Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:03:06 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <582d81a086d369cf0cd2e78d401de6ec@www.novabbs.com> <gLidnUciq9CDaVz6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <67c2e713$0$11432$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1828ad9f153d5033$379151$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <baacnWoeTP8Dt176nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1828be805fb37a5f$835514$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <AO6dnc3UKaokEl76nZ2dnZfqnPjvyJ2d@giganews.com> <1828e949e46ee2f7$835527$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <VIucncp5Mb8zHVn6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <182908af1643691a$379155$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <7f2dnSxdlu0XF1n6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <18290c24fdef8604$299172$1488192$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <ZGWdnbwCaaepBVn6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <18291bc90834a776$835529$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <SdedncVS9pzmQVn6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <QbicnbnSgZP3bFj6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <18296b6de3a65dff$299187$1488192$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <mCSdnYTu7vUsxFv6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <mCSdnYTu7vUsxFv6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 226
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:03:06 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 10018
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <18298790b8302a94$379192$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>

W dniu 04.03.2025 o 02:38, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 03/03/2025 02:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 03.03.2025 o 19:14, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 03/02/2025 02:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 03/02/2025 02:08 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> W dniu 02.03.2025 o 18:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>> On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>>>> On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, Hegel has one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel has one what?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy had long arrived at that there
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
>>>>>>>>> There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
>>>>>>>>> Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
>>>>>>>>> game and it requires axioms, because without
>>>>>>>>> them the words are meaningless.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========