Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

On 02/27/2025 11:09 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 28.02.2025 o 06:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 02/26/2025 11:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 27.02.2025 o 05:26, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>

Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift
distance
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the universe.

>
Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
the observable universe?

>
He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the
universe ;)
(even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility)

>
>
Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>
>
THE CENTRAL POINT
A philosophistry
>
I am the Universe's Centre.
No subtle sceptics can confound me;
for how can other viewpoints enter,
when all the rest is all around me?
>
>
Hard to argue with that,
>
Jan
>

>
"I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>
is a line from a song with these lines:
>
"When I was three /
I thought the world revolved around me /
I was wrong."
>
Infant
>
Objectivism is a maturity phase in the

>
There is no such thing and the truth "objective"
is  combined from subjective ones by voting.
>

>
The inter-objective is a prime goal in the
matters of true "truth"

>
There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
"objective" is  combined from subjective ones by
voting.
>
Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
understanding the words and the rules of the
language the statement is written in.
Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
programmed  computers) - nothing has the
ability. So, if human brains together
decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
>
And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
the way we speak instead.
>

>
Comenius has named for him a language of all
the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
and idealism and the analytical tradition are
two different things, together, one thing.
>
There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius
he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
and it's very much so that both idealism and the
analytical tradition get combined.
>
The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
help thoroughly relay that a "real realist" position
in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
inference by itself works fine in closed categories
or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.
>
So, finitists: are considered, you know, a bit absent.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKnZUg9jPf0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=11
>
>
"Logos 2000: philosophical theory"
>
Better than your usual, ....
>