Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm When I think of the word "universe," I generally go by the standard definition of the universe that the astrophysicists use.

You know, the one derived from the "Big Bang" theory which (right or wrong) suggests that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, all of the phenomenal features of this dimension of reality we find ourselves held within, was once smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ],...
...but now exists as a bubble-like phenomenon o that is approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, and whose "outer film," so to speak is a light barrier of which nothing that we call "matter" can move beyond.

You seem to be referring to what said astrophysicists call the visible universe, not what they call the universe.

Thank you for POINTING OUT the OBVIOUS.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm The latter was never a small dot.

How do you KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm The former indeed cannot have matter exit it,

HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm but matter (and light) does cross in from the outside. This is opposed to our event horizon which no matter can cross in, but stuff moves out all the time.

I thought one would claim that 'stuff' moves 'into', or 'crosses over', the 'event horizon', from which NO 'stuff' NOR 'thing', including even light is said to NOT be able to come 'out' of.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm Given that definition, we can attempt to parse this:

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

You propose adding a lot of visible universe spheres to 'reality', which is needless since they're already there. The visible universe would be no bigger due to this since none of the new stuff would be visible, being too far away, as it already is.

Obviously, the so-called 'visible universe' can, and does, only get so-called 'bigger' when and with the advancements in telescopes ability to 'see' further.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm I don't see how any of this description involves requiring 'room' or occupation of what otherwise would be this 'nothingness'. Expansion isn't an increase in the size of the universe, even if the current size of the visible universe is a function of the expansion rate.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm
Right, and that's because according to the above mentioned "Big Bang Theory," the material universe is a finite bubble of reality that is delineated by a finite boundary of light that, again, is only approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

Umm, no. Citation needed. There is no bound to the universe, and there is stuff at any arbitrary distance you specify, say 36.7 teraparsecs away.

I mean, either it (the material universe) began 13.8 billion years ago as a point particle [ . ] (or a singularity, or whatever) and then allegedly "expanded" to its present - (and limited) - diameter of 93 billion light years,...

...or the Big Bang theory is wrong (which is possible).

Given that you are using 'material universe' to mean 'visible universe' (carrying some weird implication that there is no material beyond that diameter which we happen by fantastic coincidence to be at the exact center of), that's sort of a reasonable statement.

Now, of course, there could be other universes (other bubbles of reality) besides our finite little universe. In which case, we would no longer be speaking of a "uni-verse," and instead need to use the term "multi-verse."

That's not the term that astrophysicists use for it, but sure. Tegmark labeled exact that as a Level-I multiverse. Levels II, III, and IV are different kinds. Each location in spacetime (event) defines a visible universe, and the collection of all these, with all the overlaps, constitutes the Level-I multiverse.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

If not absolute and infinite "nothingness," or, perhaps, infinite "void,"...

No valid theory suggests anything like that, no matter what you call it. There is no 'whatever' that needs to make room for expanding space. Space is not contained by some deeper space by some other name. Really, you need to pony up citations for these outlandish claims.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm No valid theory suggests anything like that, no matter what you call it. There is no 'whatever' that needs to make room for expanding space. Space is not contained by some deeper space by some other name.

You are mistakenly conflating the "somethingness" of the space that comprises the "fabric of spacetime," which underpins and binds the bubble of our universe together into one seamless whole, with that of what I am calling "absolute nothingness."

They are not the same.

And, yes, one can indeed (and does) contain the other.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm Really, you need to pony up citations for these outlandish claims.

You asked me for my definition of the word "universe," to which I simply referred to the definition implicit in the Big Bang Theory.

Do you need a "citation" for the "Big Bang Theory"?

If so, then it should come as no surprise that when asked...

"...What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the universe began?..."

LOL
LOL
LOL

What kind of person would ALREADY BELIEVE that the Universe 'began', to then even ASK,

'What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the Universe began?'

The REASON WHY some people BELIEVE that the Universe 'began' is BECAUSE they FIRST BELIEVE, or PRESUME, that the 'big bang theory' is accurate and correct.

There is NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF 'evidence' NOR 'proof' that the Universe, Itself, 'began'. So, AGAIN, what sort of person would ASK;

What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the Universe began?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am ...Google's AI Overview stated the following:

The most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang Theory," which proposes that the universe began as a tiny, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and cooled, creating the space, time, and matter we observe today; this event is estimated to have occurred around 13.8 billion years ago.

Now, simple common sense would suggest that something that began from an "extremely dense point"...

LOL 'These people' AND 'these artificial intelligence machines' are BLIND to the Fact that one would have to HAVE ACTUAL PROOF that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN, BEFORE it was even SLIGHTLY LOGICAL TO ASK the QUESTION,

What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the universe began?

Does ANY one or ANY machine HAVE ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN, let alone ANY ACTUAL 'proof', itself?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am (of which I was trying to represent with my little dot [ . ] analogy)

...that then expands into a bubble of reality that is estimated to be 93 billion light years in diameter, has a definitive and "leading edge" to it,...

(again, a metaphorical "outer film" that delineates the overall shape of the bubble)

...that, by logical deduction, can only be as big as its 13.8 billion years of existence has allowed it to grow.

Now, if it is possible that the bubble has grown to a point to which our most advanced technology is simply not capable of viewing the leading edge of the expanding bubble, and, thus, we can only see what lies on this side of what we call an "event horizon,"...

There ARE SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS being MADE, here. And, with NOT A shred of ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND PROOF for ABSOLUTELY ANY one of them.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am ...it doesn't change the fact that by reason of what the BBT implies, a leading edge to the bubble of our particular universe must indeed exist, and "something" on the other side of that leading edge is forever "making room" for this growing bubble of reality.

LOL So, 'by reason' of what is IMPLIED, an IMPOSSIBLE THING MUST, INDEED, EXIST.

LOL you make me LAUGH, here, "seeds".

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am Do you deny the veracity of the Big Bang Theory?

LOL What 'this one' is ASKING, here, IS; Do you deny the PRESUMPTIONS being MADE of A THEORY?

OF COURSE NO one could LOGICALLY DENY what is being SAID and/or CLAIMED WITHIN A THEORY. But, OBVIOUSLY, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF the word 'THEORY' ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing being SAID and WRITTEN WITHIN A THEORY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Are you DENY the VERACITY of this Fact?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am If you do, then tell me your preferred alternative.
_______

Well there IS the ONE alternative of what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, which, by the way, IS ALSO the IRREFUTABLE ALTERNATIVE.

WHICH, if you are, STILL, UNSURE, IS, that the Universe, Itself, NEVER BEGAN and IS NEVER EXPANDING.

And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to ALSO SEE and OBTAIN the IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF and FOR this Fact, then, by all means, let 'us' have A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION, here.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:12 am

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am You are mistakenly conflating the "somethingness" of the space that comprises the "fabric of spacetime," which underpins and binds the bubble of our universe together into one seamless whole, with that of what I am calling "absolute nothingness."

The latter is something you are making up. I deny it, meaning I cannot be conflating it with what you call the fabric of spacetime.

You asked me for my definition of the word "universe," to which I simply referred to the definition implicit in the Big Bang Theory.

And then you used a different definition, for which I gave the actual name used.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 amDo you need a "citation" for the "Big Bang Theory"?

I want a citation for this strange claim of some sort of nothingness that the 'fabric of spacetime' apparently moves into as it grows. None of that is consistent with consensus theory. It puts a bound to where the matter is, and that much mass cannot expand in a finite area. The curvature of gravity wouldn't allow it. The universe (your definition) would be smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius which is a recipe for the end of time, not the beginning of it.

If so, then it should come as no surprise that when asked...

"...What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the universe began?..."

I have news. The Big Bang theory isn't it. It's only a theory of how it subsequently evolved from the earliest states, but it says nothing about 'how it began'.

I notice google AI got that wrong too. No surprise there.

'Artificial intelligence', after all, can only 'put out' what has been 'put in', to them, by human beings.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:12 am

...Google's AI Overview stated the following:

The most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang Theory," which proposes that the universe began as a tiny, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and cooled, creating the space, time, and matter we observe today; this event is estimated to have occurred around 13.8 billion years ago.

Now, simple common sense would suggest that something that began from an "extremely dense point"...

I bolded the blatantly wrong bits. A small initial universe would only make sense if the universe was finite in size, but only the visible universe is finite in size.

(again, a metaphorical "outer film" that delineates the overall shape of the bubble)

There's no film, no place anything can be with matter on one side and not on the other. That would be a boundary. There's is no solution to the field equations that involve such a boundary.

...that, by logical deduction, can only be as big as its 13.8 billion years of existence has allowed it to grow.

And yet you said 93 diameter, which is BTW the diameter of the visible universe, but the universe (and not just the part thus designated) has no diameter.

Now, if it is possible that the bubble has grown to a point to which our most advanced technology is simply not capable of viewing the leading edge of the expanding bubble, and, thus, we can only see what lies on this side of what we call an "event horizon,"...

We can see objects that are now well beyond our event horizon. What limits what we see is our past light cone, which is considerably inside that event horizon. The event horizon is a completely different thing than what you describe. Light from outside that horizon will never reach us given unlimited time. It has nothing to do with what we see now. The horizon is an artifact of accelerating expansion. Without that acceleration, light from any distance would eventually get here.

Do you deny the veracity of the Big Bang Theory?

I deny your naive understanding of it. I prefer the actual theory. Wiki has a reasonable description, far better than the nonsense you're getting from AI, probably the worst possible source for stuff like that.

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin: ...studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.

I know this OP is 4.4 years old and that uwot hasn't been seen in half that time, but Laughlin seems to be deliberately misleading.
Like the 'piece of window glass' that Laughlin references, the aether has always carried an implcation of there being a preferred local frame in which it is stationary, which is not the case at all with general relativity.

To my understanding, most aether theories prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment implied a local frame, albeit one the size of the universe. Michelson-Morley showed that Earth is not drifting through any such aether, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a "relativistic ether", to use Laughlin's words. It comes down to ontology, which some physicists take seriously, some ignore and others treat with contempt. The question of whether the universe and/or the subatomic particles that make up the tangible bits of it are actually made of something, is philosophical; the answer doesn't make any difference to the physics nor the maths.
I (had a few philosophy papers published) don't think Laughlin (won the Nobel prize for physics) is deliberately misleading; I just think his window analogy is a bit crap. What particle accelerators show is not that particles can be liberated from some stuff with mechanical properties, but they can be created in it. If we imagine a duck pond, Laughlin's presentation is akin to throwing a rock in and creating a splash. What I think Laughlin should be saying is that we are in the duck pond, and if we throw things about in it, we create whirlpools and eddies. It is this idea that forms part of The Ealing Interpretation: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

Incidentally Noax, I modified the section on relativity in the light of some of your criticisms. So thanks for that.

After a hundred years of (hopeless) attempts to improve theoretical physics based on GTR - no BB (big bang), but BoC (beginning of causality) / BoT ( beginning of time / BoR (bang of reason:), please….

Whut?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:44 pm After a hundred years of (hopeless) attempts to improve theoretical physics based on GTR - no BB (big bang), but BoC (beginning of causality) / BoT ( beginning of time / BoR (bang of reason:), please….

The idea that reality (that is, what we can measure or otherwise confront) is infinitely fine (smooth) is foolish. It can easily lead us to an even more foolish idea, that for example part of an electron is already frozen in the past and part is still "alive" (quantum active). Nobody has ever measured anything like that, because time and space (that is, the aether) is Planck-grained.
Or such a "black hole", it could not "collapse", because its essential part would be already frozen in the past. Or can we change the past?
Continuous space-time is just an idea - a mathematical extrapolation of reality (of aether) which apparently does not work in the microworld:(

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 11:16 am …
The idea that reality (that is, what we can measure or otherwise confront) is infinitely fine (smooth) is foolish. It can easily lead us to an even more foolish idea, that for example part of an electron is already frozen in the past and part is still "alive" (quantum active). Nobody has ever measured anything like that, because time and space (that is, the aether) is Planck-grained.
Or such a "black hole", it could not "collapse", because its essential part would be already frozen in the past. Or can we change the past?
Continuous space-time is just an idea - a mathematical extrapolation of reality (of aether) which apparently does not work in the microworld:(

Another dubious physical tool, model, is the Minkowski metric. Why on earth should gravity propagate at the same speed as light? Both types of waves certainly face different obstacles and are mediated and generated by different mechanisms. And the idea that their speed should not depend on the speed of the accompanying, supporting medium (the aether) defies all experience. Or such stupidity as the cone of the future. Is it perhaps clear in advance when and where all the neutrons will decay?

just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

that might really suck...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:36 am just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin: ...studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.

I know this OP is 4.4 years old and that uwot hasn't been seen in half that time, but Laughlin seems to be deliberately misleading.
Like the 'piece of window glass' that Laughlin references, the aether has always carried an implcation of there being a preferred local frame in which it is stationary, which is not the case at all with general relativity.

To my understanding, most aether theories prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment implied a local frame, albeit one the size of the universe. Michelson-Morley showed that Earth is not drifting through any such aether, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a "relativistic ether", to use Laughlin's words. It comes down to ontology, which some physicists take seriously, some ignore and others treat with contempt. The question of whether the universe and/or the subatomic particles that make up the tangible bits of it are actually made of something, is philosophical; the answer doesn't make any difference to the physics nor the maths.

And, 'the answer', which is VERIFIABLE and PROVABLE, is ALSO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, AS WELL.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am I (had a few philosophy papers published) don't think Laughlin (won the Nobel prize for physics) is deliberately misleading; I just think his window analogy is a bit crap. What particle accelerators show is not that particles can be liberated from some stuff with mechanical properties, but they can be created in it. If we imagine a duck pond, Laughlin's presentation is akin to throwing a rock in and creating a splash. What I think Laughlin should be saying is that we are in the duck pond, and if we throw things about in it, we create whirlpools and eddies. It is this idea that forms part of The Ealing Interpretation: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

But, be forewarned, the so-called 'ealing interpretation' has False, and just plain Wrong, claims within it.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am Incidentally Noax, I modified the section on relativity in the light of some of your criticisms. So thanks for that.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 11:16 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:44 pm After a hundred years of (hopeless) attempts to improve theoretical physics based on GTR - no BB (big bang), but BoC (beginning of causality) / BoT ( beginning of time / BoR (bang of reason:), please….

The idea that reality (that is, what we can measure or otherwise confront) is infinitely fine (smooth) is foolish.

Well I suggest that if 'this' is IRREFUTABLY True, AND Right, then just STOP HAVING 'this idea'.

Is there ANY one, here, who is HAVING 'this idea'?

If no, then "cervany" is the ONLY one bringing UP 'this idea', and then, laughingly, 'trying to' dispute, counter, or refute 'this idea'.

But, 'this type of tactic' is USED, here, in this forum, by others AS WELL. "bigmike" is a PRIME example of 'this way' of DISCUSSING things, here.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am It can easily lead us to an even more foolish idea, that for example part of an electron is already frozen in the past and part is still "alive" (quantum active).

So, AGAIN, I WILL SUGGEST you JUST STOP HAVING SUCH 'ideas'.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am Nobody has ever measured anything like that, because time and space (that is, the aether) is Planck-grained.

LOL Talk ABOUT HAVING, and SHARING, VERY FOOLISH 'ideas', here.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:52 am Or such a "black hole", it could not "collapse", because its essential part would be already frozen in the past. Or can we change the past?
Continuous space-time is just an idea - a mathematical extrapolation of reality (of aether) which apparently does not work in the microworld:(

Okay. If you SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, right?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 8:27 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 11:16 am …
The idea that reality (that is, what we can measure or otherwise confront) is infinitely fine (smooth) is foolish. It can easily lead us to an even more foolish idea, that for example part of an electron is already frozen in the past and part is still "alive" (quantum active). Nobody has ever measured anything like that, because time and space (that is, the aether) is Planck-grained.
Or such a "black hole", it could not "collapse", because its essential part would be already frozen in the past. Or can we change the past?
Continuous space-time is just an idea - a mathematical extrapolation of reality (of aether) which apparently does not work in the microworld:(

Another dubious physical tool, model, is the Minkowski metric. Why on earth should gravity propagate at the same speed as light? Both types of waves certainly face different obstacles and are mediated and generated by different mechanisms. And the idea that their speed should not depend on the speed of the accompanying, supporting medium (the aether) defies all experience. Or such stupidity as the cone of the future. Is it perhaps clear in advance when and where all the neutrons will decay?

So, what IS ACTUALLY TRUE and RIGHT TO you, here, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:22 am So, what IS ACTUALLY TRUE and RIGHT TO you, here, EXACTLY?

For me, it's important to use your brain and doubt. I've probably already tried to express my fundamental objections and disillusionment with the century-long development of physics. You don't expect physics to be saved by a retired software designer who starts convincing thousands of (perhaps only) "comfortable" scientists that it somehow doesn't fit and that if they have there divergences (BB, BH), something must be wrong?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 10:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 4:22 am So, what IS ACTUALLY TRUE and RIGHT TO you, here, EXACTLY?

For me, it's important to use your brain and doubt.

Okay, but 'this' is only just what is 'important', TO you.

In case you MISSED, or MISUNDERSTOOD, the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I POSED, and ASKED, you, the QUESTION ASKED, 'What is TRUE and RIGHT, TO you, EXACTLY?' The QUESTION did NOT ASK, 'What is IMPORTANT, TO you'.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 10:13 am I've probably already tried to express my fundamental objections and disillusionment with the century-long development of physics.

EITHER you HAVE, ALREADY, or you HAVE NOT, 'tried to express your fundamental objections and disillusionment', here. SO, WHY did you SAY and WRITE the 'probably' word for, EXACTLY?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 10:13 am You don't expect physics to be saved by a retired software designer who starts convincing thousands of (perhaps only) "comfortable" scientists that it somehow doesn't fit and that if they have there divergences (BB, BH), something must be wrong?

What one human being did for a so-called 'job', did not do, or never had a 'job' has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL on absolutely ANY thing, here.

If you think or BELIEVE that you KNOW what is ACTUALLY TRUE and RIGHT, here, then, PLEASE, just EXPRESS 'this', so that 'we' can have MORE or ANEW knowledge/information to LOOK AT, and CONSIDER.

Now, OF COURSE the 'current', in the days when this is being written anyway, INTERPRETATION of 'physics' or of the 'physical world' is OBVIOUSLY Inaccurate, Incorrect, Wrong, and NOT YET FULLY COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD, by you human beings. And, what is JUST AS OBVIOUS IS WHERE, EXACTLY, you human beings INTERPRETATIONS ARE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect. But, while you human beings KEEP 'going on' as though you ALREADY KNOW what IS True AND Right you WILL KEEP MAKING the SAME MISTAKES, WILL KEEP MISSING what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, and WILL KEEP MISINTERPRETING things, HERE.

AGAIN, for those who ARE INTERESTED and would like to have A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION, where NEW and MORE ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Knowledge WILL COME-TO-LIGHT, then let 'us' JUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.