Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:39 pm

In the book it says:
"In a few nearby galaxies, like Andromeda, the fingerprint is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum.
But apart from those close neighbours, in the vast majority of more distant galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end."
Which is exactly what Atla is saying.

But that is EXACTLY NOT what "atla" IS saying at all. And this is the EXACT part, which I am saying IS IN CONTENTION.

How can you NOT see that what "atla" says is NOT the same as in the book?

What is 'preventing' and/or 'stopping' you from SEEING what the actual and real Truth of things here?

What do you THINK is the answer to what IS 'IT', which is PREVENTING and STOPPING you from LOOKING AT, DISCOVERING, and SEEING what I am addressing and SHOWING here, which is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS?

The ANSWERS should also be extremely OBVIOUS by now. I have told you the ANSWERS enough times ALREADY.

Which is what I wrote too.

But that what you state as being OBVIOUS, is OBVIOUS to ALL OF US. But what I am saying is OBVIOUS is NOT obvious to ALL OF YOU.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pmMaybe Age is going crazy about "vast majority".

Maybe "age" is or maybe "age" is NOT. Have you EVER contemplated just asking "age" for clarification?

ONCE AGAIN, instead of just asking a clarifying question, which would have produced the actual Truth by now, you make ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which delays the process even further. You STILL do NOT know what the ACTUAL answer is YET.

WHY is it so hard for human beings to just ask for clarity?

This ANSWER should be OBVIOUS by now.

Although the PART OF this ASSUMPTION, which is, now, RIGHT this is EXACTLY what IS IN CONTENTION with what "atla" has said.

"atla" stated: ONLY a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so VERY NEARBY galaxies are slightly blueshifted.

Whereas, in the book it states: In a few nearby galaxies, like Andromeda, the fingerprint is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum.
But apart from those close neighbours, in the VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end."

You then stated: Which is EXACTLY what Atla is saying.

"atla" states 'ONLY VERY NEARBY' whereas in the book it states 'VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT'. These two are OBVIOUSLY very VASTLY DIFFERENT VIEWS from each other and therefore are IN CONTENTION of each other, well, to me, this is OBVIOUS anyway.

"atla" has also stated: The book also explains that the farther galaxies are, the more redshifted they are.

Now, I must of MISSED it, if it does, but does the book actually state this and also explain it?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pm Yes, there are some blueshifted galaxies a little further away from us too,

Using 'minimizing' words, now, still does NOT take away the fact, which I have been pointing out. 'Vast majority of more distant' is very different from 'only very nearby'.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pmbecause we are breing drawn towards the centre of the Virgo supercluster. Look further than that and everything is redshifted.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am

Age wrote:I KNOW it is NOT because I like the sound of my own voice, ...

You could've fooled me what with all the SHOUTING all the time.

But it is NOT necessarily shouting.

Capitalization could be used to EMPHASIZE those particular parts of what I am ACTUALLY saying, and FROM what people THINK I am saying.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am

but I agree that we are not getting anywhere because it is more than just probable and most likely because I do NOT understand the idea of 'constructive criticism', from the perspective of what you and "others" understand it.

Would you care to help me understand just what exactly is the 'idea of constructive criticism'? How do you 'constructively criticize'? ...

A book? Well start with the typo's, then the grammar, then look for inconsistencies in the narrative thread, i.e. do some parts contradict others, then point out passages that seem confusing, etc.

Through clarifying questions to GRASP that I have the CORRECT message/understanding of what is being expressed, I then can proceed to explain EXACTLY WHERE the contradictions ARE. But until I am given OPEN and Honest answers, then I am NOT sure if I have the RIGHT interpretation of what is being expressed. As I have explained I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing, which includes what another is expressing.

For example is redshifting the ACTUAL evidence that people use to STATE that the Universe IS expanding, and if so, then is this the ONLY evidence they use?

What you don't do is question the whole premise based upon your own pet-theory as if this is the case then the answer is to go write your own book or rebuttal elsewhere as it is of no constructive use at all to the author.[/quote]

So, if some thing can be SHOWN, which shows how the author could better word and/or correct what they have written, then to you is that of NO constructive use at all to the author? The author of this book did say that they were "finishing off the new version of the book" AND "so ANY comments/criticisms will be gratefully received".

Also, by gaining clarity from authors of their written words about what they are ACTUALLY saying/expressing/meaning, then I can write what I want to say/express/mean better, also.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am

Maybe you have MISSED it BUT that is EXACTLY what I am in the process of doing. But first I NEED to LEARN how to communicate views/ideas BETTER, and to do this I want to understand what it is EXACTLY that people use to TRY TO "justify" their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And, what better way to do than to ask those who say and write that the Universe is 'getting bigger' what do they use as facts, which provides the evidence, that proves the ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS that they are now HOLDING? ...

You really need to learn to read and comprehend what others say without filtering it through your personal lens first.

Sounds like GREAT ADVICE.

This is exactly like what I say, which is; When LOOKING AT things, instead of LOOKING FROM the already held knowledge FIRST you were to LOOK FROM a Truly OPEN perspective, and then use that already held knowledge to VERIFY if what is been observed is actually True, Right, and/or Correct, then a MUCH Truer picture of things can be obtained, and obtained in a much quicker, simpler, and easier way.

So, when you look at the words I write, you instead of filtering them through your own personal lens first, and just LOOKED AT what I write from a Truly OPEN perspective,I would agree IS GREAT ADVICE.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 am Uwot has stated that his book is basically a dummies guide for the laymen as to what philosophically the Physicists have been saying and thinking with their theories and what they have been saying is evidence for their thoughts.

So what?

What are you TRYING TO get at?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am wanting to KNOW what it is that people who BELIEVE things, like that 'the Universe IS expanding', use to "justify" their BELIEFS. So, it does NOT matter if it is a very young child or the oldest human being on the planet that I question. If you, yourself, write some thing that is clearly what you BELIEVE to be the truth about things, then you will suffice also. But considering that I have now obtained more interest in this topic, and people's BELIEFS here are based on things, of which there is NO actual evidence for, then the more I could possibly LEARN, from the way people LOOK AT this topic.

If I know that the views and ideas I want to share are going to be INSTANTLY DISMISSED, just like the view and idea that the earth revolves around the sun was, then I first want to gauge the way those human beings who think they are "experts" will react, and what better place is there to find those kind of human beings who think that they are "experts" than in a 'philosophy forum'? See unlike that view/idea that the earth revolves around the sun, which could be proven with observable empirical evidence I am UNABLE to provide any actual observable evidence for my views/ideas on this topic, because of the distances involved.

Now if my clarifying questions were answered OPENLY and Honestly in the first few pages, then I would have the information about what are the so called "facts", which is what is used as "evidence" for the view/idea that they came to have that the Universe is expanding. I would also then have the exact "justifications" that these people now TRY TO use to support their BELIEF that the Universe REALLY IS expanding, which is what would REALLY be helping me to LEARN how to communicate with human beings MUCH BETTER.

Try imagining you are a human being first and then think about how you would like to be better communicated with.
You are basically trolling this thread and every other one you are on. Start your own thread stating what it is you believe to be the truth about things [/quote]

But I can NOT even get my most simplest message THROUGH to YOU, ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

How MANY times do I have say/express/tell you human beings that I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE things, BEFORE you begin to even COMPREHEND this?

What is the use of even starting off saying; "What I am expressing in this book are just views, which I have obtained from past experiences, which could be WRONG, or partly wrong. None of these views expressed in the book are believed to be true", when ALL the time you readers can NOT get it out of your head that I do NOT believe what I am expressing to be true?

You advice me to 'start my own thread stating what it is I BELIEVE to be the truth about things', EVEN AFTER I have explained countless times ALREADY that I do NOT believe any thing to be truth.

There is NO use even TRYING TO express what I just view, when in the back of the your reader's thinking there is a, sub-conscious, BELIEF that what I am expressing is BELIEVED to be the Truth about things. The fact is this could NOT be any further from the Truth.

People NEED to be completely OPEN to any view, especially a view which is expressing things like in this topic, which OBVIOUSLY can NOT proved with nor through observable empirical evidence, because of the distances involved.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 12:14 amand then see what the responses are rather than this endless SHOUTING that you KNOW the TRUTH as I don't know about the others but it's grating upon my ears and eyes.

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT have to grate upon your ears and eyes, but if you choose to continue to read, and listen, then you KNOW where the REAL blame lies.

Also, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I mean when I say 'I' KNOW the Truth of things. The 'I' is the collective of ALL of 'you'. "age" is just another one of 'you'. The 'I' only KNOWS the Truth of things, when ALL of 'you/us' are IN AGREEMENT.

By the way I want to start a thread but am just NOT ready yet. I want to obtain as much information about what people use as "evidence" so I know what to counter first. Who else better to gain the "evidence" for the 'expanding Universe' belief than from the author of a book who states that 'the Universe is getting bigger'? In the process I may also show some inconsistencies in the narrative thread, which by the way the author asked for ANY comment/criticism, anyway. For example if the author of a book, unintentionally, states that some distant galaxies are blue shifted but "others" state that NO distant galaxies are blue shifted, then I would like to know what the actual truth is so that I can better communicate my view in another thread. I like to gain what that actual truth is through asking clarifying questions, but because of the infrequency of getting replies to the ACTUAL questions I ask, this is taking far longer than is really necessary.

Age wrote:
Remember these are just numbers which can have no real bearing on facts and the maths is
only used AFTER the idea that the Universe IS expanding is well set into the BELIEF system

The numbers are facts themselves

The expansion of the Universe was first observed by Zwicky [ even though it is usually attributed to Hubble ] in I929
It was therefore based upon observation not on belief or assumption and the red shift of galaxies is evidence of this
Einstein falsely assumed that the Universe was static and Zwickys discovery that it was not disproved his assumption

Age wrote:
is redshifting the ACTUAL evidence that people use to STATE that the Universe IS expanding and if so then is this the ONLY evidence they use

Red shifting is the actual evidence that the Universe is definitely expanding as well as dark energy
As both are responsible for distant galaxies moving further away from the reference point of Earth

Age wrote:
For example if the author of a book unintentionally states that some distant galaxies are blue shifted but others state that NO distant galaxies
are blue shifted then I would like to know what the actual truth is so that I can better communicate my view in another thread

Red shift is for galaxies furthest away where the effects of gravity are less profound
Blue shift is for galaxies much nearer where the effects of gravity are more profound

This is why the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies for example will eventually collide with each other and form a single one
They are sufficiently close in cosmic terms to be in each others gravity well so therefore attract each other rather than repel

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:13 am

Age wrote:
Remember these are just numbers which can have no real bearing on facts and the maths is
only used AFTER the idea that the Universe IS expanding is well set into the BELIEF system

The numbers are facts themselves

But were "the" numbers introduced AFTER or BEFORE 'the expansion of the Universe' was said to be first observed in 1929?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:13 amThe expansion of the Universe was first observed by Zwicky [ even though it is usually attributed to Hubble ] in I929

So, the expansion of the Universe then became a fact, is this what you saying?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:13 amIt was therefore based upon observation not on belief or assumption and the red shift of galaxies is evidence of this

So it was the observation of the appearance of redshift, which is the fact, and the redshift, itself, which is the evidence that the Universe is said to be expanding. Is this correct?

And when were "the" numbers brought into the equation, and became the fact for the observation that the Universe is expanding?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:13 amEinstein falsely assumed that the Universe was static and Zwickys discovery that it was not disproved his assumption

Okay.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:24 am

Age wrote:
is redshifting the ACTUAL evidence that people use to STATE that the Universe IS expanding and if so then is this the ONLY evidence they use

Red shifting is the actual evidence that the Universe is definitely expanding as well as dark energy

And 'dark energy' is 'what' exactly?

And, how is dark energy used as evidence that the Universe is, now, DEFINITELY expanding?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:24 amAs both are responsible for distant galaxies moving further away from the reference point of Earth

Hang on, how can 'redshifting' be "responsible" for distant galaxies moving further away from earth?

Is 'redshifiting' some sort of energy source itself or have some sort of power on its own, which forces only distant galaxies to move further away from earth?

Or, is 'redshifting' more like just an appearance, which is observed through human made tools, and thus really is NOT at all 'responsible' for distant galaxies moving further away from earth, but what is just used as evidence that the Universe is expanding?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:42 am

Age wrote:
For example if the author of a book unintentionally states that some distant galaxies are blue shifted but others state that NO distant galaxies
are blue shifted then I would like to know what the actual truth is so that I can better communicate my view in another thread

Red shift is for galaxies furthest away where the effects of gravity are less profound
Blue shift is for galaxies much nearer where the effects of gravity are more profound

I thought redshift was indicating MOVEMENT away from earth, and, blueshift indicated MOVEMENT towards earth?

I did NOT think that the shifting of these two colors had much at all to do with the DISTANCE of things. This is what I had been previously indicated to me anyway.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:42 amThis is why the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies for example will eventually collide with each other and form a single one

Are you sure the reason for WHY these two galaxies are moving towards each other is because of the color of light seen by human beings, through a human made instrument?

Could there NOT be any other more reasonable explanation of WHY these two galaxies are moving together?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:42 amThey are sufficiently close in cosmic terms to be in each others gravity well so therefore attract each other rather than repel

Ah okay, now this is a much better reason for WHY these two galaxies are moving towards each other than redshifting was.

Red and/or blue shifting is just an appearance of WHAT could be happening and NOT the reason of WHY some thing could be happening. Is this correct?

By the way my quote here is in regards to one human being saying; ONLY VERY NEARBY galaxies are blueshifted, while another human being is saying that the VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT galaxies are redshifted.

Are you ABLE to see how these two perspectives OPPOSE each other?

To me, they are IN CONTENTION of each other so that is WHAT I am actually querying about here.

When all of these inconsistencies and contradictions, expressed by people here, are sorted out, then we can move on to exploring ALL of the
other inconsistencies and contradictions that I see are in the 'Universe is expanding' ASSUMPTION. 'But one step at a time', as they say.

Age wrote:
But were the numbers introduced AFTER or BEFORE the expansion of the Universe was said to be first observed in 1929

They came after expansion of the Universe was observed as empirical evidence is necessary to explain the mathematics

Age wrote:
By the way my quote here is in regards to one human being saying ONLY VERY NEARBY galaxies are blueshifted
while another human being is saying that the VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT galaxies are redshifted

There is no contradiction in these statements

Galaxies that are near to our own are blue shifted because the effect of gravity is stronger between them
While galaxies that are further away are red shifted because the effect of gravity is weaker between them
In fact the effect of gravity is so weak as to be non existent and is why they are receding further away from our own

Remember that the gravitational force of attraction between objects is dependent on their distance from each other
This is just as true for galaxies - which can be seen as a single entity - as it is for individual stars or planets or moons

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:54 pm

Age wrote:
By the way my quote here is in regards to one human being saying ONLY VERY NEARBY galaxies are blueshifted
while another human being is saying that the VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT galaxies are redshifted

There is no contradiction in these statements

What do you mean?

Can you really NOT see the contraction in these statements? (I really do NEED to learn how to communicate MUCH BETTER).

If the VAST MAJORITY of MORE DISTANT galaxies are redshifted, then that would mean ALL of the OTHER small amount of MORE DISTANT galaxies are blueshifted. WHICH, the other person says ONLY VERY NEARBY galaxies are blueshifted.

Can you now see what I am referring to?

Does this "redshift" in regards to further away, or more distant, galaxies apply to a VAST MAJORITY of those galaxies, or to ABSOLUTELY NONE of those galaxies?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:54 pmGalaxies that are near to our own are blue shifted because the effect of gravity is stronger between them
While galaxies that are further away are red shifted because the effect of gravity is weaker between them

Why is the effect of gravity stronger between galaxies, when they just happen to be closer to earth?
Why is the effect of gravity weaker between galaxies, when they just happen to be further away from earth?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:54 pmIn fact the effect of gravity is so weak as to be non existent and is why they are receding further away from our own

I thought they were receding away from us because the Universe is said to be expanding.

What EXACTLY is the reason why far away galaxies are receding away from us? Weak gravity OR Universe is expanding?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:54 pmRemember that the gravitational force of attraction between objects is dependent on their distance from each other

Okay thank you I will.

Did you have some reason to ASSUME that I had forgotten this?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:54 pmThis is just as true for galaxies - which can be seen as a single entity - as it is for individual stars or planets or moons

So to is the gravitational force of attraction between objects is true for galaxies as it is when you throw a ball up in the air.

So, on your advice, I will TRY TO remember the gravitational force of attraction between objects.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 1:37 pm

Age wrote:
But were the numbers introduced AFTER or BEFORE the expansion of the Universe was said to be first observed in 1929

They came after expansion of the Universe was observed as empirical evidence is necessary to explain the mathematics

What do you mean by 'empirical evidence'?

Because to some 'empirical evidence' is information acquired by observation or experimentation.

If this is the case, then to me your sentence here does NOT make sense.

This is how I read your sentence, BUT PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG:

The numbers came after the Universe was observed to be expanding, as the 'information observed' is necessary to explain the mathematics.

1. I thought mathematics might be necessary and used to help explain some observations, and NOT the other way around of observations being necessary to explain the mathematics. (Besides human beings is there any thing else that is necessary to explain mathematics? I would have thought numbers and mathematics, themselves, would be self-explanatory in explaining mathematics, just with a bit of help from human beings, themselves.

2. You have previously said that 'the red shift of galaxies is EVIDENCE of the expansion of the Universe' and that 'the numbers are facts themselves', But if the numbers came AFTER the observation of redshift and redshift is the EVIDENCE that the Universe is expanding, then the numbers would just help in explaining the rate of expansion and would NOT actually be the facts for the expansion of the Universe. The observation of redshift was ALREADY the "EVIDENCE" needed, which SHOWED that the Universe is expanding, which is now BELIEVED to be a true fact, by some people.

Age wrote:
Why is the effect of gravity stronger between galaxies when they just happen to be closer to earth
Why is the effect of gravity weaker between galaxies when they just happen to be further away from earth

The effect of gravity diminishes over distance so the further away two objects are from each other the less effective it is
And so galaxies closer to our own will have a stronger gravitational effect between them than ones that are further away

Age wrote:
What EXACTLY is the reason why far away galaxies are receding away from us

The expansion of the Universe is the reason as to why far away galaxies are receding away from our own
However this could not happen if there was any gravitational attraction between our galaxy and them
So its actually wrong to label it as weak gravity because actually there is no gravitational effect at all

Age wrote:
I thought mathematics might be necessary and used to help explain some observations and NOT the other way around

I should have explained that more clearly

The evidence comes first then the mathematics because evidence is the more important of the two
Evidence is the foundation upon which all of science rests and therefore comes before anything else