The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
The CMBR is isotropic.
Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.

For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large
local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one,
kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2025-02-21 21:54:12 UTC

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large
local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one,
kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?

For fun we could be logical and face the fact that a velocity-distance
relationship necessarily places us exactly at the center of the universe
making it obviously absurd nonsense.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2025-02-22 19:18:19 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

For fun, think if the "big bang" was nothing more than a very large
local explosion? Two super massive black holes finally merging into one,
kaaabooom! could be a candidate, perhaps?

For fun we could be logical and face the fact that a velocity-distance
relationship necessarily places us exactly at the center of the universe
making it obviously absurd nonsense.

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.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-02-23 13:46:23 UTC

Post by 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?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2025-02-23 21:00:55 UTC

Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of
the observable universe?

Paul, misconstruing is a tactic of ideologues and is deceitful and
stupid and obvious to everyone.

guido wugi

2025-02-23 23:00:23 UTC

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)

--
guido wugi

Thomas Heger

2025-02-24 07:31:43 UTC

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)

The universe has the topology of a large 'ball':

wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!

You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in direct
succession of the 'big-bang'.

So: how can we have such a universe?

Well there exists a book about this topic, which is nicely explained there

"On the Geometry of Time
in Physics and Cosmology"

by A.F. Meyer

https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html

or

https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/Cosmology23/docs/A06-afmayerBook2009.pdf

TH

guido wugi

2025-02-24 11:59:55 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger

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)

A "sphere", I suppose, the "shell" of a "ball".

Post by Thomas Heger
wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!
You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in
direct succession of the 'big-bang'.

The sphere would shrink (backwards) to a point. Yet I've seen also
"infinite" models, eg lines shrinking to a straight "big bang" line with
infinite density.

--
guido wugi

Maciej Wozniak

2025-02-24 12:09:19 UTC

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)

A "sphere", I suppose, the "shell" of a "ball".

The universe has no "topology" except the
one/ones we're assigning to it.

Ross Finlayson

2025-02-25 22:53:06 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger

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)

wherever you are, you are at the top position and in the exact center!
You can go wherever you want, you are still in the center and in direct
succession of the 'big-bang'.
So: how can we have such a universe?
Well there exists a book about this topic, which is nicely explained there
"On the Geometry of Time
in Physics and Cosmology"
by A.F. Meyer
https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/pages/book.html
or
https://www.sensibleuniverse.net/Cosmology23/docs/A06-afmayerBook2009.pdf
TH

Neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable,
though, over time, the sky survey of the visible
universe aging, has never falsified Steady State,
yet has falsified each the prevous existing models
of Big Bang.

(... without finding something like the toroid bounds.)

J. J. Lodder

2025-02-25 13:27:13 UTC

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

Ross Finlayson

2025-02-27 04:26:18 UTC

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
philosophical development, not the stopping
point, though it may engender what results
core strength of a sort of personal rationality.

Also "sophism" is seen by some as inherently
hypocritical and self-serving and un-ethical, even.

Though, some find that practical, ....

(Others don't)

Maciej Wozniak

2025-02-27 07:06:59 UTC

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, ...".
"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.

Ross Finlayson

2025-02-28 05:05:46 UTC

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, ...".
"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.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-02-28 07:09:15 UTC

Post by 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, ...".
"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"

There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
"objective" is combined from subjective ones by
voting.

Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
understanding the words and the rules of the
language the statement is written in.
Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
programmed computers) - nothing has the
ability. So, if human brains together
decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.

And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
the way we speak instead.

Ross Finlayson

2025-02-28 17:44:36 UTC

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, ...".
"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"

There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
"objective" is combined from subjective ones by
voting.
Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
understanding the words and the rules of the
language the statement is written in.
Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
programmed computers) - nothing has the
ability. So, if human brains together
decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
the way we speak instead.

Comenius has named for him a language of all
the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
and idealism and the analytical tradition are
two different things, together, one thing.

There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius
he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
and it's very much so that both idealism and the
analytical tradition get combined.

The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
help thoroughly relay that a "real realist" position
in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
inference by itself works fine in closed categories
or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.

So, finitists: are considered, you know, a bit absent.

"Logos 2000: philosophical theory"

Better than your usual, ....

Ross Finlayson

2025-02-28 18:07:19 UTC

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, ...".
"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"

There is no such thing, however, and and the truth
"objective" is combined from subjective ones by
voting.
Trying to determine whether a statement is "true"
or "false" - has no sense and no chance without
understanding the words and the rules of the
language the statement is written in.
Apart of a human brain (or, partially, human
programmed computers) - nothing has the
ability. So, if human brains together
decide it's true - there is nowhere to appeal.
And, BTW - these rules may change. So does truth.
Copernicus didn't discover the truth, he changed
the way we speak instead.

Comenius has named for him a language of all
the truth, much like for Plato there's ideals,
and idealism and the analytical tradition are
two different things, together, one thing.
There's Leibnitz of course and also after Comenius
he has this great idea that there's an ideal setting,
so scientism, after Compte, say, through Boole and
out into Russell then Carnap and logicist positivism,
the modern logicist position, Leibnitz has an ideal
and it's very much so that both idealism and the
analytical tradition get combined.
The idealist tradition may have been cast a bit
aside, yet philsophers of physics like d'Espagnat
help thoroughly relay that a "real realist" position
in physics, makes for that a continuum mechanics is
in effect real, and for that there is a real mathematical
continuum and a real mathematical infinity, after a
course of deductive analysis, since mere inductive
inference by itself works fine in closed categories
or the finite, yet FAILS as is well-known since Zeno.
So, finitists: are considered, you know, a bit absent.
http://youtu.be/LKnZUg9jPf0
"Logos 2000: philosophical theory"
Better than your usual, ....

"Descriptive differential dynamics: dogma, doubling"

Maciej Wozniak

2025-02-28 19:40:56 UTC