Philosophy Now Forum

Godfree wrote:Spelling , now we have a very good example of your arrogance , ...

Do we? I'm always amazed that people take offense at having their knowledge of their language corrected. For myself I have a problem at times with "to" and "too" and take no offense when others correct my usage as its called learning. When I started my first degree I was woefully unprepared grammatically and if it wasn't for my tutor correcting my work and offering advice I'd never have improved my written communications enough to get a good pass. I also find it irritating that in an age of spell-checkers people are still to lazy to use them.

Neandertol , yes I did spell it that way , but found more spell it this way ,
I guess it depends on who you ask , here in NZ we spell things ,
a bit different to say americans , colour , behaviour , flavour ,
according to american spelling those three are wrong ,
My father is a teacher and it was his suggestion that it's Neandertol that changed my mind , ...

Not an English teacher then? I seriously doubt that the Kiwi has moved that far from British English and as such I think you've misheard your father as he appears to be saying that you could acceptably use "Neandertal", no "o" about it. Since we're in this vein now, I think you could work on your use of commas and exclamation marks too.

now we seem to be talking about different reports on Neandertol DNA ,
the study I heard of concluded that we Caucasians have Neandertol in us , ...

You appear to have slipped from "white" to "Caucasians", just to check, under this do you include the Arabs, Iranians, North Africans, et al in your definition?

this sin't speculation ,Neandertol is alive and well , it's us ,
we have Neandertol DNA in us ,
is that what you understand ,
you seem to be suggesting the jury is still out on this ,
totally wrong , done and dusted , this is fact . !!!

I'm not disagreeing that it appears that all the 'races' apart from the sub-saharan blacks appear to have Neandertal DNA, this means the Oriental has this DNA as well. I'm questioning your idea that this makes us a Neandertal when that lineage has died out and that this is why there are whites. I'm also questioning that its a settled matter about how this occurred as there appear to be two camps, one that its interbreeding or two thats its a shared common ancestor. As the articles I linked to, which you've apparently not bothered to read, give good accounts of issues about both matters and with respect to the idea of them giving us a 'white gene' the not inconsiderable one that they died out long before this occurred.

Arising_uk wrote:

Godfree wrote:Spelling , now we have a very good example of your arrogance , ...

Do we?
Yes we do. Well at least that's two, I guess we could take a poll.
I'm always amazed that people take offense at having their knowledge of their language corrected.
And I'm always amazed that people would attempt to hide their correcting someones spelling or grammar, unsolicited, as anything other than what it really is, i.e., a way to, attempt to humiliate, as if it pertains to the argument at hand. really? Come on, you've got to be kidding me. no one's that daft.
For myself I have a problem at times with "to" and "too" and take no offense when others correct my usage as its called learning.
You are you, he is he, and I am I, make sense? But there you go again, attempting to humiliate, as the meaning of your words is contained in the response you just got. so while we're at it, it would seem a spoiled child as well. And did I say spiteful bitch? Hey, they're your words, not mine. So, suck it up and reiterate.

When I started my first degree
Oh, and lets not forget an attempt to brag, as a little icing on the cake of, in your face dude, what a child, how old did you say you were, mentally that is. Hey don't blame me, as I've just given you the meaning of your words. I think this is going to be fun, handing you the meaning of your words as only contained in my response. I think I'll continue to do so, while reminding you, until hell freezes over. Sound like fun? Hey it's just that you've convinced me, I see you as clear as day, right about now, as your modus operandi in responding to people here at PNF is fueled by this delusion of yours, as it's just a self serving mode at the expense of being truthful and honest. Hey it's just your meaning as illuminated by my words, as that's where your meaning lies. (Funny huh? I mean have you ever really noticed my funny little play on words? I do it quite often, it seems like poetry almost. I think it's probably been above you, but that's to be expected, it would seem. Or maybe that's why you seemingly despise me.)

I was woefully unprepared grammatically and if it wasn't for my tutor correcting my work and offering advice I'd never have improved my written communications enough to get a good pass.
Yes that's my point, your tutelage, was solicited, so obviously not only did you expect it, but you wanted it. Yes? Safe to say? Huh? So you only did it for a good pass huh? So with you it's about impressing only, oh, as I see you more clearly, as your meaning, has just been handed to you via my response, hey your words.

I also find it irritating
Oh, god forbid we irritate you, oh queen of Sheba. You, you, you, you, you. Hey your meaning, in my response. Remember they're your words, don't forget.

that in an age of spell-checkers people are still to lazy to use them.
What a dumb thing to say, as it's not necessarily true, it's 100% presumption, as to what software he's got installed. As to whether or not a global dictionary/spell checker is installed, that a particular internet browser may require, is dependent upon software. On my machine, there is absolutely no dictionary/spell checking available, until I install the Word Processor. And then you characterize him lazy, due to this ignorance of yours. Are you anything but nasty, or is that delusional? Hey remember the meaning of your words is contained in my response, your words not mine. Are we having fun yet?

Neandertol , yes I did spell it that way , but found more spell it this way ,
I guess it depends on who you ask , here in NZ we spell things ,
a bit different to say americans , colour , behaviour , flavour ,
according to american spelling those three are wrong ,
My father is a teacher and it was his suggestion that it's Neandertol that changed my mind , ...

Not an English teacher then? I seriously doubt that the Kiwi has moved that far from British English and as such I think you've misheard your father as he appears to be saying that you could acceptably use "Neandertal", no "o" about it. Since we're in this vein now, I think you could work on your use of commas and exclamation marks too.
But then, who the fuck are you? I'm guessing a spiteful bitch, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that your "meaning is only to be found in the response that you've just gotten." Oh, so are you starting to see the folly of your ideas? Maybe some can never learn, but rather, are merely like that of a xerox machine instead, only time will tell.

now we seem to be talking about different reports on Neandertol DNA ,
the study I heard of concluded that we Caucasians have Neandertol in us , ...

You appear to have slipped from "white" to "Caucasians", just to check, under this do you include the Arabs, Iranians, North Africans, et al in your definition?
A little nippy, but fair enough. This is the first thing, if I were Godfree, that I would respond to.

this sin't speculation ,Neandertol is alive and well , it's us ,
we have Neandertol DNA in us ,
is that what you understand ,
you seem to be suggesting the jury is still out on this ,
totally wrong , done and dusted , this is fact . !!!

I'm not disagreeing that it appears that all the 'races' apart from the sub-saharan blacks appear to have Neandertal DNA, this means the Oriental has this DNA as well. I'm questioning your idea that this makes us a Neandertal when that lineage has died out and that this is why there are whites. I'm also questioning that its a settled matter about how this occurred as there appear to be two camps, one that its interbreeding or two thats its a shared common ancestor. As the articles I linked to, which you've apparently not bothered to read, give good accounts of issues about both matters and with respect to the idea of them giving us a 'white gene' the not inconsiderable one that they died out long before this occurred.
Again, fair enough.

But you see, i personally wouldn't answer your bits below; after you've calmed down from taking offense at being called arrogant, as your past words meaning, was merely contained in his response that you got, that you were arrogant; because of your nasty, arrogant, self serving crap above. That's the way I roll. One only deserves an honest, fair response, to those of equal caliber. And of course this means that one had to start the nastiness. But one should, if they truly be enlightened/wise, stop and ask themselves, "is there anything that I could have said that might give one the impression that I was being rude, mean or nasty?" Before they cause an escalation. This I see as the root of many problems here. Someone that is intentionally rude or nasty deserves whatever they get, but if it's an accident due to a difference in dialect, those smartest, try and catch it before it gets out of hand. If it gets to that heated level, then it would seem that both have failed to be the wiser one.

So Arising, here is my blanket statement: If there was ever a time that you took offense, as to my response, it was merely because it was the meaning of those previous words of yours, as surely my response only illuminated. Hey I just realized that if your quote were actually true, then it could only mean, that you were actually, only ever, arguing with yourself.

I thought you not conversing with me? No free-will power then. As usual you rush out on your horse to defend others when they can speak for themselves.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes we do. Well at least that's two, I guess we could take a poll.

So definitely the consensus theory of truth for you then.

And I'm always amazed that people would attempt to hide their correcting someones spelling or grammar, unsolicited, as anything other than what it really is, i.e., a way to, attempt to humiliate, as if it pertains to the argument at hand. really? Come on, you've got to be kidding me. no one's that daft.

You apparently are as I raised it whilst having a conversation with godfree that he solicited and ignored it before that. That you think learning how to spell, if you're not dyslexic, is an humiliation is your problem, me I take no offense at such things. But I accept that in hindsight I should have just PM'd the correction to godfree but I forget at times that I'm having a public conversation as I tend to treat my conversations as one-to-one.

You are you, he is he, and I am I, make sense? But there you go again, attempting to humiliate, as the meaning of your words is contained in the response you just got. so while we're at it, it would seem a spoiled child as well. And did I say spiteful bitch? Hey, they're your words, not mine. So, suck it up and reiterate.

I will. You are the elitist as you think people should stay in their ignorance rather than learn. But then again you think we can't know anything so why bother learning anything, least of all how to spell. Ironic given your repeated use of the dictionary.

Please save your genderist psycho-babble for yourself, you need it.

Oh, and lets not forget an attempt to brag, as a little icing on the cake of, in your face dude, what a child, how old did you say you were, mentally that is. Hey don't blame me, as I've just given you the meaning of your words. I think this is going to be fun, handing you the meaning of your words as only contained in my response. I think I'll continue to do so, while reminding you, until hell freezes over. Sound like fun? Hey it's just that you've convinced me, I see you as clear as day, right about now, as your modus operandi in responding to people here at PNF is fueled by this delusion of yours, as it's just a self serving mode at the expense of being truthful and honest. Hey it's just your meaning as illuminated by my words, as that's where your meaning lies. (Funny huh? I mean have you ever really noticed my funny little play on words? I do it quite often, it seems like poetry almost. I think it's probably been above you, but that's to be expected, it would seem. Or maybe that's why you seemingly despise me.)

Its not bragging its just a fact and was the context for me explaining that I too had a problem with grammar and in a most embarrassing situation, a mature degree student of philosophy who couldn't write clearly. That you think it bragging just goes to show the level of your insecurity.

Yes that's my point, your tutelage, was solicited, so obviously not only did you expect it, but you wanted it. Yes? Safe to say? Huh? So you only did it for a good pass huh? So with you it's about impressing only, oh, as I see you more clearly, as your meaning, has just been handed to you via my response, hey your words.

Nope, it came as a complete shock to me and was painful and embarrassing to experience but I learnt from it and it enabled me to get a good pass as, unlike what you propose, our education system at the time expected people to be able to spell and punctuate.

Oh, god forbid we irritate you, oh queen of Sheba. You, you, you, you, you. Hey your meaning, in my response. Remember they're your words, don't forget.

Yup, me, me, me, as I was explaining my motivation.

What a dumb thing to say, as it's not necessarily true, it's 100% presumption, as to what software he's got installed. As to whether or not a global dictionary/spell checker is installed, that a particular internet browser may require, is dependent upon software. On my machine, there is absolutely no dictionary/spell checking available, until I install the Word Processor. And then you characterize him lazy, due to this ignorance of yours. Are you anything but nasty, or is that delusional? Hey remember the meaning of your words is contained in my response, your words not mine. Are we having fun yet?

If he's got a browser and a computer and is on the interweeb then there are free spell checkers for pretty much all the browsers and there are free word processors. The same applies if he has a smart phone. If he's on a 50k modem and still uses a 386 then he has my sympathies and I suggest a dictionary.

But then, who the fuck are you? I'm guessing a spiteful bitch, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that your "meaning is only to be found in the response that you've just gotten." Oh, so are you starting to see the folly of your ideas? Maybe some can never learn, but rather, are merely like that of a xerox machine instead, only time will tell.

A qualified teacher.

You do realise that you are talking to yourself in the above?

By a xerox machine you mean someone just repeating the same thing again and again? Now let me think who that reminds me of? Nope, I know nothing like that.

A little nippy, but fair enough. This is the first thing, if I were Godfree, that I would respond to.

But you're not and I prefer to await his reply.

Again, fair enough.
But you see, i personally wouldn't answer your bits below; after you've calmed down from taking offense at being called arrogant, as your past words meaning, was merely contained in his response that you got, that you were arrogant; because of your nasty, arrogant, self serving crap above. That's the way I roll. One only deserves an honest, fair response, to those of equal caliber. And of course this means that one had to start the nastiness. But one should, if they truly be enlightened/wise, stop and ask themselves, "is there anything that I could have said that might give one the impression that I was being rude, mean or nasty?" Before they cause an escalation. This I see as the root of many problems here. Someone that is intentionally rude or nasty deserves whatever they get, but if it's an accident due to a difference in dialect, those smartest, try and catch it before it gets out of hand. If it gets to that heated level, then it would seem that both have failed to be the wiser one.

Again, you're not Godfree and these issues are yours and its lamo funny that you consistently fail to follow your own advice.

So Arising, here is my blanket statement: If there was ever a time that you took offense, as to my response, it was merely because it was the meaning of those previous words of yours, as surely my response only illuminated. Hey I just realized that if your quote were actually true, then it could only mean, that you were actually, only ever, arguing with yourself.

I take no offense from your responses as I pretty much expect them. The only offense I find is the one where you talk about the subject of philosophy without bothering to learn about it and that you appear to ignore the contradiction in your thought that you know nothing but then proceed to talk much about it rather than being like your idol and just ask questions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:OK tillingborn, I'm asking 'you.' How can 'you'

Letter...Wavelength...Chemical Origin.....Color Range
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........759.37.........atmospheric O2......dark red
B..........686.72.........atmospheric O2......red
C..........656.28..........hydrogen alpha......red
D1........589.59..........neutral sodium.......red orange
D2........589.00..........neutral sodium.......yellow
E..........526.96..........neutral iron............green
F...........486.13..........hydrogen beta.......cyan
G..........431.42..........CH molecule..........blue
H..........396.85..........ionised calcium......dark violet
K..........393.37..........ionised calcium......dark violet

This 'opening' as indicated by a 'red shift' does not mean that the stars color is necessarily red, it means that what ever color the star normally is, as seen from a non opening or closing relative position, that it's frequency is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The use of both red and blue are merely labels so as to quickly indicate direction of shift, due to the fact that they are at the ends of our viable spectrum, which is why I never understood why they use blue instead of violet, as red is at the end of our visible spectrum at the high end, but blue is not at the low end, rather violet is. Anyway since the amount of shift would be relative to relative speed, keeping in mind the frequencies in the above key, one can understand that a shift would be continuously variable, dependent upon a particular speed, and that as this occurs one can see that depending upon how much shift is realized, it would be hard to differentiate between an indication of shift or chemical composition. Do you understand what I'm saying, If not I shall expound after you indicate an area of my cloudy articulation, however if you do, then what do you think about this inherent problem?

A good point , people often think in the singular , that there is one explanation or cause of things ,
yet there is usually multiple factors at play ,
an argument I have for the red shift being wrong , is
there must be the odd galaxy going against the grain , being drawn in the opposite direction to most ,
having a near miss and being flung off in the wrong direction ,
in the vastness of space with the numbers we are dealing with ,
this must have occurred a few times here and there ,
so at 14 and 15 billion light years , there should be the odd one out , visible at that distance because it's coming towards us , if it was based on movement we would see those odd ones ,

Also , I understood that if an object was moving away from us , say a train,
that the torch light being shone from the back of the train as it moved away ,
was sending a beam of light that reached us at the normal speed of light ,
not the speed of light minus the speed of the train ,
so to if it was coming towards us , it would still be normal light not light plus the speed of the train ,
so ,,,,a galaxy moving away should have the same light as the others ,,
how can science claim both ,,???
that the red shift is caused by movement , and light remains constant regardless ,,???

Godfree wrote:...
Also , I understood that if an object was moving away from us , say a train,
that the torch light being shone from the back of the train as it moved away ,
was sending a beam of light that reached us at the normal speed of light ,
not the speed of light minus the speed of the train ,
so to if it was coming towards us , it would still be normal light not light plus the speed of the train ,
so ,,,,a galaxy moving away should have the same light as the others ,,
how can science claim both ,,???
that the red shift is caused by movement , and light remains constant regardless ,,???

A fair question and this might help you,
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... ic=20368.0

Arising_uk wrote:I thought you not conversing with me? No free-will power then. As usual you rush out on your horse to defend others when they can speak for themselves.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes we do. Well at least that's two, I guess we could take a poll.

So definitely the consensus theory of truth for you then.

And I'm always amazed that people would attempt to hide their correcting someones spelling or grammar, unsolicited, as anything other than what it really is, i.e., a way to, attempt to humiliate, as if it pertains to the argument at hand. really? Come on, you've got to be kidding me. no one's that daft.

You apparently are as I raised it whilst having a conversation with godfree that he solicited and ignored it before that. That you think learning how to spell, if you're not dyslexic, is an humiliation is your problem, me I take no offense at such things. But I accept that in hindsight I should have just PM'd the correction to godfree but I forget at times that I'm having a public conversation as I tend to treat my conversations as one-to-one.

You are you, he is he, and I am I, make sense? But there you go again, attempting to humiliate, as the meaning of your words is contained in the response you just got. so while we're at it, it would seem a spoiled child as well. And did I say spiteful bitch? Hey, they're your words, not mine. So, suck it up and reiterate.

I will. You are the elitist as you think people should stay in their ignorance rather than learn. But then again you think we can't know anything so why bother learning anything, least of all how to spell. Ironic given your repeated use of the dictionary.

Please save your genderist psycho-babble for yourself, you need it.

Oh, and lets not forget an attempt to brag, as a little icing on the cake of, in your face dude, what a child, how old did you say you were, mentally that is. Hey don't blame me, as I've just given you the meaning of your words. I think this is going to be fun, handing you the meaning of your words as only contained in my response. I think I'll continue to do so, while reminding you, until hell freezes over. Sound like fun? Hey it's just that you've convinced me, I see you as clear as day, right about now, as your modus operandi in responding to people here at PNF is fueled by this delusion of yours, as it's just a self serving mode at the expense of being truthful and honest. Hey it's just your meaning as illuminated by my words, as that's where your meaning lies. (Funny huh? I mean have you ever really noticed my funny little play on words? I do it quite often, it seems like poetry almost. I think it's probably been above you, but that's to be expected, it would seem. Or maybe that's why you seemingly despise me.)

Its not bragging its just a fact and was the context for me explaining that I too had a problem with grammar and in a most embarrassing situation, a mature degree student of philosophy who couldn't write clearly. That you think it bragging just goes to show the level of your insecurity.

Yes that's my point, your tutelage, was solicited, so obviously not only did you expect it, but you wanted it. Yes? Safe to say? Huh? So you only did it for a good pass huh? So with you it's about impressing only, oh, as I see you more clearly, as your meaning, has just been handed to you via my response, hey your words.

Nope, it came as a complete shock to me and was painful and embarrassing to experience but I learnt from it and it enabled me to get a good pass as, unlike what you propose, our education system at the time expected people to be able to spell and punctuate.

Oh, god forbid we irritate you, oh queen of Sheba. You, you, you, you, you. Hey your meaning, in my response. Remember they're your words, don't forget.

Yup, me, me, me, as I was explaining my motivation.

What a dumb thing to say, as it's not necessarily true, it's 100% presumption, as to what software he's got installed. As to whether or not a global dictionary/spell checker is installed, that a particular internet browser may require, is dependent upon software. On my machine, there is absolutely no dictionary/spell checking available, until I install the Word Processor. And then you characterize him lazy, due to this ignorance of yours. Are you anything but nasty, or is that delusional? Hey remember the meaning of your words is contained in my response, your words not mine. Are we having fun yet?

If he's got a browser and a computer and is on the interweeb then there are free spell checkers for pretty much all the browsers and there are free word processors. The same applies if he has a smart phone. If he's on a 50k modem and still uses a 386 then he has my sympathies and I suggest a dictionary.

But then, who the fuck are you? I'm guessing a spiteful bitch, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that your "meaning is only to be found in the response that you've just gotten." Oh, so are you starting to see the folly of your ideas? Maybe some can never learn, but rather, are merely like that of a xerox machine instead, only time will tell.

A qualified teacher.

You do realise that you are talking to yourself in the above?

By a xerox machine you mean someone just repeating the same thing again and again? Now let me think who that reminds me of? Nope, I know nothing like that.

A little nippy, but fair enough. This is the first thing, if I were Godfree, that I would respond to.

But you're not and I prefer to await his reply.

Again, fair enough.
But you see, i personally wouldn't answer your bits below; after you've calmed down from taking offense at being called arrogant, as your past words meaning, was merely contained in his response that you got, that you were arrogant; because of your nasty, arrogant, self serving crap above. That's the way I roll. One only deserves an honest, fair response, to those of equal caliber. And of course this means that one had to start the nastiness. But one should, if they truly be enlightened/wise, stop and ask themselves, "is there anything that I could have said that might give one the impression that I was being rude, mean or nasty?" Before they cause an escalation. This I see as the root of many problems here. Someone that is intentionally rude or nasty deserves whatever they get, but if it's an accident due to a difference in dialect, those smartest, try and catch it before it gets out of hand. If it gets to that heated level, then it would seem that both have failed to be the wiser one.

Again, you're not Godfree and these issues are yours and its lamo funny that you consistently fail to follow your own advice.

So Arising, here is my blanket statement: If there was ever a time that you took offense, as to my response, it was merely because it was the meaning of those previous words of yours, as surely my response only illuminated. Hey I just realized that if your quote were actually true, then it could only mean, that you were actually, only ever, arguing with yourself.

I take no offense from your responses as I pretty much expect them. The only offense I find is the one where you talk about the subject of philosophy without bothering to learn about it and that you appear to ignore the contradiction in your thought that you know nothing but then proceed to talk much about it rather than being like your idol and just ask questions.

Didn't pay attention to a damn word of it, Why? Because like I said, I'm through with you, of course, like the idiot that you are, I'm sure, you supplied your own meaning, then answered yourself. Why? Because of your stupid dimwitted quote, that contains nothing of value, other than to sooth your insanity, i.e., "The meaning of ones words is in the response they get." This is how you brain fuck yourself, so you can supply any damn meaning, (projection), you want to someones words, no matter how ridiculous. Luckily for you, I'm not a compulsive liar like you, and see your words for exactly what they are. Of course this does not mean that I won't watch your words to others and unmask your insanity for what it is.

Godfree wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK tillingborn, I'm asking 'you.' How can 'you'

Letter...Wavelength...Chemical Origin.....Color Range
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........759.37.........atmospheric O2......dark red
B..........686.72.........atmospheric O2......red
C..........656.28..........hydrogen alpha......red
D1........589.59..........neutral sodium.......red orange
D2........589.00..........neutral sodium.......yellow
E..........526.96..........neutral iron............green
F...........486.13..........hydrogen beta.......cyan
G..........431.42..........CH molecule..........blue
H..........396.85..........ionised calcium......dark violet
K..........393.37..........ionised calcium......dark violet

This 'opening' as indicated by a 'red shift' does not mean that the stars color is necessarily red, it means that what ever color the star normally is, as seen from a non opening or closing relative position, that it's frequency is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The use of both red and blue are merely labels so as to quickly indicate direction of shift, due to the fact that they are at the ends of our viable spectrum, which is why I never understood why they use blue instead of violet, as red is at the end of our visible spectrum at the high end, but blue is not at the low end, rather violet is. Anyway since the amount of shift would be relative to relative speed, keeping in mind the frequencies in the above key, one can understand that a shift would be continuously variable, dependent upon a particular speed, and that as this occurs one can see that depending upon how much shift is realized, it would be hard to differentiate between an indication of shift or chemical composition. Do you understand what I'm saying, If not I shall expound after you indicate an area of my cloudy articulation, however if you do, then what do you think about this inherent problem?

A good point , people often think in the singular , that there is one explanation or cause of things ,
yet there is usually multiple factors at play ,
an argument I have for the red shift being wrong , is
there must be the odd galaxy going against the grain , being drawn in the opposite direction to most ,
having a near miss and being flung off in the wrong direction ,
in the vastness of space with the numbers we are dealing with ,
this must have occurred a few times here and there ,
so at 14 and 15 billion light years , there should be the odd one out , visible at that distance because it's coming towards us , if it was based on movement we would see those odd ones ,

Also , I understood that if an object was moving away from us , say a train,
that the torch light being shone from the back of the train as it moved away ,
was sending a beam of light that reached us at the normal speed of light ,
not the speed of light minus the speed of the train ,
so to if it was coming towards us , it would still be normal light not light plus the speed of the train ,
so ,,,,a galaxy moving away should have the same light as the others ,,
how can science claim both ,,???
that the red shift is caused by movement , and light remains constant regardless ,,???

I hear what you're saying, and understand that many forget to consider all that one must in figuring how the universe works. As you indicated, many people forget about movement (trajectories) as a result of billions of years of novas, supernovas, and larger. How about the fact that:
"there is general consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies." --wikipedia--
AND
"When massive stars end their lives, they explode violently as supernovae. They leave either a neutron star or a black hole as a remnant, depending on how massive the star initially is." --ESA--
SO
it could be true that all galaxies are actually the results of a super duper mega star's hyper-supernova whose accretion disc, made up of the ex-stars released elements, including hydrogen, as I could see that at the moment of the stars core collapse, all hydrogen fusion could cease as a result of the expulsion of the cores contents, much like one extinguishes a fire with explosives.

If this were true, then it would seem that there were multiple-bangs.

In any case, it's premature to say that there was a big bang or that the universe is either expanding or collapsing, as our limited window of opportunity, (visual horizon), precludes such statements, as if they are certain.

But the frequency (wavelength) and the speed of electromagnetic energy are two different things. The wavelength is like that of a sine wave, that one measures from any two points, of two adjacent waves, that are the same phase, meaning that the measurement points, are always parallel to the zero axis, at any point along the wave, from crest to crest. The speed that electromagnetic energy travels, is independent of it's wavelength and is 186,000 miles/sec. I don't know the metric equivalent off hand.

At least that's how I was taught.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Didn't pay attention to a damn word of it, Why? Because like I said, I'm through with you, of course, like the idiot that you are, I'm sure, you supplied your own meaning, then answered yourself. ...

Why even bother saying this? And why contradict it by telling me yet again that you are through with me. And why did you even butt into my conversation with Godfree in the first place?

Why? Because of your stupid dimwitted quote, that contains nothing of value, other than to sooth your insanity, i.e., "The meaning of ones words is in the response they get." ...

It's, "The meaning of ones words is the response they get.". Of course there's loads more involved than this for it to mean anything concrete in action; outcome or goal setting for the intended communication, the ability to use mental positions(three namely, first, second and third) for feedback and to stop the problem of thinking ones map or model is the territory, the ability to recognise modalities in the other's communication methods and last but not least the beliefs that its feedback not failure and the ability to construct and maintain rapport. What you fail to grasp is that its a process of feedback and if both follow this model then communication becomes probable. All these give one a fighting chance in the actual world of face-to-face communication of achieving ones outcomes and communicating them accurately. Here though, I just chat. Unless of course its an actual philosophical conversation then I pay attention.

This is how you brain fuck yourself, so you can supply any damn meaning, (projection), you want to someones words, no matter how ridiculous. Luckily for you, I'm not a compulsive liar like you, and see your words for exactly what they are. Of course this does not mean that I won't watch your words to others and unmask your insanity for what it is.

Your usual claim when at a loss for thought, "You're a liar", and yet given your thoughts how would you know this!!

Save your psycho-babble for yourself as its obviously what you use to mask your insecurities, not least this shining knight on a pole nonsense. What you see is what you carry with you to pretty much every encounter I guess and I guess many of them end in rancour.

Godfree wrote:so ,,,,a galaxy moving away should have the same light as the others ,,
how can science claim both ,,???
that the red shift is caused by movement , and light remains constant regardless ,,???

Just on this point Godfree, you are probably familiar with a sound analogy. If you have ever heard a fire engine go past, you will have noticed the pitch and frequency of the dee-dahs rise as it approaches and fall as it passes. The sound still reaches you at the speed of sound though.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Didn't pay attention to a damn word of it, Why? Because like I said, I'm through with you, of course, like the idiot that you are, I'm sure, you supplied your own meaning, then answered yourself. ...

Why even bother saying this? And why contradict it by telling me yet again that you are through with me. And why did you even butt into my conversation with Godfree in the first place? (<-YOU'RE A FEMALE)

Why? Because of your stupid dimwitted quote, that contains nothing of value, other than to sooth your insanity, i.e., "The meaning of ones words is in the response they get." ...

It's, "The meaning of ones words is the response they get.". Of course there's loads more involved than this for it to mean anything concrete in action; outcome or goal setting for the intended communication, the ability to use mental positions(three namely, first, second and third) for feedback and to stop the problem of thinking ones map or model is the territory, the ability to recognise modalities in the other's communication methods and last but not least the beliefs that its feedback not failure and the ability to construct and maintain rapport. What you fail to grasp is that its a process of feedback and if both follow this model then communication becomes probable. All these give one a fighting chance in the actual world of face-to-face communication of achieving ones outcomes and communicating them accurately. Here though, I just chat. Unless of course its an actual philosophical conversation then I pay attention.

This is how you brain fuck yourself, so you can supply any damn meaning, (projection), you want to someones words, no matter how ridiculous. Luckily for you, I'm not a compulsive liar like you, and see your words for exactly what they are. Of course this does not mean that I won't watch your words to others and unmask your insanity for what it is.

Your usual claim when at a loss for thought, "You're a liar", and yet given your thoughts how would you know this!! (<-OR YOU'RE GAY, EITHER WAY.)

NO, YOU DIP SHIT, I'M TALKING OF THIS CRAP. THIS IS ONE OF THE LIES, AS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW MY REASONS, YOU DAMNED MORON. HOW DENSE ARE YOU ANYWAY? SERIOUSLY? YOU'RE EITHER ONE DUMB SON OF A BITCH, OR INSANE, TO THINK YOU CAN KNOW ONES REASONS FOR SHUTTING YOUR QUERY DOWN. THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE, SO YOUR LITTLE STUPID QUOTE FITS YOUR BILL. OR I SHOULD SAY THAT BELIEF IN YOUR STUPID LITTLE QUOTE, IS WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN READ MINDS. GOD YOU ARE DENSE AND/OR NUTS. I'M NEVER AT A LOSS FOR THOUGHT, NEVER, I JUST SWITCH GEARS BECAUSE OF SOME ABSURD THING YOU'VE SAID, AND REFUSE TO ANSWER WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE THEN I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR INCLINATION, FOOL. THERE'S NO WAY SOMEONE AS SCREWED UP AS YOU WILL EVER GET ME. I'M WAY TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOUR CONFUSED MIND. YOU THINK THAT WORD CHOICE, AND GRAMMAR ARE INDICATIVE OF WHATS IN MY MIND, WRONG ANSWER. I HAVEN'T REALLY READ OR WRITTEN ANYTHING SINCE THE DAYS OF MY COLLEGE, WHICH HAS NO BEARING ON ONES THINKING, IT JUST MAKES ONE SEVERELY OUT OUT OF PRACTICE, AS TO THE WRITTEN WORD. AN ILLUSION FOR YOU TO STUMBLE UPON.
Save your psycho-babble for yourself as its obviously what you use to mask your insecurities, not least this shining knight on a pole nonsense. What you see is what you carry with you to pretty much every encounter I guess and I guess many of them end in rancour.

THROUGH WITH ANYTHING YOU AIM AT ME. ANYONE IN THAT HEAD OF YOURS?, OR SHOULD I ASK HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THAT HEAD OF YOURS? AS YOU ONLY LIE AS TO WHAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE ONES WORDS MEAN AS A RESULT OF THAT ASININE QUOTE OF OURS. THAT QUOTE IS SOMETHING YOU EITHER MADE UP OR BOUGHT INTO PURELY SO YOU CAN PROJECT BS AT PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF APPEASING YOUR EGO, AND THAT OF ARGUMENT FOR ANY DAMN SILLY REASON YOUR TWISTED MIND CAN MUSTER. THIS BELIEF OF YOURS, ALLOWS YOU TO ARGUE WITH YOURSELF. ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT TRY'S TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH THAT I HAVEN'T EVEN SAID, WHICH IS KIND OF LOCO, WHILE IT'S BEEN ME THAT ONLY COMMENTS ON THE MEANING OF YOUR WORDS, AS YOU USE THEM.

I SAY THAT THE MEANING OF WORDS ARE ONLY EVER 'NECESSARILY' IN THE MIND OF THE ONE THAT SPEAKS THOSE WORDS.
WHILE YOU SAY THAT THE MEANING OF ONES WORDS IS IN THE RESPONSE THEY GET.
OR IN OTHER WORDS, 'THAT ONES MEANING IS ONLY EVER IN THE MIND OF THOSE LISTENING.'
LISTEN TO YOURSELF, YOU'RE A FUCKING LOON, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY YOU'RE SO QUICK TO LABEL OTHERS AS ONE. THAT QUOTE WAS BORN OF A SELFISH LUNATIC, OR ONE THAT DIDN'T THINK IT THROUGH.


YOU'RE A WHACK JOB, SWEETIE.

AND NO, YOU REQUIRE CAPS SO YOU'LL FINALLY GET IT. HOPEFULLY. I'M NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND BEAT THIS INFO INTO YOUR PEA SIZED BRAIN. YOU KEEP THIS SILLY GIRLY CRAP UP AND I'LL IGNORE YOUR SILLINESS, INSTEAD VYING FOR A BLANKET STATEMENT, AS TO YOUR ABSURDITY. WHILE THE COMMUNICATION BIT WAS GOOD, IT'S SURELY NOT REFLECTED IN THAT QUOTE OF YOURS. IT WOULD SEEM YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN EDUCATION, AS YOU SPIT OUT SUCH STUPID QUOTES.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I mean how dense are you? I'm through with your, ignorance bred condescension.

Not as dense as a person who still insists Tolstoy is Socrates. Ignorance abounds eh!

No, rather a large part of your ignorance, is that you can't see 'parallels,' so as to understand points, as contrasted by them. In other words I see that all your knowledge is simply memory, of that which your education programmed into you, making you much like a parrot. And that you really didn't understand most of it, in order for you to take from it, what you need, to devise your own understanding of things. In yet other words, if no one tells you the way it is, you'll have no clue on your own.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:(<-YOU'RE A FEMALE)

Why? Because this emoticon is the closest I can find to expressing exasperation at stupidity? What does your purple make you?

(<-OR YOU'RE GAY, EITHER WAY.)

See above. Either way its nice to see your misogynistic and homophobic attitudes colourfully on display.

NO, YOU DIP SHIT, I'M TALKING OF THIS CRAP. THIS IS ONE OF THE LIES, AS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW MY REASONS, YOU DAMNED MORON. HOW DENSE ARE YOU ANYWAY? SERIOUSLY? YOU'RE EITHER ONE DUMB SON OF A BITCH, OR INSANE, TO THINK YOU CAN KNOW ONES REASONS FOR SHUTTING YOUR QUERY DOWN. THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE, SO YOUR LITTLE STUPID QUOTE FITS YOUR BILL. OR I SHOULD SAY THAT BELIEF IN YOUR STUPID LITTLE QUOTE, IS WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN READ MINDS. GOD YOU ARE DENSE AND/OR NUTS. I'M NEVER AT A LOSS FOR THOUGHT, NEVER, I JUST SWITCH GEARS BECAUSE OF SOME ABSURD THING YOU'VE SAID, AND REFUSE TO ANSWER WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE THEN I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR INCLINATION, FOOL. THERE'S NO WAY SOMEONE AS SCREWED UP AS YOU WILL EVER GET ME. I'M WAY TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOUR CONFUSED MIND. YOU THINK THAT WORD CHOICE, AND GRAMMAR ARE INDICATIVE OF WHATS IN MY MIND, WRONG ANSWER. I HAVEN'T REALLY READ OR WRITTEN ANYTHING SINCE THE DAYS OF MY COLLEGE, WHICH HAS NO BEARING ON ONES THINKING, IT JUST MAKES ONE SEVERELY OUT OUT OF PRACTICE, AS TO THE WRITTEN WORD. AN ILLUSION FOR YOU TO STUMBLE UPON.

And yet with your every utterance about me you contradict your own words?

Save your paranoia and insecurities for your shrink. Me, I'm just having a chat.

THROUGH WITH ANYTHING YOU AIM AT ME. ANYONE IN THAT HEAD OF YOURS?, OR SHOULD I ASK HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THAT HEAD OF YOURS? AS YOU ONLY LIE AS TO WHAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE ONES WORDS MEAN AS A RESULT OF THAT ASININE QUOTE OF OURS. THAT QUOTE IS SOMETHING YOU EITHER MADE UP OR BOUGHT INTO PURELY SO YOU CAN PROJECT BS AT PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF APPEASING YOUR EGO, AND THAT OF ARGUMENT FOR ANY DAMN SILLY REASON YOUR TWISTED MIND CAN MUSTER. THIS BELIEF OF YOURS, ALLOWS YOU TO ARGUE WITH YOURSELF. ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT TRY'S TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH THAT I HAVEN'T EVEN SAID, WHICH IS KIND OF LOCO, WHILE IT'S BEEN ME THAT ONLY COMMENTS ON THE MEANING OF YOUR WORDS, AS YOU USE THEM.

I SAY THAT THE MEANING OF WORDS ARE ONLY EVER 'NECESSARILY' IN THE MIND OF THE ONE THAT SPEAKS THOSE WORDS.
WHILE YOU SAY THAT THE MEANING OF ONES WORDS IS IN THE RESPONSE THEY GET.
OR IN OTHER WORDS, 'THAT ONES MEANING IS ONLY EVER IN THE MIND OF THOSE LISTENING.'
LISTEN TO YOURSELF, YOU'RE A FUCKING LOON, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY YOU'RE SO QUICK TO LABEL OTHERS AS ONE. THAT QUOTE WAS BORN OF A SELFISH LUNATIC, OR ONE THAT DIDN'T THINK IT THROUGH.

But I have thought about it long and hard and its why my thought is more nuanced than the understanding you have of what my quote means. As I make a distinction between thoughting and thinking and their relationship to meaning and language. So a thought is the ability to reuse, mainly due to memory, the representations that our senses give us, its the ability to combine or juxtapose, images, smells, 'feelings'(essentially touch) and sounds into new combinations devoid from their original cause, essentially the old British Empiricists and Descartes idea of clear and distinct ideas based upon sensation. Thinking, is the use of a preferred representation to 'thought' with and, in the main, its sound in the form of language, i.e. most think by 'hearing' themselves speak in their head, but some prefer images or feelings to do this, either way the result is that the same issues that apply to language communication apply to this way of thinking, i.e. that there is no inherent objective meaning in words, they are arbitrarily chosen signs to represent our thoughts. As such there is no necessary connection between the meaning we intend when we use them and the meaning that is constructed from them by the listener therefore when communicating our meaning its an ongoing process of feedback until agreement is met that at the least both understand what the issue is. So I agree that the meaning of ones thoughts is ones own, its that when one uses language to represent them then its thinking and this involves the meaning that necessarily involves two not one. This also raises another issue and thats that people commonly forget or don't understand that meaning in language is constructed this way and as such when they think to themselves they think they are actually having a thought, and whilst I admit that they are in the sense that the words invoke images, sounds, etc, I think there is a danger in assuming that ones actually thought the matter out. To do this one should then attempt to construct a thought about the meaning to check if the words fit.

Its because of these thoughts and thinks that I think you must spend a lot of time in confrontation with others when you speak.

YOU'RE A WHACK JOB, SWEETIE.

AND NO, YOU REQUIRE CAPS SO YOU'LL FINALLY GET IT. HOPEFULLY. I'M NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND BEAT THIS INFO INTO YOUR PEA SIZED BRAIN. YOU KEEP THIS SILLY GIRLY CRAP UP AND I'LL IGNORE YOUR SILLINESS, INSTEAD VYING FOR A BLANKET STATEMENT, AS TO YOUR ABSURDITY. WHILE THE COMMUNICATION BIT WAS GOOD, IT'S SURELY NOT REFLECTED IN THAT QUOTE OF YOURS. IT WOULD SEEM YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN EDUCATION, AS YOU SPIT OUT SUCH STUPID QUOTES.

On the whole most of the above is you talking to yourself. I could care less about the format you use as to me as it just displays, to me, your emotional instability. That and your gender misogyny and that you appear to have no free-will as this is the third time you've made such statements. That you don't understand the quote is your loss and no skin of my nose, it also explains to me why, I guess, you often fall into rancour with your interlocutors.

Arising_uk wrote:

Godfree wrote:Spelling , now we have a very good example of your arrogance , ...

Do we? I'm always amazed that people take offense at having their knowledge of their language corrected. For myself I have a problem at times with "to" and "too" and take no offense when others correct my usage as its called learning. When I started my first degree I was woefully unprepared grammatically and if it wasn't for my tutor correcting my work and offering advice I'd never have improved my written communications enough to get a good pass.

this sin't speculation ,Neandertol is alive and well , it's us ,
we have Neandertol DNA in us ,
is that what you understand ,
you seem to be suggesting the jury is still out on this ,
totally wrong , done and dusted , this is fact . !!!

I'm not disagreeing that it appears that all the 'races' apart from the sub-saharan blacks appear to have Neandertal DNA, this means the Oriental has this DNA as well. I'm questioning your idea that this makes us a Neandertal when that lineage has died out and that this is why there are whites. I'm also questioning that its a settled matter about how this occurred as there appear to be two camps, one that its interbreeding or two thats its a shared common ancestor. As the articles I linked to, which you've apparently not bothered to read, give good accounts of issues about both matters and with respect to the idea of them giving us a 'white gene' the not inconsiderable one that they died out long before this occurred.[/quote,

Caucasian includes Asians , Maori ,North American Indian ,
as you pointed out the only ones that don't are what they have been calling modern man ,?
the smaller brain , Neandertol had the bigger brain ,
Here in NZ the Europeans happily mixed and interbred with the Maori ,
All NZ Europeans do not have Maori DNA , only some of us , probably less than half ,
so Neandertol didn't just get a few black partners from Africa ,
for us all to have the Neandertol DNA means there was a mixing of the two groups
for a long period of time , ,
I had a look at one of the websites you posted which is why I concluded your challenging ,
my claim that we are Neandertol and seem to be still trying to portray them as separate ,
as something different , I see them about as different as modern Africa ,
and modern European , there is still a difference ,
Africans have a few DNA differences to Europeans , they are just as different now as they were then ,
it's all us , we are those cave men hunter gatherers , etc ,
the idea that man and the primates are not related is over ,
they can't claim that anymore with any credibility ,
thats the whole point of pointing out that we have Neandertol DNA ,
not to see if I can get a "pass" from you for my punctuation ,
but to make the point that religion can no longer claim we are seperate ,,!!!

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:so ,,,,a galaxy moving away should have the same light as the others ,,
how can science claim both ,,???
that the red shift is caused by movement , and light remains constant regardless ,,???

Just on this point Godfree, you are probably familiar with a sound analogy. If you have ever heard a fire engine go past, you will have noticed the pitch and frequency of the dee-dahs rise as it approaches and fall as it passes. The sound still reaches you at the speed of sound though.

Two totally different experiments , sound is not light and they behave differently ,
I am fully aware of what they call the dopler effect ,
I have Carl Sagans" The Cosmos" , and he talks at length about the dopler effect ,
that was my point when a car goes by the sound waves are being compressed as it approaches ,
and stretched as it goes away ,low sounds have a slow pulse and travel slower through the atmosphere ,
sound travels at different speeds , a high frequency can be like a beam of light , very fast ,
we see the lightening and later the boom , the speed of sound is a variable ,
light is not supposed to be a variable , according to Einstein ,,??
So answer me this if you can ,
If the red shift is caused by movement ,
why don't we see the odd one out at say , 14 or 15 billion light years ,
a galaxy that had a near miss and was flung off in the wrong direction , towards us ,
in the vastness of space this must have occurred a few times,
why do we not see these rogue galaxies , going against the grain ,,???

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I mean how dense are you? I'm through with your, ignorance bred condescension.

Not as dense as a person who still insists Tolstoy is Socrates. Ignorance abounds eh!

No, rather a large part of your ignorance, is that you can't see 'parallels,' so as to understand points, as contrasted by them. In other words I see that all your knowledge is simply memory, of that which your education programmed into you, making you much like a parrot. And that you really didn't understand most of it, in order for you to take from it, what you need, to devise your own understanding of things. In yet other words, if no one tells you the way it is, you'll have no clue on your own.

Just a wee point for you fellows , I like a good scrap , and we should feel free to express ourselves freely ,
however if your insults reach the point that there is nothing being discussed anymore ,
and it is just an exchange of insults ,
for who's benefit are you posting , is this just for your entertainment ,
do you have no desire to say something of value ,??
because lets be honest , post after post of you two insulting each other ,
quite apart from the fact that it doesn't contribute to the thread theme ,
is rather boring to read , your both intelligent ,
but your having a pretty dumb conversation ..!!