Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:14:37 +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> <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> <18298790b8302a94$379192$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <VKqcnf9TaZWOfFv6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <VKqcnf9TaZWOfFv6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 257
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder2.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 12:14:38 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 11267
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <18299890bbb7b7d6$379193$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>

W dniu 04.03.2025 o 12:16, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 03/03/2025 11:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========