The Epistemic Communication Dilemma Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication My Personal Argument

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
,
201

So, although ‘this one’ claims when I use the word ‘obvious’ that this then lessens the argument’, but then decides “itself” to use the ‘Clearly’ word, as though that is somehow much different.

Now, ‘this one’ believes, absolutely, and so wants to claim that ‘I’, CLEARLY, have NO idea what ‘an example’ is. As well as ‘I’, APPARENTLY, have NO idea what most words mean.

And, I have NO idea about these two things BECAUSE ‘the example’ that it has given me is ‘so simple’ that a young child could understand it.

Again, here ‘we’ have another adult who BELIEVES that children are some how ‘lesser’ than adults in regards to the ability to learn, see, and/or know things. (Which is quite funny by the way considering what the actual Truly really is). Anyway, I MUST BE so so-called “childish” because ‘now’ I do not even know what ‘example’ it is even talking about and referring to.

I ‘was’ talking about ‘a question’, but somehow ‘this one’ has JUMPED TO ‘some example’, which again I do not know what it is talking about.

JUST MAYBE, I look ‘more in depth’ and/or can ‘see more deeply’ than you people can and do here.

JUST MAYBE, I can ‘analyse’ more, or even just at all. Have you stopped to consider to ‘analyse’ what you say and write here? Sometimes I wonder if you have at all.

What ‘example’ are you even going on about here now?

Look, you posted ‘a quote of mine’ about ‘a question you wrote’. How come you did not respond to ‘that question’ and have JUMPED TO ‘some example’, of my still unknowing?

If you want to change topics and talk about something else, then why not just say ‘which example’ you are ‘now’ wanting to discuss, and/or better still why not just quote the ‘actual example’ INSTEAD OF quoting ‘a question’?

Oh, so you are calling ‘the question’ ‘an example’ ‘now’. Okay.

And, NO I am not going to read whole posts before I respond. Again, I speak and write however I want to here. And, also again, I do it ‘my way’ for a very specific reason.

Now, since you used the ‘literal’ word here, let ‘us’ go back to what you actually said and wrote and ‘see’ what that ‘literally’ said.

As can be CLEARLY ‘seen’, the ‘9’ number was NEVER used, to begin with. So, you ‘literally’ did not say and describe what you just ‘literally’ did say and claim you did ‘literally’ describe.

Now that ‘that’ is out of the way, let ‘us’ move on to the Fact that you ended it with the question, ‘Does that make sense to you or no?’

And, if I recall Correctly, I informed you that it was a resounding ‘No’.

I, ALSO, asked you to clarify a few things in ‘that question’, you OBVIOUSLY STILL HAVE NOT.

For example, and allow ‘us’ to use your ‘new example’ here. Since you NEVER EVER described objet 1 being 9 feet away from object 3, in ‘that example’, HOW could I ever KNOW this?

Look, what you said and wrote was:

Now, as absolutely EVERY one can ‘see’, what object is reportedly 1 foot away from NO one knows.

So, and again, when you say and write, ‘object is at 1 foot’, I DO NOT KNOW what this means. Therefore, and again, what does this mean, exactly?

And, even when you wrote:

Again, what is object 2 at 10 feet from, exactly?

Is object 2, for example, 10 feet from object 1 or 10 feet from what object 1 is 1 foot away from, (if object was even meant to be 1 foot away from something)?

And, more or less the exact same clarification was and still is sought for object 3. Is object 3 5 feet from object 2, object 1, or whatever thing object may or may not be from?

And, LOL, "greenfuse believed, absolutely, I, supposedly, opted to NOT ask A clarifying question.

LOL ANY one can look back and see just how MANY clarifying questions I actually asked, (and still am).

Anyone can ‘see’ what the actual Truth is here. All they have to do is just ‘look back’ over ‘our words’ to find and know what the actual Truth is, exactly.

If only you knew “acltalls”. If only you knew.

If all of this is really ‘so simple’, then let ‘us’ ‘see’ what the ‘simple answer’ is to ‘your simple question and so-called example’ here.

But, I NEVER asked, ‘what are the objects’, I asked what I did. As can be very clearly seen if and when anyone looks back.

LOL you talk about ‘distance’ but still ‘now’ you have not explained ‘what distance’ each object is away from. What is something as simple as this so hard and complex for you to understand.

For example, if I said to you, ‘object 1 is at 1 foot’, and, ‘then object 2 is at 10 feet’,

What is ‘object 1’ ‘at 1 foot’ from, exactly?

And, what is ‘object 2’ ‘at 10 feet’ from, exactly?

Now, I could also claim, ‘it is a simple example’, as well. Therefore, meaning it also very simple for you to answer. So, now go ahead and answer ‘my two simple questions’ here.

If only you knew “acltalls”. If only you knew.

Sometimes understanding the Universe, Itself, and how It works exactly was much, much simpler and easier than trying to understand and work out ‘the logic’ that some of these human beings would use, and try.

202
  1. When was it ever claimed that ‘object 3’ was ‘between them’?
  2. Is the ‘them’ word in reference to ‘object 1’ and ‘object 2’?

Now, and also, when I made ‘that reply’, when you quoted here, and are replying to, the only figures given were ‘1 foot’, ‘10 feet’, and ‘5 feet’. So, where is this ‘9 feet’ here now coming from, exactly?

And, OBVIOUSLY if you did not use the words “at 1 foot” for ‘object 1’ and instead just said, ‘object 2 is 10 foot away from object 1’ and ‘object 3 is at 5 foot away from object 1 and object 2 and is directly in between object 1 and 2’, in ‘your example’, then to answer ‘your question’ would have been actually very simple and easy. But, OBVIOUSLY, ‘the way’ you presented 'your example ', nothing could be really known for sure. For example, what is/was ‘object 1 at 1 foot’ in relation to exactly?

If this is what you have really chosen to believe is absolutely true here, then okay.

But, if and when I understand things, then I, obviously, do not struggle understanding those things, of course.

However, when I do struggle understanding things like ‘your example’ and ‘your question’ above here, then obviously and very clearly I do, and have, struggled to understand those sorts of things.

But, there is NO ‘your mind’. This is a misnomer. And, one you obviously just copy and repeat without having ever really questioned it.

Every one over a certain age has been deceived. This is very obvious and clear.

Okay.

And, again, see how this one has asked two questions, never waited for ‘the answers’, but still used the ‘because’ word, as though it KNEW what ‘the answers’ are already.

Okay. Did you take any time to consider the reasons that I have already explained for why ‘that’ was NONSENSICAL and ILLOGICAL?

Did you take any time out at all to consider the clarifying questions that I asked you?

Did you spend any time at all to just answer and clarify the very simple clarifying questions that I posed, and I asked you?

Again, I KNOW.

It was ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL to everyone, again besides maybe you of course.

And, to show how Truly ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL it really was, I asked you more or less the exactly same question. Did you answer it?

If no, then why not.

If you did not, then go ahead and do it now. Show the readers how simply and easy you can answer ‘that question’ that I asked you.

Is this how you feel when something does not immediately make sense, to you?

Okay.

Have you never ever had a situation where something did not immediately make sense, to you?

Also, why do you call an absolutely natural and normal occurrence ‘a problem’?

What does the ‘it’ word here reference, which ‘your friend’ calls stupid?

Why would anyone, literally, call something stupid that they, literally, cannot do?

Okay.

Is ‘this’ the only information you really want to provide here?

If you say and believe so, then it must be absolutely true and right, right?

Again, ‘I’ do not have the mental capacity to understand what ‘at 1 feet’ is in reference to, when ‘that much information’ is all I was given.

you, however, might have the mental capacity to. And, if you do, then you will have NO issue at all in answering ‘the question’ that I posed for you, and asked you, above here.

Who, exactly?

Then for what reason, exactly?

Ah okay.

Again, the attempted ‘degradation’ of children.

And, if it already believes and knows that ‘I’ am “autistic”, then why did it pose a question, for me, which it already KNEW would not make sense, to me?

By the way, did you KNOW that the proof that the Universe is infinite, and eternal, already exists?

Or, are you like one of those people who believe the opposite is true? Like, for example, are you like those people who believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and so did not have the ‘mental capacity’ and therefore who were not able to ‘see’ and understand the proof that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun?

Some of, which by the way, “died” without ever coming to know the Truth. All because they just chose to believe otherwise.

203

How do you know that my ‘question’ was nonsensical and illogical to everyone? Did you ask everyone in the world? Is my question by definition illogical and nonsensical? How can you claim such an absolute statement when there are others that I could show the question to and they would understand it? I have asked another if my example which is followed by a question makes sense and it does to them, therefore proving wrong your claim that it is nonsensical or illogical to everyone. A very easy claim to prove wrong.

204

There is no attempted degradation of children. Children quite literally know less than adults and do not have fully formed brains. They will of course be less capable of handling complex and abstract thought that not only requires experience, but a fully formed brain.

205

If the question does not make sense, it cannot have twisted and distorted your words. Your words are still there, unaffected, and since the words have no meaning, are nonsense, they cannot change your words. If he made clear in meaning assertions about your words, perhaps that could mislead others about the meaning of your words, though that is part of any discussion.

Acltalls will choose to continue to do this or not. Yes, it made sense to me.

I think I know where Acltalls was going with those questions and I think it relates to a misconception you seem to have of what infinity is. But that’s something that can be found out through more dialogue with the person asking the questions. Or not.

206

So, you ‘think’ you ‘know’ where it was going with those questions.

And, you ‘think’ that that questioning relates to me, supposedly, have some misconception, which I may or may not have, of what ‘infinity’.

  1. What ‘misconception’ of infinity do I seemingly have, to you, exactly?
  2. What, exactly, is ‘infinity’, which, to you, I seem to have misconception about?

Now, you seem to be as lost and confused here as “acltalls”.

The Universe is infinite, spatially. Which means that the Universe goes on forever, and/or is infinite in size.

So, again, if you did not already answer and clarify, What ‘misconception’ do I seem to have, to you, exactly?

207

I said besides maybe ‘you’ of course, so why did you write ‘everyone’ here?

And, I know ‘your question’ was nonsensical and illogical to everyone, besides maybe ‘you’ of course, by ‘the way’ you wrote and posed ‘your question’.

Yes.

Who are those people, exactly? Do you have proof that ‘they’ exist?

If I recall correctly, I have already asked people here if they understood your question. And, if they did, then could they explain it here for ‘us’. So far, no one has done so.

Was that your “autistic friend” or someone else?

Either way, are ‘they’ on this forum?

If yes, then who is it, exactly?

But, if no, then will you provide proof of what you claimed happened here did actually happen?

If no, then why not?

If it is as ‘very easy’ is to prove wrong, as you claim it is, then please provide the actual proof here for ‘us’ thank you.

208

So you just degraded them instead. Okay.

But it was about ‘understanding things’ and not about ‘knowing things’. you introduced this here, have you forgotten?

But ‘understanding’ the ‘thing’ in question was only hard and complex because, again, it was NONSENSICAL and ILLOGICAL. As I said and pointed out earlier, to you.

Now, why are you addressing and talking about ‘these things’, but completely ignore and refuse to address and talk about how saying things like “at 1 foot” but never providing what that is in relation to at all, and then saying things like “another object is 10 feet and another object is 5 feet” but, again, never saying a word about in relation to at all? you also have completely ignored and refused to address how you claimed to have, literally, said something about “9 feet”, when this was clearly not the case at all. you have also completely ignored and refused to answer ‘the question’ I asked you. Which were all in relation to ‘your example’, and ‘your question’, which might somehow have something to actually do with the irrefutable Fact that the Universe is infinite, and how I KNOW this is because of ‘the proof’ that already exists.

209

If this is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

Okay. But you seem not to have considered other things here. But, then again, you do appear to have a very ‘black and white thinking’, as some people call it.

Okay.

Okay. So, why do you not explain how, exactly, or even at all?

Oh, that’s right, you rarely, if ever, do answer and clarify.

So, this one claims that ‘that example and question’ made sense to it, but this is the only information that it is willing to share. Even though it is was asked that if it made sense to them, will ‘you’ please explain how, in this thread.

“greenfuse” was even asked if it does not explain here, then why it would not do this.

Again, and as very usual for “greenfuse” absolutely nothing of any substance is provided.

210

Why on earth to you assume that the universe is Euclidian rather than non-Eclidean?

@anew said: again, there is ‘space’ and there is ‘matter’. Let ‘us’ presume that there is the so-called “farthest objects out”. Now, on the outer side of these objects there exists ‘space’, just like there is ‘space’ existing on the inner side of these furthest objects. Since, ‘space’ and ‘matter’ are both a part of the Universe, and make up the Universe, Itself, if the Universe is not infinite, then ‘the space’ on the outer side of the furthest objects would have stop or end somewhere.

All you are doing is taking common sense, folk physics and assuming the universe must be like that.

211

But I do not.

Why, anywhere, do you assume that I assume what you just said and wrote that I assumed?

Like ‘what’, exactly?

I am pointing out that the Universe being infinite cannot be in any other way, OBVIOUSLY.

See, how these type of human beings will not stay focused on ‘the words’ but ‘try to’ attack ‘me’ instead.

They come up with these absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims and accusations ‘about me’, exactly like this one has just done again, after countless times.

I suggest ATTACK ‘the claims’ and ‘proof’, and NOT ‘me’, that is; if ‘you’ really do want to be taken seriously here.

If you believe that there is NO ‘space’ on the outside of the furthest objects, then EXPLAIN to the readers here what there ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

And, because you have not, ‘my claim’ that there is ‘space’ on the outer side of the furthest ‘object’ remains, and what else also remains is that ‘this space’ MUST go on forever or infinitely, for the VERY REASONS I have already explained. Therefore, meaning that the Universe IS infinite and eternal.

Imagine coming to a philosophy forum to argue against another, and instead of ‘attacking’ the words and claims, you make a completely False accusation and claim ‘about the other’, and then ‘attack’ ‘them’ on that made up False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and claim.

Did these people even know what ‘logical reasoning’ entails?

212

All you have done is not use ‘common sense’, not used ‘imagination’, not ‘thought logically’, and just assumed something that was not even close to being True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

213

Because it is obviously in your ‘proof’ that you are assuming the universe keeps going outward (Euclidian). Your proof presumes Euclidean geometry rules. If it doesn’t then please show that a boundless, finite non-Euclidian universe is impossible.

It’s actually that a number of us have more knowledge of cosmology than you do, so we can see your assumptions. Your proof presumes Euclidean geometry rules. If it doesn’t then please show that a boundless, finite non-Euclidian universe is impossible.

214

How about instead of assuming that I am assuming some thing, you just ‘focus’ on what I said and respond to that only.

On EVERY ‘side’ of EVERY star, planet, or meteorite what is there?

If you answer this, Openly and Honestly, then ‘we’ can and let ‘us’ move along.

Until then all ‘you’ are really ‘trying to’ do here is just discredit ‘me’.

  1. It is NOT ‘my’ proof.
  2. The proof does NOT presume ANY rules.

Please tell the readers here what else, besides ‘space’, could be on EVERY ‘side’ of objects.

Once ‘we’ look at what ‘could be’ a possibility, then ‘we’ can move along here.

The proof shows that the Universe is infinite.

Now, do you mean ‘bounded’ or ‘boundless’, here?

And, please do not use the “euclidian” word or “non-euclidian” words here. They do not help nor resolve anything here. They just add more completely unnecessary layers.

If this is what you really want to believe is absolutely true, then okay, you are absolutely free to choose to do so.

So, these ‘number of us’ people, reportedly, have more knowledge of cosmology than ‘I’ do. However, not a one of them has been able to imagine what is on the outer side of the furthest objects, let alone even begin to have a logically reasoned discussion here, to find out whether the Universe is infinite or not.

If they really want to believe that the Universe could be finite, then just have a logically reasoned discussion to see if this could even be a possibility, before ‘we’ move on to finding if it is an actual actuality or not.

What is so absolutely hard and complex for ‘these people’ to understand here, exactly?

Here ‘we’ have again another absolutely weak and useless unsupported claim.

“We know more than you do. Therefore, ‘we’ can see your assumptions”.

Although, and laughably, I made NO assumption at all, which is obvious if ‘they’ ever get around to ‘looking at’ and discussing everything or even maybe just something that relates to what I have actually said and meant here exactly.

LOL you repeat your exact same words as though doing so helps you.

Are you absolutely sure that you want to use the ‘boundless’ word here?

215

You only think that because you no nothing about them, though I did supply you with information, which you have obviously not read, in our previous discussion of this issue.

You keep asking for an explanation for “what is on the other side of the farthest object,” while telling me to stop bringing up Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry because you think it just adds “unnecessary layers.” But you cant ban the very mathematics that define space just because you don’t understand how they work. Your entire proof rests on a very basic, primitive assumption that space must be flat. In your mind, if you walk far enough, you must either hit a physical wall or keep going forever into an empty void.

But science moved past that exact line of thinking over a century ago. Back in 1917, Albert Einstein completely demolished the “farthest object edge” paradox by showing how space actually behaves. This is an old failed ‘proof’, the farthest object ‘proof’, as far as we know first done by Lucretius. Not only do both you and Lucretius assume a Euclidian Universe, but you are unaware of so much of what the successors to Galileo have learned that, yes, your assumptions stand out very obviously to those who have more knowledge.

To look at how this works without getting lost in the math, think of an ant walking on the surface of a giant balloon. The ant can walk forwarde forever in a straight line and it will never hit a wall, an edge, or a boundary. The surface is completely boundless. Yet, the total area of that balloon is obviously finite—it’s not infinite. The balloon would have to be vast so the curve is not visible. Einstein proved that the universe works exactly like that, just in three dimensions. Mass and gravity warp the literal fabric of space, causing it to curve back on itself. If a spaceship flies straight past your hypothetical “farthest object” and keeps going dead ahead, it won’t hit a magical neon wall where space ends, nor will it fly into nothingness. It will eventually loop right back around to where it started. There is no “other side” to space, because space isn’t sitting inside a bigger empty room.

It is a mistake to claim this math is just an “unnecessary layer,” because the physical universe aggressively proves it is real every single day. If space were the the way you think it is, our actual reality would fall apart. When we look out into deep space, we see light literally bending around massive galaxies like water flowing around a rock, creating duplicate images of the exact same star because the light is forced to follow the curved tracks of warped space.

You don’t even need a telescope to prove space is curved; you just need to look at your smartphone, if you have one. The Global Psitioning System (GPS) satellites orbiting Earth rely entirely on Einstein’s equations of curved space-time to function. Because the satellites are further out in space where gravity is weaker, they experience a slightly different geometry of space-time than we do on the ground. Time actually moves faster for them. If engineers didn’t program Einstein’s equations of curved space directly into your phone’s GPS software, the mapping data would drift out of alignment by about 10 kilometers every single day. Your navigation system would become entirely useless within hours.

You are trying to solve cosmic astrophysics using common sense folk physics. Geometry isn’t an “unnecessary layer”; it is the literal structure of the universe. Your “proof” does’t work because it is based on false premises you are not even aware, but are very clear in the steps. The universe has voted, our smartphones prove it daily, and it isn’t flat - I’m sure you’ll say you didn’t say it is flat. But you don’t understand what a curved three dimensional space is enough to know that you are presuming what is called flat in the context but the successors of Galileo. You think you are like Galileo, but on this issue you are like the church - working with old assumptions.

Note: they have not proven the universe is finite. Just that it is curved, which undermines your proof which is not a proof. We are still trying to figure this out, but human knowledge has increased, as you yourself have pointed out, immensely since Lucretius put forward the same proof you have, one that fails.

216

If you this what you believe, then okay.

And, just as obvious is you do not have absolutely any capability at all to just stay focued on and discuss only what I have said and raised here only.

The Fact remains that what is on “one side” of objects is on “every other side”, which means, irrefutably, that the Universe is infinite. And, this proof is, again, irrefutable.

What are you even ‘babbling’ on about here?

LOL ‘Mathematics’ does NOT define things. you human beings do. So, again, what are you ‘trying to’ claim here, exactly?

you are beyond an ABSOLUTE IDIOT.

There is not A SINGLE word that I have EVER said and written that even closely resembles ‘me’ assuming ‘space’ is flat.

LOL So, once again, “greenfuse” INTRODUCES something else, which has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do ‘with me’ and ‘my words’, and laughably believes that it will somehow work here ‘for it’.

Again, NO one can refute that what is on EVERY “side” of objects proves, irrefutably so, that the Universe is infinite.

LOL, LOL, LOL

AGAIN, it INTRODUCES something that absolutely has nothing at all to do ‘with me’ nor ‘with my words’.

Hopefully science has moved on past YOUR made-up False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and claims here.

LOL

This is a prime example of how they were indoctrinated into believing, absolutely, things that were NOT proven to be true.

Yet LOL you can NOT even answer Openly and Honestly my clarifying question, because if you did, you will EXPOSE how little you really KNOW here.

Imagine believing ‘space’ just ends, because you ‘currently’ believe, ABSOLUTELY, it does.

“greenfuse” is just like those people who used to believe, ABSOLUTELY, that the earth was flat, and the ocean just ended.

LOL “greenfuse” does not just assume that ‘space’ just ends, but laughably believes it is the absolute truth. Yet, there is NOT a single thing that proves this.

“greenfuse” is prime proof of HOW and WHY ‘these human beings’ took so long.

Okay, But, again, this has absoltuely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have said, shown, and asked.

LOL This one appears to believe, absolutely, that the Universe began and is like a balloon expanding. HAHAHA

HOW ‘old’ can these people be?

Anyway, ‘we’ have an ant walking on a balloon, and going around and around as it cannot walk in a straight line. LOL

On the outer edge of a balloon yes.

Yes, ‘we’ are talking about and thinking about ‘a balloon’ after all.

If you want to say and believe so.

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL

“Proved exactly like that”. you make me LAUGH “greenfuse”.

Talk about OLD thinking. These people were MORE CLOSED than I first noticed and thought.

Okay. This MUST BE the irrefutable truth then.

And, wha is this so-called ‘literal fabric of space’ made up, exactly?

LOL ‘Now’ there are absolutely NO furthest objects in a finite universe.

Okay. NOW I HAVE THE IRREFUTABLE PROOF and FACT HERE, right?

‘Space’ just STOPS and ENDS.

Well to some anyway.

LOL “this math”. LOL

There is NO math that shows NOR proves that ‘space’ JUST STOPS.

Now it LAUGHABLY INTRODUCES the ‘physical’ word as though that word will somehow help what is believes is absolutely true here.

If this what you really believe, then okay.

Therefore, the Universe is finite, and expanding.

LOL Okay.

The OLD ‘go to’. ‘gps’ PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, that the Universe began, is finite, and is expanding.

And, the OLD ‘space-time’. LOL Ask the so-called “experts” what is ‘time’, exactly, and they cannot tell you. And when you ask these same so-called “scientists” what is ‘space’, exactly, they also cannot tell you. But, when it comes to some so-called “space-time” they supposedly KNOW everything about it. Except, of course, tell you what even is “space-time”, exaclty?

Talk about another prime example of one who has just read words in a book or heard words from another, just accepts them as though they are the absolute truth of things, but clearly has absolutely NO idea what it is even talking about and refers to exactly.

These people do not think, critically or at all, about what is being talked about. They just repeat what they have heard or read, as though they know what they are talking about.

I have heard and read this same old re-repeated thing also many, many times over.

And, as already proved, when they are questioned and/or challenged over it, they FAIL and FAULTER completely.

Imagine thinking or believing that talking about how gps would be out if ‘this or that’, and that SOMEHOW this PROVES, irrefutably so, that the Universe began, is finite, and is expanding.

LOL ‘These people’, in those olden days when this was being written use to make me laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

They literally believed, absolutely, what they read and heard, just as long as they believed ‘the ones’ who wrote and spoke. This goes for those who were so-called “philosophical”, “scientific”, or “theological”. LOL They were ALL equally ‘the exact same way’ in how they were DELUDING “themselves”.

AGAIN, if this is what you have chosen to believe is absolutely true, then this works absolutely perfectly ‘for me’, here.

LOL, LOL, LOL So, now, ‘geometry’ is the laughably called “literal structure of the universe”, but LOL only when the universe began, is finite, and is expanding.

So, this one believes, absolutely, that the Universe, Itself, is just like a balloon and is expanding. And, that there is absolutely nothing as a ‘boundary’, as ‘space’, itself, just magically curves back on itself, somehow, somewhere, and for absolutely no reason at all.

For the OBVIOUS Fact that I NEVER have. LOL

But you understand that ‘space’ curves back on itself because you believe, absolutely, that it, laughably, does.

Coming from ‘the one’ who believes, absolutely, that ‘space’ JUST ENDS, just like those in even ‘olden days’ believed, absolutely, that the ‘ocean’ also JUST ENDS.

LOL None of these people were able to imagine, think critically, nor logical reason. They just believed they already KNEW the truth. And, that was all they needed.

Ask them HOW could ‘space’ or the ‘ocean’ JUST END, and they could NOT provide absolutely any reason for HOW it could.

And, I WROTE ‘that’ in ‘the way’ I did, specifically.

But, they have NOT proved that the Universe is curved. They, like you, just BELIEVE it is.

you, and who else, is trying to figure what out, exactly?

So, if ‘it’ FAILS, inform the readers here what is on all sides of every object.

If you do not, then what you claim has FAILED OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT.

217

The Fact that these people could not and did not provide ‘the answer’ of what is on EVERY “side” of EVERY object shows and proves that they still had MORE to learn and understand here.

218

Will you provide links to what ‘that one’ put forward, which you claim is the SAME PROOF I have, and which you CLAIM FAILS?

if no, then why not?

What are you AFRAID of here, also?

219

And again, you don’t understand. You clearly did not engage with the ideas at all. Zero curiosity. If you had engaged with the ideas you’d have understood that that is not what Einstein and others were say at all. Right now it is beyond your conception. Fine. But the defensive mocking and hysteria, shameful.

And I love how you get to use an argument from ancient Greece and follow the beliefs of an early scientist, Galileo, but if we believe science now has learned things over the years, which you have stated elsewhere is happening, then we are indoctrinated.

But no surprises here. You didn’t engage with what I wrote, since you think I am asserting space end or might end. That is not at all what curved space entails with a finite universe. But you are encased in your certainty, ego and ignorance. Nor surprises here.

He moans about how people are going after him like they went after Galileo - and puts emphasis on how they tried to destroy Galileo - when he actually has no respect for the successors of Galileo and reacts exactly as the Church did to Galileo and the people not representing the church who used their common sense to think the sun orbited the earth.

220

You didn’t engage with non-Euclidian space at all as an idea or you would realize that that point is irrelevant. It only matters in Euclidian space. We don’t need to engage with that point.

https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmology-astronomy/Relativistic-cosmologies

Though these will take some work since you seem devoid of experience or knowledge in cosmology.

I am sure some people also working with your folk common sense may think your proof works, but anyone better informed, who knows more about how astronomy and physics have advanced since Galileo, will see the assumptions you are making. Your lack of curiosity is stunning. Your hypocrisy for over and over comparing yourself to Galileo but not respecting his successors is shameful. If someone agrees with your it’s fine to reference them, it fine to use their knowledge. If someone disagrees it’s indoctrination. You’re a toxic little person. If you had some actually curiosity, it would have to continue with you like that. Zero curiosity or respect show to ideas that are clearly new to you. Zero. Hypocristy again. You’re as open (step 1) as a safe buried and forgotten underground.