The Ealing Interpretation

[seeds]

The Universe IS infinite AND eternal BECAUSE the scientific data SHOWS and REVEALS this.

First clarifying question:
What scientific data?

No, no, no, "will bouwman," haven't you figured out the rules of this game yet?

Before "Age" can answer your question, you need to clarify the following, preferably in this order...

• 1. What do you mean by "First"?
  2. What do you mean by "clarifying"?
  3. What do you mean by "question"?
  4. What do you mean by "What"?
  5. What do you mean by "scientific"?
  6, What do you mean by "data"?

Then after you have done all of that, you will then have to clarify what you mean by all of the words you used to clarify those questions, and so on, and so on.

It's "Age's" insidious labyrinth of verbal twists and turns that lead to nowhere.

However, once he draws you into his fiendish maze with an "alluring promise" of offering (or implying that he holds) the answers to the greatest mysteries of reality,...



...the opening closes behind you, and not only do you soon realize that there is no exit to his trap,...

...but you also eventually realize (via hints* and clues*) that the "alluring promise" of revelatory information that lured you into the maze in the first place,...

...turns out to be nothing more than a mundane (wishy-washy/unimpressive) personal theory that, anyone with a modicum of metaphysical savvy and acumen, can dismiss as being a proverbial "molehill" being touted as a "mountain" by its creator.

**(FYI, the way Age slowly reveals his shallow theory, is he temporarily leaves his custom-made thunder pot...



...and like a seagull at the beach, he drops the "hints" and "clues" on you...



...as he somehow manages to hover above you as you wander about aimlessly through his devilish maze.)
_______

[Age]

The Universe IS infinite AND eternal BECAUSE the scientific data SHOWS and REVEALS this.

First clarifying question:
What scientific data?

At least the four that you have already supplied above here.

Also, did you not read when I wrote:
The Universe IS NOT expanding, and COULD NOT expand. And, this Fact is not just aligned with, but is also backed up and supported by, 'spectroscopy', 'the doppler effect', 'galactic red shift', AND 'the cosmic microwave background radiation. And, if absolutely ANY one here would like to CHALLENGE this, QUESTION this, and/or just DISCUSS, then let 'us' PLEASE DO?

I really am not sure why you wrote,
'First clarifying question:
What scientific data?'

WHEN I had ALREADY ANSWERED 'this question', for you.

[Age]

_______

...I'm just guessing,

This is about all you have done here. Which really was a very common occurrence among the adult population, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

but it would appear as if the "Mandella Effect," and by extrapolation, the "Many Worlds Theory" are real.

Well, instantly, 'your guess' here could not be FURTHER from the ACTUAL Truth, ONCE MORE.

Me, Will Bouwman, and Atla, to name a few, occupy a world where we witness Age making certain claims and assertions,

And, LOL, that is all these three did.

They would 'witness' 'my claims', but they would not question nor challenge 'the claims' I made, and make, here. They would also only 'talk about' 'me', instead.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN, here.

while the channeled entity that uses Age's/Ken's body, flits back and forth between worlds where he says something in one world but not in the other.

Will you provide any actual examples?

Or, are 'we' just meant to accept and agree with what you, and others, say and claim here?

And we always seem to be talking to the version of this entity who can't seem to keep straight which parallel world he is in.

AGAIN, do you have the ABILITY, or even the COURAGE, to provide ANY examples AT ALL?

If yes, then GREAT.

At least 'we' will then have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss'.

Whaddya think?
_______

Some times these people would, attempt, to criticize and ridicule 'me' for when they Falsely accuse 'me' of laughing, but then they go on to laugh, themselves.

And, the funniest part of this is that they, literally, can NOT and do NOT see the HYPOCRISY, here.

[Age]

The Universe IS infinite AND eternal BECAUSE the scientific data SHOWS and REVEALS this.

First clarifying question:
What scientific data?

No, no, no, "will bouwman," haven't you figured out the rules of this game yet?

Before "Age" can answer your question, you need to clarify the following, preferably in this order...

• 1. What do you mean by "First"?
  2. What do you mean by "clarifying"?
  3. What do you mean by "question"?
  4. What do you mean by "What"?
  5. What do you mean by "scientific"?
  6, What do you mean by "data"?

Then after you have done all of that, you will then have to clarify what you mean by all of the words you used to clarify those questions, and so on, and so on.

See how ABSOLUTELY Wrong and Incorrect this one's ASSUMPTION IS, ONCE AGAIN?

What this one has just SHOWN and ILLUSTRATED for 'us', ONCE MORE, is a PURE example of APE thinking.

And, OBVIOUSLY, it has displayed a thinking that could not be MORE False, MORE Wrong, MORE Inaccurate, and MORE Incorrect.

Also, what these people here KEEP MISSING is things like I HAD ALREADY ANSWERED, and CLARIFIED, "will bouwman's" question, to me, BEFORE "will bouwman" even ASKED 'this question'.

It's "Age's" insidious labyrinth of verbal twists and turns that lead to nowhere.

However, once he draws you into his fiendish maze with an "alluring promise" of offering (or implying that he holds) the answers to the greatest mysteries of reality,...

I have NEVER EVER said, 'the greatest mysteries of reality'. So, WHY do you use those words here for, exactly, "seeds"?

...the opening closes behind you, and not only do you soon realize that there is no exit to his trap,...

...but you also eventually realize (via hints* and clues*) that the "alluring promise" of revelatory information that lured you into the maze in the first place,...

...turns out to be nothing more than a mundane (wishy-washy/unimpressive) personal theory that, anyone with a modicum of metaphysical savvy and acumen, can dismiss as being a proverbial "molehill" being touted as a "mountain" by its creator.

LOL
LOL
LOL

YET, if I asked this one, or the others, here, 'What is my, supposed, alleged, and so-called, 'personal theory', exactly?' Not one of them could reply Accurately. But, this one claims to KNOW that 'anyone with a so-called, 'modicum of metaphysical savvy and acumen' would class my so-called 'personal theory', 'wish-washy' and 'unimpressive'.

AGAIN, this ones here, REALLY DID BELIEVE they 'knew' things BEFORE they had even be 'born witness' to those things. See, this was the, actual, POWER of BELIEFS, and to a lesser extent PRESUMPTIONS as well.

And again this one has just provided a PURE example of APE-thinking, at its best.

**(FYI, the way Age slowly reveals his shallow theory, is he temporarily leaves his custom-made thunder pot...



...and like a seagull at the beach, he drops the "hints" and "clues" on you...

ONCE MORE, not a SINGLE word that even ATTEMPTS TO just counter nor refute what I have so far said and written here. All this one, and others, here do is just 'try' their HARDEST to discredit 'me' through ATTEMPTS of RIDICULE and HUMILIATION.

Just like others do when they 'KNOW' deep-down that they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely counter or refute what one is saying AND revealing.

...as he somehow manages to hover above you as you wander about aimlessly through his devilish maze.)
_______

Are you EVER going to say and write ANY words here that even just ATTEMPT 'the words' that I say and write here?

The one known as "seeds" here is just ANOTHER one who has come here and made some claims, to which I then questioned and challenged "seeds" over. Unfortunately though because "seed's" claims could NOT be backed up, supported, nor substantiated in absolutely ANY way AT ALL, which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, "seeds" did not like this, and so it has RESORTED to 'this tactic' that is, 'now', 'trying to' use.

Also, OBVIOUSLY as "seeds' can NOT counter NOR refute 'my claims' here, this is WHY it will NOT question NOR challenge 'me' over 'my claims', here.

[Will Bouwman]

The Universe IS infinite AND eternal BECAUSE the scientific data SHOWS and REVEALS this.

First clarifying question:
What scientific data?

At least the four that you have already supplied above here.

Also, did you not read when I wrote:
The Universe IS NOT expanding, and COULD NOT expand. And, this Fact is not just aligned with, but is also backed up and supported by, 'spectroscopy', 'the doppler effect', 'galactic red shift', AND 'the cosmic microwave background radiation. And, if absolutely ANY one here would like to CHALLENGE this, QUESTION this, and/or just DISCUSS, then let 'us' PLEASE DO?

Here's the thing Age, in my book https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html I explain why those four things support the big bang. So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

[Will Bouwman]

No, no, no, "will bouwman," haven't you figured out the rules of this game yet?

I know it looks torturous but, as Bill Murray said, 'It's hard to win an argument with a smart person...' So it's a bit of a challenge. As I keep saying, philosophy is basically story telling and the aim of rationalist/analytic thinkers is to establish some firm premise on which to base their story. The only people who have achieved this (here he goes again) are Parmenides and Descartes. Neither of them managed to find a second premise as firm as the first to create the irrefutable argument they were hoping to develop. Instead, what people generally do is start with an unfalsifiable premise, for instance 'The almighty, but invisible god(s) I believe in exist(s)'. Smart people understand that the foundation of their philosophy might be wrong. Stupid people think that because their initial premise is unfalsifiable, any logically valid argument based on it is true.
Age's irrefutable premise is that the universe is infinite and eternal. We currently have no way of telling whether that is true, and probably never will. Whether or not the visible universe is the entire universe, as in 'everything that exists', the visible universe is visibly expanding, but I don't need to tell you that, because you know how to process scientific data.

[Age]

First clarifying question:
What scientific data?

At least the four that you have already supplied above here.

Also, did you not read when I wrote:
The Universe IS NOT expanding, and COULD NOT expand. And, this Fact is not just aligned with, but is also backed up and supported by, 'spectroscopy', 'the doppler effect', 'galactic red shift', AND 'the cosmic microwave background radiation. And, if absolutely ANY one here would like to CHALLENGE this, QUESTION this, and/or just DISCUSS, then let 'us' PLEASE DO?

Here's the thing Age, in my book https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html I explain why those four things support the big bang.

Here is the thing "will bouwman", in your book https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html, as I have already explained, those four things support the big bang. So, I am not sure how many times I have to keep informing you of this.

But, here is the thing, which you keep MISSING, "will bouwman", which I also keep informing you of, the scientific data that exists can NOT be refuted. BUT what can be and IS BEING REFUTED is your,s and others, personal INTERPRETATION of 'the data'.

That there was 'a bang' 'of matter' is NOT being disputed, and has NOT been disputed, here. What is BEING DISPUTED, and has already BEEN REFUTED, is the MISINTERPRETATION that 'that bang' was the start and beginning of EVERY thing.

So, ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW OF COMPREHENDING, just like the INTERPRETATION of 'the, observed, data', which led to the VIEW and BELIEF that the earth is flat, and which was called 'evidence', was just A MISINTERPRETATION, instead, as I keep INFORMING you of, so to just like the INTERPRETATION of 'the, observed, data', which led to the VIEW and BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth was in the center of the Universe, and which was also called 'evidence', was also just A MISINTERPRETATION, as well, as I keep INFORMING you of too. So too is the INTERPRETATION of 'the, observed, data', which led to the VIEW and BELIEF that the Universe was once smaller, began, and is expanding, which is also called 'evidence', is just ANOTHER MISINTERPRETATION made by you human beings. AGAIN, as I keep INFORMING you.

Those four things, ACTUALLY, back up, support, and VERIFY that the Universe, ACTUALLY. was NEVER smaller, NEVER began, and is NOT expanding. As I keep INFORMING you. And, when, and if, ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion about this, then I can, and will, SHOW and REVEAL HOW, and WHY, those four things PROVE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True that the Universe, has ALWAYS, been infinite AND eternal.

AGAIN, I am just WAITING, patiently, for those who would like to have A Truly OPEN and Honest peaceful discussion, about 'this' or ANY of the other claims I have made in this forum.

So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

1. I do NOT have 'a hypothesis'. ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT DO 'assumptions', or any other word that refers to 'guessing'.

2. Why those four things do SUPPORT and PROVE that the Universe is NOT expanding is because the instruments and processes used, just like you human beings, are only able to 'see', or 'observe', just a part of the Universe, ONLY. Instruments, like human eyes, are LIMITED in their ability to observe, and see. So, they can only 'see' 'back to', what is Wrong referred to as, the 'big bang', ONLY. From which then INTERPRETATION, MISINTERPRETATION, or IMAGINATION takes over.

And, things like 'galactic red shift', which 'show' some galaxies moving away while others moving closer, when 'discussed' and 'looked into' further will 'show' and 'reveal' NOT what a lot of you older human beings are IMAGINING 'it means', in the days when this is being written.

[Age]

No, no, no, "will bouwman," haven't you figured out the rules of this game yet?

I know it looks torturous but, as Bill Murray said, 'It's hard to win an argument with a smart person...' So it's a bit of a challenge. As I keep saying, philosophy is basically story telling and the aim of rationalist/analytic thinkers is to establish some firm premise on which to base their story.

AND, as I keep POINTING OUT here, if you, REALLY, want to PROVE your CLAIM or BELIEF, here, then START by DEFINING the 'Universe' word.

To ESTABLISH A FIRM PREMISE here is to START by DEFINING the words you are USING, EXACTLY. And, OBVIOUSLY, since 'THIS INTERPRETATION' of yours here is more or less about the 'Universe', Itself, then ESTABLISHING A FIRM PREMISE would be by DEFINING the VERY Thing that you ARE INTERPRETING.

But, since you have FAILED TO DO THIS on EVERY occasion I have just ASKED you to, then this is WHY you keep FAILING, ABSOLUTELY, to 'establish some firm premise', on which to base 'your story', here. AGAIN, as I keep saying, and pointing out.

The only people who have achieved this (here he goes again) are Parmenides and Descartes. Neither of them managed to find a second premise as firm as the first to create the irrefutable argument they were hoping to develop.

And, this is BECAUSE they, like the rest of you human beings, up to when this is being written, did NOT 'look at', 'into', nor 'study' the VERY thing, from which ALL here is 'coming from', exactly.

The ONLY thing, EVER, that can be PROVED, and thus KNOWN, is that 'thought', itself, exists.
Therefore, there is some 'thing'.

Now, HOW to, ACTUALLY, distinguish between 'the Truth' of 'things', from, 'the Falsehoods, from here on, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED numerous times, ALREADY.

And, those who USE 'intelligence', INSTEAD OF 'ape-thinking', will have SEEN, RECOGNIZED, and REMEMBERED, what I have EXPLAINED here, ALREADY.

Instead, what people generally do is start with an unfalsifiable premise, for instance 'The almighty, but invisible god(s) I believe in exist(s)'.

Or, there is the OTHER BELIEF that some have and start with, which is; 'the big bang created everything'.

It is like 'those' on "each side" here are as STUPID as each other. "one side" is 'God' created, or was the start of, everything, AND, the "other side" is, and believes and claims that 'the big bang" created, or was the start of, everything. "each side", again, is BELIEVING some thing BEFORE they have even OBTAINED the ACTUAL Truth and the ACTUAL PROOF for 'their BELIEF'.

Smart people understand that the foundation of their philosophy might be wrong.

What "will bouwman" is 'trying to do' here, again, is place "itself" in the 'smart people' category, and on "this side", which, to "will bouwman", are the ones who BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding and began at and with a 'big bang'. As being NOT on "the side" of the 'other people'.

That the Universe is NOT expanding, was NOT smaller, and did NOT begin is an ALREADY PROVED Fact. So, ANY claim that the Universe 'began' either by some 'God' or some 'big bang' is NOT just a 'might be wrong', but is 'A Wrong'.

Also, some people understand that the foundation of 'philosophy', itself, is just having CURIOSITY, itself, and thus just having an internal constant 'love-of-learning', of more and anew.

By the way, and another clarifying question, WHY even have a so-called 'your own philosophy' that might be wrong from the outset anyway?'

Stupid people think that because their initial premise is unfalsifiable, any logically valid argument based on it is true.

What happens WHEN the 'initial premise' is UNFALISIABLE, like, for example, 'Some thing exists', then is any logically valid argument based on it, true?

Age's irrefutable premise is that the universe is infinite and eternal.

And it so BECAUSE I had ALREADY OBTAINED the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for 'that premise', PREVIOUSLY.

We currently have no way of telling whether that is true,

Do you have A WAY of telling whether the earth is flat, or not, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the other way around, or whether the earth is at the center of the Universe, or it is not?

If yes, then what you are saying and claiming here is like if 'the ones' who BELIEVED and CLAIMED that the sun revolves around the and/or that the earth is at the center of the Universe, and they would also 'TRY TO' claim that 'that one's irrefutable premise' is that 'The earth revolves around the sun', and, 'We currently have no way of telling whether that is true'.

AGAIN, 'back in the olden days', when this was being written, a lot of the adult human population ACTED and MIS/BEHAVED just like adult human beings previous to them did. And, who 'they' classed and considered lived in 'olden days', as well.

Saying and claiming that there is NO WAY, AT ALL, of telling whether the Universe is infinite and eternal, or not, is EXACTLY LIKE saying and claiming that there is NO WAY, AT ALL, of telling whether the earth is flat, or not, or whether the sun revolves around the earth, or not.

AGAIN, ALL of these people, 'back then', in the 'olden days', would 'look at' and 'see' things FROM their OWN BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, and thus very LIMITED perspective, more so than 'look at' and 'see' things from the Truly OPEN perspective.

and probably never will.

So, what is 'it' "will bouwman".

Is there NO WAY, AT ALL, of telling?

Or, there is PROBABLY NO WAY of telling?

Show, and reveal, to 'us', here, just how CLOSED, or OPEN, a human being you REALLY ARE/WERE "will bouwman", in the days when this is/was being written.

To you, is there ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, PROBABLY NO WAY, MAYBE A WAY, or A WAY, but which 'we' of 'these days' have just NOT YET LEARNED of and about, of telling if the Universe is infinite and eternal, or not?

Whether or not the visible universe is the entire universe, as in 'everything that exists', the visible universe is visibly expanding,

OBVIOUSLY the 'visible universe' is NOT the 'entire Universe', in the days when this is being written, exactly like the 'visible universe' at all stages of previous human being's evolution was NOT the 'entire Universe'. OBVIOUSLY, 'the size' of the 'visible universe' 'grows and expands' with the 'growth and expansion' of 'the technology' that you human beings USE to 'look at' and 'see' things, that is; the Universe, Itself.

And, to think or believe that the 'visible universe', or 'ALL that can be seen', by you human beings, at any particular moment of human being growth and evolution, is 'all-there-is' or 'everything that exists', is just ANOTHER SIGN and FURTHER PROOF of the 'human ego' at work, and at play, here.

Also, OBVIOUSLY, the 'visible universe' is, visibly, expanding. This is just because of what just 'actually happened'.

but I don't need to tell you that, because you know how to process scientific data.

LOL
LOL
LOL

These older human beings are REALLY FUNNY.

EVERY one of them BELIEVES that they 'each' 'know how to' 'process scientific data'. And the FUNNIEST PART here is that even when two of them have COMPLETELY OPPOSING VIEWS and/or BELIEFS, like "will bouwman" and "immanuel can" they both, LAUGHINGLY, BELIEVE, and CLAIM, that it is 'them' 'each', who know 'how to process the scientific data'.

LOL Even the one "will bouwman" is responding to here has 'processed' the 'scientific data' COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what "will bouwman" has.

These ones, STILL, have NOT YET MANAGED to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'each of them' is just MISINTERPRETING 'the data', and are just 'trying to' 'fit' 'the data' in and with their own 'currently' held onto views, beliefs, and presumptions.

ALL of them here just have 'confirmation bias', which ALWAYS exists while one holds a view, belief, or presumption from some thing of which they have NOT YET OBTAINED ACTUAL PROOF FOR. And so they are all just 'processing', or interpreting', 'the data', 'based' and 'biased' upon, the 'current' view, belief, and/or presumption, within.

As HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK WILL SHOW and PROVE True.

[attofishpi]

No, no, no, "will bouwman," haven't you figured out the rules of this game yet?

Before "Age" can answer your question, you need to clarify the following, preferably in this order...

• 1. What do you mean by "First"?
  2. What do you mean by "clarifying"?
  3. What do you mean by "question"?
  4. What do you mean by "What"?
  5. What do you mean by "scientific"?
  6, What do you mean by "data"?

Then after you have done all of that, you will then have to clarify what you mean by all of the words you used to clarify those questions, and so on, and so on.

[Will Bouwman]

That there was 'a bang' 'of matter' is NOT being disputed, and has NOT been disputed, here. What is BEING DISPUTED, and has already BEEN REFUTED, is the MISINTERPRETATION that 'that bang' was the start and beginning of EVERY thing.

As I said before:

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.

My book doesn't go into what is beyond what we can see, precisely because it could be anything. You say you know that beyond the visible universe, there is boundless space. I think it is conceivable that there is actually nothing.

Those four things*, ACTUALLY, back up, support, and VERIFY that the Universe, ACTUALLY. was NEVER smaller, NEVER began, and is NOT expanding. As I keep INFORMING you. And, when, and if, ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion about this, then I can, and will, SHOW and REVEAL HOW, and WHY, those four things PROVE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True that the Universe, has ALWAYS, been infinite AND eternal.

Well, again:

So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

[Age]

That there was 'a bang' 'of matter' is NOT being disputed, and has NOT been disputed, here. What is BEING DISPUTED, and has already BEEN REFUTED, is the MISINTERPRETATION that 'that bang' was the start and beginning of EVERY thing.

As I said before:

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.

And you only said this here, AFTER you came to realize your misrepresentations, in that book.

My book doesn't go into what is beyond what we can see, precisely because it could be anything.

But, and as I keep informing you, what is beyond what is visibly observable to you human beings, with the 'old' instruments and 'old' technologies that you had available to you back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, is already known.

And, for reasons also already known, but also not necessarily already known by you, you just do not accept and agree with this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

You say you know that beyond the visible universe, there is boundless space.

ONCE MORE, I have never ever said such a thing as this. So, ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that you 'look at' and focus, ONLY, the ACTUAL words that I use, and say and write, here, and STOP pre/assuming I am saying or meaning something different.

I will also suggest that for ANY human beings who wants to or who is thinking, believing, or claiming that the Universe, Itself, could be or is bounded up into or by some limited dimension, then you start explaining how this could even be a possibility. Then, and ONLY THEN, I would start explaining how they are not even a logical/theoretical possibility, let alone how they could ever even be a physical/empirical possibility.

I think it is conceivable that there is actually nothing.

LOL you human beings are able to 'conceive' absolutely any thing, and if not, then conceive just about absolutely any thing. But, there has never been a prerequisite that what you are able to conceive aligns with what is actually possible, let alone with what is actually True, nor even with what actually exists.

Human beings could, and di, conceive of things that are not possible, not true, and could not even actually exist. Like, for example, an expanding, beginning, and once smaller Universe.

Those four things*, ACTUALLY, back up, support, and VERIFY that the Universe, ACTUALLY. was NEVER smaller, NEVER began, and is NOT expanding. As I keep INFORMING you. And, when, and if, ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion about this, then I can, and will, SHOW and REVEAL HOW, and WHY, those four things PROVE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True that the Universe, has ALWAYS, been infinite AND eternal.

Well, again:

So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

Well, again, it is NOT my hypothesis that the Universe is not expanding.

AND, how, EXACTLY, those things support the, (irrefutable and already proved), Fact that the Universe is not expanding can be better explained once the definition of the 'Universe' word is agreed upon, and accepted, and by the Fact that what is being 'looked at', 'observed', and 'seen' is, only, what the people, in the days when this is being written, would call and class as 'looking back in time'.

Once these are discussed, and talked about, then things become MUCH CLEARER.

Or, if you believe that spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is expanding, and, explained why these things support your hypothesis, then it might be far easier and simpler to explain where, why, how, and what the MISINTERPRETATION/S here are, exactly.

[Will Bouwman]

So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

Well, again, it is NOT my hypothesis that the Universe is not expanding.

AND, how, EXACTLY, those things support the, (irrefutable and already proved), Fact that the Universe is not expanding can be better explained once the definition of the 'Universe' word is agreed upon, and accepted...

I am happy to accept and agree with any definition of 'Universe' that you accept and agree with. So what is your definition that I will happily accept and agree with?

[Age]

So the second clarifying question is:
Why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that the universe is not expanding?

Well, again, it is NOT my hypothesis that the Universe is not expanding.

AND, how, EXACTLY, those things support the, (irrefutable and already proved), Fact that the Universe is not expanding can be better explained once the definition of the 'Universe' word is agreed upon, and accepted...

I am happy to accept and agree with any definition of 'Universe' that you accept and agree with. So what is your definition that I will happily accept and agree with?

Totality, all there is, everything.

[Will Bouwman]

So what is your definition that I will happily accept and agree with?

Totality, all there is, everything.

Okie dokie. So, why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

[Age]

So what is your definition that I will happily accept and agree with?

Totality, all there is, everything.

Okie dokie. So, why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support your hypothesis that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Why do you keep calling 'it' 'my hypothesis', especially when I keep informing you that it is not?

What you are doing here, and more so why you keep doing it, is a prime example of why it takes you human beings so, so long to learn, comprehend, and/or understand new/er knowledge. Again, as I keep pointing out, and have been showing and revealing through you posters, here.

Also, and quite plainly, if you, really do, agree with and accept the above definition for the 'Universe' word, then showing, and understanding, how those things do not align with the expanding and beginning universe view, hypothesis, presumption, or belief at all is really very simple and very easy. As I have started showing and revealing here in this thread and here throughout this forum as well.