So now we have a fourth proposed “first theorist” … interesting. I wonder if there is a fifth.
The major problem that I see is that they are all presuming and basing the theory merely on redshift which can be explained in many other ways of which they were not familiar at that time. They all accepted that the Doppler effect concept was the only possible excuse for red shifting.
Similar is true of the CBR. They attribute CBR to the Big Bang, but there is a far more provable excuse for it. And frankly, I never have gotten a clear understanding of how they connect the CBR to the Big Bang other than by publicity inference.
If the conclusions based on an observation ‘make no sense’, then something is wrong with the observer.
How could an ancient observer suggest, that the earth is flat, when you see the ship mast or the top of a tree first?
How could one claim, that the universe revolved around the earth, when is was obvious to the ancients, that it wasn’t?
I do not believe in the Big bang and the expanding universe.
They just make no sense!
The Big bang is creationism in a scientific disguise, while the expanding universe puts us in the center once again.
The only thing expanding with the speed of light is TIME.
The further you look into space, the further you look back in time.
The older the image we see, the bigger the difference between the current time and the age of the image.
What if the shift is caused by the time differential?
The longer the image spent in ‘transit’, the greater the shift.
Not according to quantum physics. In quantum physics, if your observations imply something irrational, it is because reality is irrational. Quantum physics supports mind over matter and indeterminable magic.
Exactly.
They compensate for that in their calculations. But they do not eliminate other alternatives.
How does one resolve Zeno’s paradox? The only way to resolve it without some silly appeal to infinitesimals which have never been shown to exist, is to argue that a discrete indivisible point is created, and then the point disappears, to be replaced by the creation of an adjacent discrete indivisible point skipping an infinity of points in between. Now, the point must be real despite the point not being made of moving parts and not being subject to material time. The creation of such a point without time and without moving parts is “actus purus” despite what Aquinas says. Thus, God being able to distinguish infinity creates these points that do not have time and do not have moving parts. “Actus purus” is contingent on God’s ability to create, and thus God is not “actus purus”. The only available frame of reference for the existence of these points given the fact that these points have no time and no moving parts is God’s mind. Thus, it is that God’s mind is capable of distinguishing infinity through creation.
Pick one? I thought I just did? Discrete timeless points are created, and then replaced by adjacent discrete timeless points skipping an infinity of points in between.
I explain this in my large post… but the function of every paradox, the root code of a paradox is that something must necessarily be something other than what it necessarily is. All paradoxes rely upon this root. This means that something holds it’s identity, while becoming a different identity.
"What this means, is that if say, my coffee cup was a bound infinity… I’d be processing forever or infinitely fast, which means it could never actually be there.
The problem that arises with several old paradoxes, is that people keep thinking you can actually process a bound infinity, think of zeno’s paradoxes, instead of being able to solve it as necessarily needing to destroy the scenario. What happens with these paradoxes as well is that we are not stepping on the same ground twice… and this goes to the concept of division. One of the ideas of a bound infinity is that you can divide something an infinite number of times… there are many problems with this, but the most glaring is that once you divide it even once, it ceases to be the same object, thus by contradiction, you cannot divide it anymore, it becomes a new object… and resolves paradoxes such as this. The asymmetry doesn’t let us process unbound infinities."
This was quoted from that long monstrosity I posted first on this site. The point of this is, when you divide an object even once, it ceases to be the same object, thus by contradiction, you cannot divide it anymore, because it’s not what it was anymore… it’s something new, and because of this something new, the motion keeps occurring instead of being stuck in infinite regress.
The problem with paradoxes is simply ignorance of how to resolve them - not destruction per se. An object is made of discrete indivisible packets of infinite points that God has made real by distinguishing this infinite packet of points from another possible but not created packet of infinite points. This packet is what I mean by discreteness. The division of any object is only the creation of and replacement of the old aggregation of discrete points with a slightly newer set of now created distinguished infinities. Hence, the identity principle itself only comes to play in speaking of a particular discrete point in infinity whether that point is turned “on”, i.e. made real, or turned “off”, i.e. not made real. So, the movement of objects is really just an adjustment of the creation matrix from one point to another point in reference to God’s mind. Thus, any aggregate object can be divided, because the divided object is not completely the same thing as the original object in terms of the creation matrix. There is no paradox, just ignorance as to how to resolve the paradox, which I just did!
That’s not true… and it gets to the other point you made about what i said. I believe all universes are finite… I believe there are an infinite number of universes though… an infinite multiverse. The situation with the Zeno paradox, is that you cannot divide something and have it be the same object, so the runner moves to a different object, in terms of division, this universe is finite, so eventually, because Achilles is dividing the segments faster than the Tortiouse, achilles reaches the finite finish line first. When I was talking earlier about hell being finite, that’s because the universe is finite, and after hell people don’t make the same mistake twice, so it’s very efficient. Since everyone on earth is collaborating with the process of runaway sexual selection, except for a few, that makes the multiplier for them to be about 300 billion years in hell each. Being involved in the creation of a runaway sexual selection species has a multiplier of all of those hells… so trillions of years.
I am sorry to ignore your sexual selection argument, but I don’t want to be distracted by non-cosmos based arguments - at least not yet.
Now, I am confused by what you said. Your theory involves infinitesimals. But, now you’re saying the universe is finite and you seem to be resolving Zeno’s paradox based on a finite invisible unit of space aka Plank’s constant. However, a packet of discrete points over a limited range of infinity, e.g. let’s say all point between One and Two, would seem to solve the problem. The packet would be a discrete indivisible unit of matter while at the same time being composed of an infinite number of discrete points. Also, the creation of said packet followed by the creation of an identical packet some distance apart with the de-creation of the first packet would solve Zeno’s paradox. So, why is this wrong?
You can divide the smallest particle once, but then you’ll become smaller than the particle, and it will become a universe around you. The amount of energy it takes to divide the smallest particle is the size of a universe.
You can’t have bound infinities or completed infinities… man I’ve explained this to you like ten times already. If you have a coffee cup that can be divided an infinite number of times, it would take forever to be able to see it, if however you processed it infinitely fast, it would take zero time to see it… either way, you never see the coffee cup.
100% Nothing doesn’t exist and every permutation of infinity does that doesn’t contradict itself. I honestly believe that someone going to hell forever, for example, is against cosmic law, just like nothingness is against cosmic law.
