACTUALLY MEANING, BEFORE, you even begin to 'try to' counter or argue against 'my words'.

For more on this, check out wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox

Just so you become aware a 'paradox', itself, is, literally, 'a paradox' of itself. The word 'paradox' has two completely opposing definitions, (just like other words do, like the 'argue' word, for example), so which definition of the 'paradox' word is being used, exactly, in that one very 'outdated' 'wiki' interpretation?

[seeds]

AGAIN, this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

Age, one of us is saying they know the truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is "Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID". The other is saying that there are different interpretations of the existing evidence, and who knows what evidence the future will uncover?
Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is...just word salad.

Poor little Age,...



...he wanted to LOL, LOL, LOL.

However, Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID adult human beings like "Will Bouwman" didn't take him seriously back in the days when this was written.

(And it must be noted that little Age's stinking diaper only added to his frustration.)

Anyway, if nothing else, from now on whenever little Age uses the phrase,...

"...you adult human beings...,"

...then let the above image represent the clarified and irrefutable perspective from which the phrase originates.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

All you have done is proven that the universe is infinite in the same way that I have proven that you are a chugnent bachelor. It's just word salad.

I MUST OF not made my question to you here, for clarity, NOT CLEAR ENOUGH. What, exactly, led you to the first premise, as the one you presented, to be a part of 'my argument'?

You did:

The word 'Universe' when defined as, totality; all there is; everything, then the Universe is, has to be, and can only ever be infinite and eternal, always.

Now, the Universe, Itself, could never ever be smaller than the size of an atom, a grain of rice, nor smaller than what it is NOW, and there is absolutely no actual evidence that the Universe was smaller than It is NOW. Although some narrowed viewing people believe otherwise.

All of the matter within the Universe, of course, could be compressed down to just one single particular size, also known as singularity. But, this is just the matter within the Universe, and not the Universe, Itself.

Leaving dark matter and energy aside, "All of the matter within the Universe" is in effect the visible universe of the first premise.

Also, when one looks out into the Universe, from anywhere in the Universe, the observable universe is a certain size, but no matter how far one looks out the only actual boundary, or end, could be, and is, is a conceptual one, only.

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.
It's a bit odd having to explain your own argument to you.

[Age]

Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

All you have done is proven that the universe is infinite in the same way that I have proven that you are a chugnent bachelor. It's just word salad.

I MUST OF not made my question to you here, for clarity, NOT CLEAR ENOUGH. What, exactly, led you to the first premise, as the one you presented, to be a part of 'my argument'?

You did:

This is ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong.

Now, considering the fact that I NEVER even thought such a thing as that, let alone wrote such a thing as that absolutely anywhere here, your claim that it was 'i' that led 'you: to the first premise that 'you' wrote above here is an ABSOLUTELY DISTORTED LIE.

The word 'Universe' when defined as, totality; all there is; everything, then the Universe is, has to be, and can only ever be infinite and eternal, always.

Now, the Universe, Itself, could never ever be smaller than the size of an atom, a grain of rice, nor smaller than what it is NOW, and there is absolutely no actual evidence that the Universe was smaller than It is NOW. Although some narrowed viewing people believe otherwise.

All of the matter within the Universe, of course, could be compressed down to just one single particular size, also known as singularity. But, this is just the matter within the Universe, and not the Universe, Itself.

Leaving dark matter and energy aside, "All of the matter within the Universe" is in effect the visible universe of the first premise.

This claim of yours here is ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong, AS WELL.

AND, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANY thing that I have said, claimed, and meant anywhere here in this forum.

This one here is LIVING PROOF of just how Wrong one's views can become if they just do not seek out and obtain actual clarification FIRST.

Also, when one looks out into the Universe, from anywhere in the Universe, the observable universe is a certain size, but no matter how far one looks out the only actual boundary, or end, could be, and is, is a conceptual one, only.

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.

Well OBVIOUSLY.

It's a bit odd having to explain your own argument to you.

LOL you have NOT explained 'my argument' at all here. In fact you could not have MISINTERPRETED MORE, and made MORE of a Wrong INTERPRETATION of it, even if you WANTED TO.

What this one is, and has been, doing here is, exactly, WHY it took human beings, up to the days when this was being written, so, so long to LEARN how to just 'look at', and 'see', things for what they REALLY ARE, and to just comprehend and understand the ACTUAL Truth of things.

This one believes and presumes it already knows what the truth is here, which then limits ability to 'see' and to 'read' what I have been ACTUALLY saying, and meaning.

Once again, beliefs and assumptions prevent and block one's ABILITY to 'see' CLEARLY, and Correctly.

This one was not even close to getting my argument Correct. And, LOL, this was while I am HERE, and ALIVE.

[Age]

AGAIN, this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

Age, one of us is saying they know the truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is "Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID". The other is saying that there are different interpretations of the existing evidence, and who knows what evidence the future will uncover?
Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is...just word salad.

Poor little Age,...



...he wanted to LOL, LOL, LOL.

However, Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID adult human beings like "Will Bouwman" didn't take him seriously back in the days when this was written.

(And it must be noted that little Age's stinking diaper only added to his frustration.)

Anyway, if nothing else, from now on whenever little Age uses the phrase,...

"...you adult human beings...,"

...then let the above image represent the clarified and irrefutable perspective from which the phrase originates.
_______

ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WORD USED TO EVEN JUST TRY TO COUNTER NOR REFUTE A WORD THAT I SAID AND WROTE HERE.

Instead, only another attempt to TRY TO RIDICULE, HUMILIATE, and/or DISCREDIT Me.

However, not AN ACTUAL word EVER ACTUALLY DID.

These adult human BELIEVERS, like those in the 'older days' who also HELD A False BELIEF, that the earth was in the centre of the Universe, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can ACTUALLY COUNTER nor REFUTE what I am saying and CLAIMING, which ALSO OPPOSES the 'currently' held POPULAR BELIEF.

TRY all they like to make 'me' look like A FOOL. But, the PROOF that they can NOT present ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that ACTUALLY REFUTES what I have been claiming here becomes MORE OBVIOUS with each reply.

[Will Bouwman]

OK. So here's the first premise:

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.

You ask:

What, exactly, led you to the first premise, as the one you presented, to be a part of 'my argument'?

To which I reply:

You did:

You call that:

ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong.

And yet when I say:

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.

You blurt out:

Well OBVIOUSLY.

If I put the two sentences together:

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.

Could you clarify why one is wrong and the other obviously true?

[Age]

OK. So here's the first premise:

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.

You ask:

What, exactly, led you to the first premise, as the one you presented, to be a part of 'my argument'?

To which I reply:

You did:

You call that:

ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong.

And yet when I say:

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.

You blurt out:

Well OBVIOUSLY.

If I put the two sentences together:

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.

If "the observable universe is a certain size", then it is within your boundless universe.

Could you clarify why one is wrong and the other obviously true?

There is, OBVIOUSLY, NO such thing as 'infinite space'. BECAUSE there is matter.

The Universe IS BOUNDLESS, spatially and temporally, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE it is an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY that the Universe, Itself, could have begun from absolutely nothing, and, having a boundary around It, as I have already explained the reasons for previously.


you "will bouwman" claimed that you understood my argument, with the two following premises and a conclusion, as followed below;

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

Again, this is NOT my argument. There is NOT some thing called 'infinite space'.

you also seem to MISSING that your claim that 'I' led 'you' to what you understood and what you said above here is False AND Wrong BECAUSE I have NEVER even thought 'that', let alone EVER saying that

[seeds]

Age, one of us is saying they know the truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is "Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID". The other is saying that there are different interpretations of the existing evidence, and who knows what evidence the future will uncover?
Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is...just word salad.

Poor little Age,...



...he wanted to LOL, LOL, LOL.

However, Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID adult human beings like "Will Bouwman" didn't take him seriously back in the days when this was written.

(And it must be noted that little Age's stinking diaper only added to his frustration.)

Anyway, if nothing else, from now on whenever little Age uses the phrase,...

"...you adult human beings...,"

...then let the above image represent the clarified and irrefutable perspective from which the phrase originates.
_______

ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WORD USED TO EVEN JUST TRY TO COUNTER NOR REFUTE A WORD THAT I SAID AND WROTE HERE.

Instead, only another attempt to TRY TO RIDICULE, HUMILIATE, and/or DISCREDIT Me.

However, not AN ACTUAL word EVER ACTUALLY DID.

Right, and that's the problem, little Age. You can't be humiliated because you are so utterly lacking in self-awareness that you are incapable of feeling any shame for being such a brazen hypocrite.

I mean, here you are whining about someone trying to ridicule, humiliate, and discredit you after you constantly tried to ridicule, humiliate, and discredit Will Bouwman...

(and anyone else who disagrees with you)

...with your endless barrage of LOLs (a juvenile form of ridicule) after the valid points he makes, and by persistently telling him how "...BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID..." he is, when, in fact, Will Bouwman is one of the most intelligent (and "patient," I might add) members of this forum.

Clearly, I portray you as a blubbering little toddler, not only because you keep using the silly phrase "...you adult human beings...", thus establishing the infantile perspective from which you view the rest of us,...

...but also based on the fact that you keep proving that you are simply not mature enough to know how to play the role of a self-reflective person who is at least capable of visualizing how his own words might be interpreted by others as being nothing but condescending and insulting.

Again, little Age, you are a hypocrite of the first order who needs to take a good long look in the mirror before complaining about people trying to discredit you after your constant use of "LOLs" (again, a form of ridicule) and calling others "STUPID."
_______

[Age]

Poor little Age,...



...he wanted to LOL, LOL, LOL.

However, Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID adult human beings like "Will Bouwman" didn't take him seriously back in the days when this was written.

(And it must be noted that little Age's stinking diaper only added to his frustration.)

Anyway, if nothing else, from now on whenever little Age uses the phrase,...

"...you adult human beings...,"

...then let the above image represent the clarified and irrefutable perspective from which the phrase originates.
_______

ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WORD USED TO EVEN JUST TRY TO COUNTER NOR REFUTE A WORD THAT I SAID AND WROTE HERE.

Instead, only another attempt to TRY TO RIDICULE, HUMILIATE, and/or DISCREDIT Me.

However, not AN ACTUAL word EVER ACTUALLY DID.

Right, and that's the problem, little Age. You can't be humiliated because you are so utterly lacking in self-awareness that you are incapable of feeling any shame for being such a brazen hypocrite.

I mean, here you are whining about someone trying to ridicule, humiliate, and discredit you after you constantly tried to ridicule, humiliate, and discredit Will Bouwman...

(and anyone else who disagrees with you)

...with your endless barrage of LOLs (a juvenile form of ridicule) after the valid points he makes, and by persistently telling him how "...BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID..." he is, when, in fact, Will Bouwman is one of the most intelligent (and "patient," I might add) members of this forum.

Clearly, I portray you as a blubbering little toddler, not only because you keep using the silly phrase "...you adult human beings...", thus establishing the infantile perspective from which you view the rest of us,...

...but also based on the fact that you keep proving that you are simply not mature enough to know how to play the role of a self-reflective person who is at least capable of visualizing how his own words might be interpreted by others as being nothing but condescending and insulting.

Again, little Age, you are a hypocrite of the first order who needs to take a good long look in the mirror before complaining about people trying to discredit you after your constant use of "LOLs" (again, a form of ridicule) and calling others "STUPID."
_______

Here 'we' have another prime example of just how often and how much these people, back when this was written, would ABSOLUTELY completely and utterly MISINTERPRET things, like for example what I have said and meant here, and then 'try' and make out that there own False and Wrong MISINTERPRETATIONS were what was right and correct.

This one for example has ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR what I mean when I just say and write things like 'stupid' and 'lol'.

This one, like other posters, here, do not seek out and obtain CLARIFICATION, FIRST. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, and proved IRREFUTABLY True, these ones would just ASSUME things, and then just BELIEVE that there OWN ABSOLUTELY False and Wrong assumptions were, on a lot of occasions ABSOLUTELY, true, right, accurate, and/or correct.

I have NEVER ONCE tried to ridicule nor humiliate ANY one you human beings here. So, your claim is me being a HYPOCRITE is ANOTHER one of your False and Wrong claims, which were based on nothing but MORE MISINTERPRETATIONS, which have come from your own False and Wrong assumptions and beliefs.

Which, AGAIN, I can prove IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

And, as for 'you', STILL, attempting to ridicule and humiliate 'me', you are, STILL, FAILING ABSOLUTELY DISMALLY. And, not because of lacking 'self'-awareness at all, but, actually, because 'I' KNOW who 'I' am, EXACTLY, and FULLY.

Which is, OBVIOUSLY, FAR MORE than you are even REMOTELY aware or conscious of.

Now, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one wants to claim that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, then let 'us' DISCUSS.

And, REMEMBER 'I' am putting those if you who BELIEVE that the Universe began, was smaller once upon a time, and/or is expanding in the same 'class' as those other BELIEVERS who BELIEVED that the earth was flat or was at the centre of the Universe.

ALL of you are or were CLOSED, and thus ABSOLUTELY STUPID, and FOUGHT or FIGHT for your BELIEFS even though your BELIEFS are PROVABLY False, and Wrong.

So, while "will bouwman", and others, want to continue claiming things are true, which are PROVABLY False, and Wrong, then they will continue to REMAIN in the 'camp' of BELIEVERS who BELIEVE/D things to be true, which were CERTAINLY NOT.

AND, the BEAUTY of forums like this is that others can see ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY, EXACTLY HOW CLOSED "BELIEVERS" REALLY WERE, and ARE.

[Will Bouwman]

This one for example has ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR what I mean when I just say and write things like 'stupid' and 'lol'.

So clarify. What do you mean when you call someone stupid?

[Age]

This one for example has ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR what I mean when I just say and write things like 'stupid' and 'lol'.

So clarify. What do you mean when you call someone stupid?

Only if, and when, one is open are they then able to learn, more and/or anew. And, if, and when, one is closed, then they are NOT able to learn, any thing that opposes their 'current' belief or presumption about what is true, as this belief or presumption is what is closing them off, from learning. So, what I mean when I call someone 'stupid' is that they are just not able to learn, because they are just closed.

There was, and is, ABSOLUTELY NO ridicule NOR humiliation intended, at all.

What did you believe or presume I was meaning, exactly, when I use the 'stupid' word?

And, thank you for the clarifying question posed, and asked, here. They very rarely come, but are very refreshing when they do.

[Age]

Now, obviously while one is, and/or was, presuming or believing that the sun revolved around the earth was true, then they were NOT open to learning what the actual Truth is, and always was, and HOW it is, actually, the earth that revolves around the sun, instead, as well as NOT being in the centre of the Universe.

And, the exact same applies to those who presume or believe that the Universe began, was smaller, and/or is expanding. While they are presuming or believing this to be true, then they are NOT open to learning what the actual Truth is, and always was. Nor will they be able to learn HOW it is the opposite, which is what is actually True, instead.

But, I am NOT, necessarily, here to show and reveal what the actual Truth is here, regarding those little bits of Truth. I more so prefer to show and reveal how the human brain is CLOSED OFF to the actual Truth because of BELIEF and ASSUMPTIONS, themselves.

[Will Bouwman]

if, and when, one is open are they then able to learn, more and/or anew. And, if, and when, one is closed, then they are NOT able to learn, any thing that opposes their 'current' belief or presumption about what is true, as this belief or presumption is what is closing them off, from learning. So, what I mean when I call someone 'stupid' is that they are just not able to learn, because they are just closed.

I see. What have you learnt recently?

There was, and is, ABSOLUTELY NO ridicule NOR humiliation intended, at all.

What did you believe or presume I was meaning, exactly, when I use the 'stupid' word?

Well here's the thing; I thought you meant stupid.

[Will Bouwman]

Now, obviously while one is, and/or was, presuming or believing that the sun revolved around the earth was true, then they were NOT open to learning what the actual Truth is...

You keep saying this. It is not a good analogy. The thing that made people believe the Earth orbits the Sun, is the same that makes so.e believe in the big bang - evidence.

[seeds]

_______

You're stupid!...



...No, you're stupid...

...No, you're stupider...

...No, you're stupider...

...No, you're super-duper stupider...
_______