Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 18:38:34 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <582d81a086d369cf0cd2e78d401de6ec@www.novabbs.com> <vparjj$3ints$1@dont-email.me> <cc6c5a5e40eb4f771dd12ce7ee558f16@www.novabbs.com> <4e287200afacf83d6a0412238f3e180a@www.novabbs.com> <vpf8kq$h0b0$3@dont-email.me> <vpg9a8$mn2j$1@dont-email.me> <67bdc531$0$28081$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <pkOdnbcj05T3dCL6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <67c1a0fb$1$11446$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <gLidnUciq9CDaVz6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <67c2e713$0$11432$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1828ad9f153d5033$379151$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <baacnWoeTP8Dt176nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <baacnWoeTP8Dt176nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 141
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 17:38:34 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 5113
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <1828be805fb37a5f$835514$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5478

W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> 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.
> 
> Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
> that sort of put together, best, then though
> there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
> we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.
> 
> 
> So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
> puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
> it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
> to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
> and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
> on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
> way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
> variables of the real wave equation", has that
> it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
> Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
> objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
> ideal, quite real.
> 
> 
> Axiomless natural deduction


No such thing again.



, a spiral-space-filling
> curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
> answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
> and so on: amicus Plato.
> 
> 
> Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
> and theory of science to go along with a merest
> teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
> together make a theory where foundation is
> pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.
> 
> 
> The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
> older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
> also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
> the sky survey continues, it makes an older
> Big Bang theory.
> 
> 
> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> 
> 
>