Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:53 pm**

Cerveny wrote:TR does not explain anything.

An interesting observation. But perhaps asking for "explanation" is asking too much of science? Does quantum mechanics "explain" anything? Einstein's theory of relativity accurately describes what happens at great velocity on a large scale, while QM describes what happens on a very small scale.

It seems to me that the explanatory power of science is sometimes greatly exaggerated and that there is plenty of room for metaphysical speculation. Your theory about a crystalline universe could possibly be a metaphysical explanation of what our current scientific theories only describe.

Note: by "explanation" I mean something that answers the question "why?" while a "description" merely answers the question "how?".

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:55 pm**

lancek4 wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
lancek4 wrote:I think we will find that the 'growth-structure-shape' of the 'present-future' universe looks like a big turd emerging from a giant rabbit's ass. And this picture will be verified mathmatically-scientifically, but no one will want to admit it looks like a turd, so they will use other more satisfyting descriptors.
The thing about rabbits is that they are koprophagic, so any such view of the universe will have to be re-digested.
Yes. The first time present-future-emerging-universe is digested we get a single flat turd, but the rabbit can't resist and so a second turd is made that is round and has depth, then it really starts to look good so the third turd really gets to smell and this is so delectible that it is gobbled up again. So we have compatible notions of the black hole of the rabbit, the bubble structre of the pile of turd and the 4d of the insatiable rabbit with its pile of turd.

How does rabbit stew figure in all of this?

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:18 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And always remember that it's all about research, research and still more research!
Who is conducting anything even remotely resembling research in physics or astronomy here?

I don't know, you tell me, as if you could possibly be omnipresent? We are here talking in a forum, and words are cheap!

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:59 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
Godfree wrote:Metaphysics , I will have to admit I don't get the connection ,
the observational data is what I'm basing my argument on.
Neither of us have any observational data of our own regarding remote galaxies. Nor do we have the necessary advanced knowledge of mathematics and physics needed to interpret observational data from sources like the Hubble telescope.

Is it true that the most distant galaxies appear to be old? I would rather think that knowledge of how a "young" galaxy differs from an old one is obtained from comparing the most remote (and therefore appearing to be younger) galexies with those closer to us. The detailed process of early galaxy formation is stil a major open question in astronomy anyway.

From your lack of understanding of the basics, it's obvious that you have chosen to put faith (yes, faith) in minority websites rather than established science on purely emotional grounds.

I do have access to the images taken by the various scopes ,
and I also have the expert opinion of a physicist who has published on the subject , and is from the Oxford University, physics department ,
you would dismiss them as unqualified???
Heres the basic problem ,
the 13 billion year old images we see , look pretty much the same as today ,
young and old together , red and dead ,
there is no indication from these early images ,
that there was a beginning , it appears to be the same process , as today doing what it does today ,
and there are so many ways we can destroy the bb,
one web site I have offered , made the claim that ,
they have not been able to prove a single theory of the bb yet ,
it is all still theory , no actual proof for any of it,
on the other hand we have the proof that , red and dead galaxies ,
existed 13 billion years ago ,
for those with a brain , it becomes obvious ,,,!!!

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:15 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
Godfree wrote:
Cerveny wrote:- Is the Einstein’s “space-time” a real entity (as for example an electron is) or it is only some abstract math tool, useful for “special” formalism?
As I understand it , space -time ,
is time and space that existed without anything or one to bear witness .
That's not at all what Cerveny and I are discussing here, which is the four-dimensional space-time of Einstein's theory of relativity, whether it's "real" or just an abstraction. You don't have a clue, do you? Again, read up on the basics, man!

before the bang , there was supposed to be "no space-time"
which is based on the theory of relativity,
I just love the way you assume I know nothing,
I guess you are the hero in your story ,
in your mind you will be the one sorting out all these confused individuals ,
heres a wee puzzle for your vast intellect ,
if the universe has been expanding for about 13 billion years or more ,
thats a lot of movement , so the 13 billion year old images ,
should be a lot closer to the "point of singularity"
in other words imagine playing back the expansion for 13 billion years ,
at that point we should see a huge cluster of galaxies at the point of ,
singularity , as the millions of galaxies come closer together ,
clumping around this point of singularity ,
forming one huge star or galaxy made up of millions of galaxies,
but , thats not what the 13 billion year old images reveal ,
No , just like now , young and old equally spread throughout ,
now , either you didn't understand that , refuse to acknowledge I'm right,
or your just confused and think it's not true ,,???

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:52 pm**

Ever smell something smelly that's been sitting there for along time; it stinks even more. But it looks the same - except on the inside where once you break that shell: Bam! A universe of stinky. All the colors in there really send one in to a nest of stinky confusion.

Because you're are smelling this stank and your looking closer and the farther from the pile of stinkiness, and then hold yer breath, and look closer, and stiilll the stinky and you look even closer and you notice its just rubber made to look like a stinky thing.
And then you wonder where the stink came from, and you remember: whoever smelt it, dealt it. But oh no, it can't be; you can't stink that bad so you keep looking.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:11 pm**

Godfree wrote:incorrect but carry on tell me where and how I have contradicted myself.

If you allow it to be even a wee bang or a cycle of infinitely wee bangs its still a bang.

You still don't get my position do you? What you are doing is not leading to anything as you are in the wrong place to resolve the issues that trouble you. Become an astrophysicist, i.e. a Newtonian, if you wish to prove your ideas.

I had a quick goggle around and I think I can see whats kicked you off as there are sites out there that are using the BBT to justify their belief in a 'God' but both you and they are misusing science for your own metaphysical beliefs.

From a philosophy of science point of view, if there are the contradictions you say then the solutions are likely to lie in the errors possible in our methods of measurement but in any case the solution, if it bothers you, lies in becoming a physicist not a philosopher, as we've given-up such stuff as the Newtonians wiped the floor with us on this matter.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:22 am**

Arising_uk wrote:
Godfree wrote:incorrect but carry on tell me where and how I have contradicted myself.
If you allow it to be even a wee bang or a cycle of infinitely wee bangs its still a bang.

You still don't get my position do you? What you are doing is not leading to anything as you are in the wrong place to resolve the issues that trouble you. Become an astrophysicist, i.e. a Newtonian, if you wish to prove your ideas.

I had a quick goggle around and I think I can see whats kicked you off as there are sites out there that are using the BBT to justify their belief in a 'God' but both you and they are misusing science for your own metaphysical beliefs.

From a philosophy of science point of view, if there are the contradictions you say then the solutions are likely to lie in the errors possible in our methods of measurement but in any case the solution, if it bothers you, lies in becoming a physicist not a philosopher, as we've given-up such stuff as the Newtonians wiped the floor with us on this matter.

I'm still struggling with your claim of contradiction ,
I refer to a wee bang , matter has to be re-cycled somehow .
I have presumed all along that galaxies or groups of galaxies go bang,
there must be a bang at some point or all we would have is one huge black hole ,
the idea that it takes all the matter in the known universe to make a bang ,
is a bit hard to find the logic for ,
like a trillion galaxies of matter isn't enough ,
but a trillion and one is ,,???
I just can't see how galaxies colliding with other massive galaxies,
wouldn't eventually go bang when the black holes met .
a large sun goes supernova , because of the sudden collapse of the sun ,
surely the impact of two massive black holes would produce just as much,
force or stress on the matter ,???
and I found another interesting alternative ,
Roger Penrose a theoretical physicist at Oxford Uni ,
has put forward a model that is infinite ,
universes forming from the collapse of the previous universe,
ad infinitum ,
a science model for the universe , that is infinite , no beginning and no end,
but you would say he is wasting his time , I presume,,???

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:51 pm**

The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:26 pm**

lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.

Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:25 pm**

Godfree wrote:
lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.
Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!

It would seem that he meant indicative. It would also seem that Lance tends to write on the fly and seldom uses a spell checker.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:31 pm**

Godfree wrote:
lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.
Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!

I don't understand what he means either, though I'm pretty sure that "ionidcative" is just a sloppy misspelling of "indicative". He's probably taking the piss anyway, like with that thing about rabbit turds, suggesting that this whole discussion is crap.

As for your question about old galaxies in the farthest regions of space, I'm not an astronomer and not the right person to provide an answer. And I'm not into arguing for the sake of it.

You could try posting your questions in a serious physics forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:02 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
Godfree wrote:
lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.
Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!
I don't understand what he means either, though I'm pretty sure that "ionidcative" is just a sloppy misspelling of "indicative". He's probably taking the piss anyway, like with that thing about rabbit turds, suggesting that this whole discussion is crap.

As for your question about old galaxies in the farthest regions of space, I'm not an astronomer and not the right person to provide an answer. And I'm not into arguing for the sake of it.

You could try posting your questions in a serious physics forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

I would say that as to crap, it's all about the number of retorts. Each that participate, find something of value, or they wouldn't! Some entertain, some like taking a crap all over it. The message of each participant, can say more about them, than it does the subject at hand!

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:34 am**

Godfree wrote:
lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.
Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!

Oh so you don't loikne myt quicjk fingers skiillls on my blaxkberry huih ! Well I'm not suurew wehy. my blackberry keybnoard thuimb skillls afde well notews iion the annnalls pof modewrn tewhcnnology.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:56 am**

Notvacka wrote:
Godfree wrote:
lancek4 wrote:The idea of space-time is ionidcative of the Subject. The BigBang reveals the subject in reality. As the Subject indivdual no longer is maintained as a priviledged entity the BB will no longer be a viable way of explaination of 'epirical' data.
Language can be very effective if the readers all know such terms as,
ionidcative ,,,never heard of that one could you explain please ,
I know we are discussing the same subject , and we are both using english,
but , what,!!!, I struggle to grasp any of it , until,
the bb will no longer be a viable explanation ,, that I can agree with ,,!!!
I don't understand what he means either, though I'm pretty sure that "ionidcative" is just a sloppy misspelling of "indicative". He's probably taking the piss anyway, like with that thing about rabbit turds, suggesting that this whole discussion is crap.

As for your question about old galaxies in the farthest regions of space, I'm not an astronomer and not the right person to provide an answer. And I'm not into arguing for the sake of it.

You could try posting your questions in a serious physics forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

Cheers for the web address , I just joined and am waiting for my confirmation link so I can post ,
I checked plentyoffish , the other day, a dating site I started ,
Big/little bang are we being deceived,,???
and it's still there after about five years , thats how long I'v been ,
busting the big bang , and I'm learning more and more as I go,
there is a mounting pile of evidence to suggest that we are looking at,
galaxies older than the bang , many sites have come to the same conclusions
if you accept that 10 billion years is a conservative estimate for the life cycle of a star , or galaxy ,then the bb is busted ,
because we can see many large old red and dead galaxies ,
at 10 billion light years away, 10 + 10=20 ,
they keep suggesting I learn some maths , but how hard is it , to ad those two and conclude that the universe is at least 20 billion years old,,??

Philosophy Now Forum

Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Inertial motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

Re: Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion