Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:44 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:33 am

But, you do not know if this is actually true, correct?

Yes, no, being 100% uncertain about everything is not viable obviously either.

But, you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that ABSOLUTELY NO one knows what is actually true, correct?

JUST MAYBE this one's CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here is JUST STARTING TO 'sink in', as some call it.

No I'm not, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:33 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:27 am It seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

Again, if you say so, but, then again, you do not know if this is actually true, anyway.

Also, take notice how on just about every occasion this one interacts with me, what it just about all ends up doing is exactly what it is doing here now.

This one can not and thus does not back up, support, nor substantiate its claims when I question and/or challenge it over its claims. For the very reasons I have ALREADY EXPLAINED.

'Who' should take notice? I have backed up, supported, substantiated my claims more than enough to others, and they largely agree about you, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

So, 'who' are these, apparent, 'others' that agree with you that it seems like 'I', literally, lack the half of the brain that would enable 'me' to realize 'this', exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:35 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:28 am
Exactly, that's why you shouldn't be here. It seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

But, and once again, you do not know if this is actually true.

It is like you can NOT comprehend that you do not know if it even actually 'seems like' this, let alone whether it is actually true, or not.

See, 'you', "atla", do not know what is actually true, ANYWHERE.

Again, 100% uncertainty isn't viable, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

BUT, you do not know if this is actually true.

Or, are you going to keep on CLAIMING that it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that 100% uncertainty is not viable, here?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:33 am

Again, if you say so, but, then again, you do not know if this is actually true, anyway.

Also, take notice how on just about every occasion this one interacts with me, what it just about all ends up doing is exactly what it is doing here now.

This one can not and thus does not back up, support, nor substantiate its claims when I question and/or challenge it over its claims. For the very reasons I have ALREADY EXPLAINED.

'Who' should take notice? I have backed up, supported, substantiated my claims more than enough to others, and they largely agree about you, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

So, 'who' are these, apparent, 'others' that agree with you that it seems like 'I', literally, lack the half of the brain that would enable 'me' to realize 'this', exactly?

Most people on the forum you interacted with see you as having some massive mental damage.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:35 am

But, and once again, you do not know if this is actually true.

It is like you can NOT comprehend that you do not know if it even actually 'seems like' this, let alone whether it is actually true, or not.

See, 'you', "atla", do not know what is actually true, ANYWHERE.

Again, 100% uncertainty isn't viable, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

BUT, you do not know if this is actually true.

Or, are you going to keep on CLAIMING that it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that 100% uncertainty is not viable, here?

You can't ask questions with 100% uncertainty.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:33 am
And that is exactly because, once again, you force us to talk about your seeming lack of half of your brain, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

So, this one starts an opening post with the words, What if the observable universe isn't expanding, to which all I more or less did was to just AGREE that that is 'random nonsense about expansion'. This one does NOT 'look at', and 'talk about', 'this', but rather prefers to 'look at', and 'talk about', 'me', INSTEAD. And, AGAIN.

Starting a sentence with the words, 'What if the observable universe is not expanding,', would be like starting a sentence with, 'What if the earth is flat.', or, 'What if the earth is in the center of the Universe'. There are, literally, NONSENSICAL.

you might as well start with, 'What if there was only nothing'.

From then on what would be said would be NONSENSICAL, AS WELL.

It is like you, REALLY, are MISSING some thing here "atla".

You're not saying anything here as usual, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

And, once again, you have just RESORTED to your usual tactic of just re-repeating the same thing over and over again when you are COMPLETELY UNABLE to back up, support, and substantiate 'your claim', which I am QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING you over.

But, OBVIOUSLY, and PROVABLE, this is just a 'tactic' you, literally, formed in your very young formative years, and which you, STILL, use in your much older years.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:42 am

So, this one starts an opening post with the words, What if the observable universe isn't expanding, to which all I more or less did was to just AGREE that that is 'random nonsense about expansion'. This one does NOT 'look at', and 'talk about', 'this', but rather prefers to 'look at', and 'talk about', 'me', INSTEAD. And, AGAIN.

Starting a sentence with the words, 'What if the observable universe is not expanding,', would be like starting a sentence with, 'What if the earth is flat.', or, 'What if the earth is in the center of the Universe'. There are, literally, NONSENSICAL.

you might as well start with, 'What if there was only nothing'.

From then on what would be said would be NONSENSICAL, AS WELL.

It is like you, REALLY, are MISSING some thing here "atla".

You're not saying anything here as usual, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

And, once again, you have just RESORTED to your usual tactic of just re-repeating the same thing over and over again when you are COMPLETELY UNABLE to back up, support, and substantiate 'your claim', which I am QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING you over.

But, OBVIOUSLY, and PROVABLE, this is just a 'tactic' you, literally, formed in your very young formative years, and which you, STILL, use in your much older years.

You haven't challenged anything I said, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

Now if you need to talk to someone so badly, talk to the mirror.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:45 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:44 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:38 am
Yes, no, being 100% uncertain about everything is not viable obviously either.

But, you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that ABSOLUTELY NO one knows what is actually true, correct?

JUST MAYBE this one's CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here is JUST STARTING TO 'sink in', as some call it.

No I'm not,

SO, you are, STILL, NOT YET SEEING and COMPREHENDING just how Truly CONTRADICTORY, HYPOCRITICAL, and SELF-REFUTING you are here.

But, this is not surprising AT ALL, especially considering just how many other things that you MISS, MISINTERPRET, MISUNDERSTAND, and COMPREHEND here.

It is like you, REALLY, have MISSED the Fact that you are ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO back up, support, and substantiate 'your claim' here.

Or, that, REALLY, 'deep down' you KNOW that you are ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO, and so are 'trying' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to 'try to' DEFLECT from this, here.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:45 am it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

Again, if this was seems like, to you, then this is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY, with me.

But, the Fact that you do NOT know even if the feeling or thought 'it seems like' is actually existing, is some thing that some people have ended up in 'mental institutions' for.

How come you do not even know if 'the thought', 'you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this', is existing within 'that head' "atla"?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:48 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am
'Who' should take notice? I have backed up, supported, substantiated my claims more than enough to others, and they largely agree about you, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

So, 'who' are these, apparent, 'others' that agree with you that it seems like 'I', literally, lack the half of the brain that would enable 'me' to realize 'this', exactly?

Most people on the forum you interacted with see you as having some massive mental damage.

So what?

Most of the people who interacted with 'the one' who was saying and claiming that the sun does not revolve around the earth as having some massive sort of damage, AS WELL.

Also, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that you do not know that this is actually true.

In fact, you do NOT even know if 'the thoughts', themselves, within 'that head' actually exist, let alone if they are actually true or not.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:48 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:40 am
Again, 100% uncertainty isn't viable, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

BUT, you do not know if this is actually true.

Or, are you going to keep on CLAIMING that it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that 100% uncertainty is not viable, here?

You can't ask questions with 100% uncertainty.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Now I, supposedly, can not even just 'ask questions' with (100%) certainty.

Also, what does this even MEAN, exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:43 am
You're not saying anything here as usual, it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

And, once again, you have just RESORTED to your usual tactic of just re-repeating the same thing over and over again when you are COMPLETELY UNABLE to back up, support, and substantiate 'your claim', which I am QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING you over.

But, OBVIOUSLY, and PROVABLE, this is just a 'tactic' you, literally, formed in your very young formative years, and which you, STILL, use in your much older years.

You haven't challenged anything I said,

But, you cannot even know if this is actually true, OBVIOUSLY.

Do you realize this?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:51 am it seems like you just literally lack the half of the brain that would enable you to realize this.

So, it, now, 'appears' that "atla" BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it has the 'part/s of the brain', which were, supposedly, needed to realize that I have NOT challenged ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, AT ALL, that "atla" has said.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 7:54 am Now if you need to talk to someone so badly, talk to the mirror.

Have you FORGOTTEN that you STARTED a thread, here, and which was, from the very outset, based upon ABSOLUTE NONSENSE?

Age, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post
Top
Age, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post
Top
Age, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post
Top
Age, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post
Top
Age, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post
Top

I repeat: if you need to talk to someone so badly, talk to the mirror.

I'm not often logged in here, but I notice no actual reply to this OP. Hope a month late is not too much.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:36 am What if the observable universe isn't expanding, but instead the total universe is a hyperspehrical space with a say roughly half-universe sized anti-matter black hole at the exact opposite point within the hypersphere from our perspective, roughly at an equal distance from us in every direction beyond the edge of the observable universe?

The cosmological constant needs to be something, meaning expansion is necessary for there to be a universe. If it isn't currently expanding, it was in the past, and we happen to be observing at its moment of largest size before it begins to contract to a big crunch. So we're at a privileged moment in time.
We're also at a privileged location in space since we're posited to be reasonably opposite this black hole.
All these preferred locations make it sound like the universe was created just for us. Just saying.

There's no such thing as an antimatter black hole. They have but three properties: mass, angular momentum, and charge. A hole created by mostly matter is therefore no different than one created by mostly antimatter. So why posit it since the argument doesn't seem to depend on it.

You're positing a large mass at the far end of the universe. Why does it need to be a black hole at all? Any large mass, however spread out, will produce an identical gravitational effect as a concentrated one, at least at a radius beyond the limits of the mass. In other words, if our sun was today compressed into a black hole, the planets would continue their current orbits with no change at all.

And after the "Big Bang", everything was flung out in every direction from that black hole

If it was at a black hole, the mass of the other material would increase its radius to include it. So no, the universe cannot have all the mass at one location spreading out into the empty part of the hypersphere. The big bang can not happen at a location in space, and you are seemingly trying to describe that.

and then about 5 billion years ago the gravity of the black hole overcame the inertia of the inital explosion and everything started falling back towards the black hole

The big distant mass would exert a greater pull in the past when it was closer. It cannot suddenly acquire more mass from nowhere. Also, the mass is beyond the visible universe, which means anything outside that radius cannot have an effect on us or anything we see. That's what visible universe means.

But then I guess the first problem that comes up is that the Hubble constant shouldn't be a linear constant but a quadratic constant

Yes, that's a problem. We see expansion happening slower the further we look, but in your model, further implies being closer to this imbalanced mass pulling it all away.

because the strength of gravity changes quadratically over distance.

Only in flat spacetime, which this isn't. It is even worse than quadratic since it has zero effect near our privileged location since it pulls in all directions more or less equally.

Keep in mind that the Hubble constant is not a constant. It can be crudely expressed as 1/T where T is the age of the universe, and that means that it is a function of time, being far larger in the past.