Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 05:05:44 +0000
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>
 <1827fedfb2a96849$279168$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:05:46 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1827fedfb2a96849$279168$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <wJGcncrEbdi12Vz6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-YS1EAnvGRr78z8U2MwQdj8reQ6GxNWRXG7pYJdsspkt03nIv0EOUejACJ4Mh4Lwg1MMhg4NpAIh/XcS!VKGFp8NVsuYz/avPR/yfMBwW2d0dR7itB2nlngMxj34KgG+9USCQV0b92f5E0lsaOPb1vfDH9w8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4540

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", with regards to the
inter-subjective, which philosophers of science
ascribe to science, and philosophers in metaphysics
connect with a merest teleology, a silver thread,
contemplations and deliberations on de res, de re,
de ratio, de natura, providing a stronger mathematical
platonism for a stronger logicist positivism.

Then, personal objectivism, where, you know, you
are real and the rest of the world is a figment,
is a usual phase of usual deeply and comprehensively
thinking being in the maturation of their philosophy.

Unfortunately, some never reach it, some never leave
it, and some just vacillate.

Yet, there are others, that there is one at all.

Anyways the inter-subjective is incompatible
with naive narcissism.

It's understood that others can understand what
that is, relayable, and relayed.

Anyways, yeah, if you're a real thinking being,
then at some point the world does revolve around you.
You can always keep that belief you believed.

Others needn't.


Anyways neither Steady State nor Big Bang is falsifiable.
Furthermore, the modern sky survey does not point at
the old Big Bang theory, and every few years the Universe
gets hundreds of millions of years older.

.... Than what the old theory was, as it's been falsified.
I.e., "the most recent", if not "the current", theory, say.


Also if your logic has material implication it's wrong.