The Ealing Interpretation

[Will Bouwman]

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?

Very well. So, why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

[Age]

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?

Very well. So, why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Because what is already irrefutably True is proved by every thing that makes up that thing, itself.

And, as I said and wrote previously,
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, to you, support your hypothesis, then it might be far easier and simpler to explain where, why, how, and what the MISINTERPRETATION/S here are, exactly.

See, until you inform me of what you understand in regards to those things, then I cannot explain to you how, why, and what, exactly, does not support your hypothesis, and how, why, and what, exactly, they do support, show, and reveal.

Feel free to pick just one at a time, and then we can
concentrate on each one separately if you like.

[Will Bouwman]

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, to you, support your hypothesis, then it might be far easier and simpler to explain where, why, how, and what the MISINTERPRETATION/S here are, exactly.

I can already give you a number of reasons why any given interpretation might be wrong. That's why they're interpretations.

See, until you inform me of what you understand in regards to those things, then I cannot explain to you how, why, and what, exactly, does not support your hypothesis, and how, why, and what, exactly, they do support, show, and reveal.

I have already made it clear in the book why I, and everyone who knows what they are talking about, understands that spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding. Have another look: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Sadly Age, I can only give you the information. I cannot give you the smarts nor humility to get it.
The clarifying question is not why is any particular interpretation wrong. It is:

...why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Feel free to pick just one at a time, and then we can
concentrate on each one separately if you like.

Fine by me. Second clarifying question, part one:
Why does spectroscopy prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

[Age]

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, to you, support your hypothesis, then it might be far easier and simpler to explain where, why, how, and what the MISINTERPRETATION/S here are, exactly.

I can already give you a number of reasons why any given interpretation might be wrong. That's why they're interpretations.

Maybe so. But I can give the reason/s why the interpretation IS wrong, and thus why it is a misinterpretation.

As I have already informed you.

See, although any given interpretation 'might be' wrong, every given misinterpretation 'is' wrong. And, if a given interpretation is a misinterpretation, like some of the interpretations in 'your book' are, then those interpretations of yours, and others, are wrong. As I can show and prove.

See, until you inform me of what you understand in regards to those things, then I cannot explain to you how, why, and what, exactly, does not support your hypothesis, and how, why, and what, exactly, they do support, show, and reveal.

I have already made it clear in the book why I, and everyone who knows what they are talking about, understands that spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding.

And, I have already made it clear, partly, why those like you, who claim to 'know what they are talking about' regarding this subject, besides having the "dunning-kruger" effect, are misinterpreting the data, here.

Also, and once again, why you human beings were so slow, back in the days when this was being written, was because you would spend so much time and effort formulating models, theories, and hypothesises, and then looking at data. From which then confirmation biases can all to quickly, to simply, and to easily come into play and fall into place. Which is how and why misinterpretations, like the one in 'the book' happen far to often and far to conveniently.

Have another look: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Sadly Age, I can only give you the information. I cannot give you the smarts nor humility to get it.

If you only knew "will bouwman". If you only knew.

I have already informed this poster here of some of the reasons why some of its claims in 'that book' are based on False and/or Wrong information. But, 'will bouwman" did not even have the so-called 'smarts' to recognize those, or if it did, it certainly has not shown the humility in acknowledging them.

The clarifying question is not why is any particular interpretation wrong. It is:

...why do spectroscopy, the doppler effect, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

And, I have already partly informed you. But, because you do not have the so-called 'smarts' nor 'humility' to recognize and acknowledge what I have already shown, and so have not discussed them so far, the rest of what supports and irrefutably proves that totality, all there is, everything is not, and could not, expand will remain a 'mystery', again until those who are Truly interested and curios 'come along'.

Feel free to pick just one at a time, and then we can
concentrate on each one separately if you like.

Fine by me. Second clarifying question, part one:
Why does spectroscopy prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Again, how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

[Will Bouwman]

Why does spectroscopy prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Again, how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

Check out the book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Which bit of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

[Age]

Why does spectroscopy prove that totality, all there is, everything, is not expanding?

Again, how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

Check out the book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Which bit of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

Why did you even begin to start presuming what you have here?

Obviously 'we' are not going to move forward nor get anywhere while you keep assuming False and Wrong things like this.

[Will Bouwman]

Check out the book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Which bit of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

Why did you even begin to start presuming what you have here?

I'm not presuming anything. There is a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in my book. Since you ask:

...how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

you clearly don't understand it.

Obviously 'we' are not going to move forward nor get anywhere while you keep assuming False and Wrong things like this.

We're not going to get anywhere because you can't answer even simple questions.

[Age]

Check out the book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html Which bit of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

Why did you even begin to start presuming what you have here?

I'm not presuming anything.

Are you absolutely sure?

For it is absolutely obvious what you are, actually, presuming. Well to me anyway

There is a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in my book.

Since you ask:

...how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

you clearly don't understand it.

And I could also, equally, say and claim that you clearly do not understand 'it', neither.

So, which one is right, and correct?

Obviously 'we' are not going to move forward nor get anywhere while you keep assuming False and Wrong things like this.

We're not going to get anywhere because you can't answer even simple questions.

Will you provide any examples of what simple questions I, supposedly and allegedly, cannot answer?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Quite simply the 'ealing interpretation' is Inaccurate and Incorrect, mostly because 'the conclusion' that the Universe was once smaller, began, and is expanding was based off, and is based upon, Wrong interpretations of 'the data'.

If one claims that the Universe began and/or is expanding, like is being claimed in the 'ealing interpretation', and which is also claimed to be 'supported by data', then this is a great example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

Confirmation biases were a fairly common occurrence, back when this was being written.

See, what has happened here here is the writer of 'the ealing interpretation' had, and still has when this is being written, pre-existing beliefs, and so presumes, that the Universe began and is expanding. So, like others, it 'sees', and counterparts, things in 'the data', which although are False, Wrong, Inaccurate,.and/or Incorrect views and interpretations still uses them as they were aligning with its already obtained views and perspectives.

[Will Bouwman]

There is a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in my book.

Since you ask:

...how do you understand 'spectroscopy', and, what do you understand about 'spectroscopy', exactly?

you clearly don't understand it.

And I could also, equally, say and claim that you clearly do not understand 'it', neither.

So, which one is right, and correct?

The one who gave a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in his book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

Will you provide any examples of what simple questions I, supposedly and allegedly, cannot answer?

Which part of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

[Will Bouwman]

See, what has happened here here is the writer of 'the ealing interpretation' had, and still has when this is being written, pre-existing beliefs, and so presumes, that the Universe began and is expanding.

Dear people of the future who Age is addressing,
this sadly delusional man doesn't even understand 'interpretation'
Yours faithfully
Will Bouwman

[Age]

There is a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in my book.

Since you ask: you clearly don't understand it.

And I could also, equally, say and claim that you clearly do not understand 'it', neither.

So, which one is right, and correct?

The one who gave a very clear explanation of spectroscopy in his book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

Here, again, is another prime example of the "dunning-kruger" effect at play, and at work.

Will you provide any examples of what simple questions I, supposedly and allegedly, cannot answer?

Which part of my explanation of spectroscopy do you not understand?

1. Again, why do you presume or believe that I do not understand your own personal explanation of 'spectroscopy'?

2. you appear to keep MISSING, or keep trying to DEFLECT AWAY FROM that it is your INTERPRETATION of 'the data', which is WHY you have arrived at the Truly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect conclusion that you have here.

3. Even if I did completely and utterly MISUNDERSTAND your own explanation of 'spectroscopy' here this has absolutely NO bearing on absolutely ANY thing that I have been saying, pointing out, and EXPLAINING here.

4. Which part/s of what I have been explaining here have you not been understanding?

For example, what part of my explanation about how it is empirically and theoretically impossible for the Universe, Itself, to be expanding do you not understand.

Considering that I am presenting to you an already proved Fact , which outrightly refutes your claim here, some are wondering how and why you KEEP MISSING this and/or are NOT UNDERSTANDING this.

Oh, and by the way, if some thing has not occured, then asking a so-called 'simple question' as though that thing has occurred, then this is WHY that 'simple question' can NOT be answered.

[Age]

See, what has happened here here is the writer of 'the ealing interpretation' had, and still has when this is being written, pre-existing beliefs, and so presumes, that the Universe began and is expanding.

Dear people of the future who Age is addressing,
this sadly delusional man doesn't even understand 'interpretation'
Yours faithfully
Will Bouwman

ONCE MORE, this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that just because it 'interprets' some thing as possibly being true, then 'that thing' must 'possibly be true', which, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be MORE False, and MORE Wrong.

Also, even what this one is BELIEVING, and again ABSOLUTELY BELIEVING, is true here IS ABSOLUTELY False and Wrong, AS WELL. And, LOL it is calling 'me' the 'delusional one' here.

Which just goes to SHOW and PROVE that when you human beings have and are holding onto those pre-existing BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS of yours, then while 'confirmation biases' are 'in', as some would say, you are NOT able to SEE things CLEARLY.

The very words that this one keeps using here keeps PROVING what I have been saying, and REVEALING, here MORE TRUE.

[Will Bouwman]

1. Again, why do you presume or believe that I do not understand your own personal explanation of 'spectroscopy'?

Second clarifying question, part one, revisited:
What is spectroscopy?

[Age]

1. Again, why do you presume or believe that I do not understand your own personal explanation of 'spectroscopy'?

Second clarifying question, part one, revisited:
What is spectroscopy?

What can be seen here, ONCE MORE, is that it was very common, back in the days when this was being written, when older human beings views, beliefs, presumptions, and/or claims were being challenged or questioned, then they did not like to just answer questions, clarify, nor discuss things, and instead they preferred to just 'try to' DEFLECT.

These posters, here, would continually expect me to answer and clarify their clarifying questions while only on the very rarest of occasions they would answer and clarify my clarifying questions posed, and asked, to them.

Now, to me, 'spectroscopy' is the investigation and measurement of spectra produced when matter interacts with or emits electromagnetic radiation.

Which again is another thing that led to verifying that the Universe is actually infinite and eternal, and NOT the other way around like some people used to believe. Again, back in the 'olden days'.