Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/02/2025 04:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

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

>
Piet Hein is never wrong,
>
Jan
>

>
In his own little world

>
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
>

Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
>
And not "not even wrong".

>
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

>
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
>
>
>

>
"Amicus Plato, finito"
>
>
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.

>
Great. Now derive the Theory of Everything,
without using empirical input of course,
>
Jan
>

 
Well, perhaps you might enjoy these hundred or so
hours of podcasts sort of doing that.
 
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Hundreds of hours of podcasts are never to be enjoyed.

Once it gets established that mathematics
from axiomless theory results axiomless geometry,

'axiomless geometry' is a contradiction in terms,

Jan