The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]

B. Dean:



B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If there was no big bang, then what is the driving force that is causing
the universe to expand?





You ask the perfect question of the minute.

The question you are making is, however, based upon the same assumption
that the BB theorists make. That is, that the supposed cause of the BB and
the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same.

Both those theoretical viewpoints have, as their common basis, the same
true and empirically verifiable argument: that the Apparent Red Shift of
the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements
have been observed on spectrographs.

Hubble observed that light from what appeared to be more distant sources
also appeared to be more Red Shifted in their frequencies as displayed on
the spectrographs. He was dealing with frequencies, and he applied the
concept of the Doppler Effect to explain the RS effect.

In science the principle of application has always been considered to be a
lesser form of explanation and verification. Because something fits or is
similar does not mean that the causes have been explained or proved, or
that the demonstration in logic or actuality is necessarily logically true
and factual.

Hubble also applied the principle of Euclid's that given a straight line,
that in geometry one could extend the straight line in either direction.
Hubble, observing that most celestial objects were to some extent Red
Shifted in their frequencies of emitted light, also hypothesized that all
things could be moving away from one another. He concluded that the
aforementioned straight lines if continued in the direction of the presumed
origin of travel could cut one another at a common point. He further
hypothesized that all things could have traveled from a common point of
origin.

Creationists lept on that idea, and by the same application of thee
association of Doppler's, Euclid's, and Hubble's ideas the beginning of the
universe could be claimed to have been discovered by science. After all,
they said, is not a point that which has no part, or substance, or reality?
There is a tad of the fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum in their
argument. Of the argument that leads to an impossibility in order to prove
the opposite. To expansion. Hence another fallacy, post hoc ergo propter
hoc, or using the conclusion in the argument to support the conclusion.
They said that science supported the Bible. More fallacies of logic, the
appeal to authority and the appeal to humor to support a claim. That
combination of associations is the main support for the BB - creationist
theory.

Hubble's hypothesis was brilliant and intriguing. inductively, was thinking
correctly and drawing a proper conclusion from the facts available. What he
didn't suspect was that there was another brilliant and incredibly
plausible and more verifiable explanation for the Apparent Red Shift of
light frequencies.

There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.

Lord Rayleigh discovered that hydrogen atoms change the frequencies of
light photons that strike the atoms and that continue on. He said that the
collisions were inelastic, and that he measured the lowered frequencies of
the transmitted photons. He really had discovered the Red Shift, only in a
more fundamental way. Rayleigh's explanation did not rely upon the
application on other theories, e.g., Doppler and Euclid, and, rather, he
found direct repeatable empirical results from laboratory experiments.

Recently, the Cassini space vehicle returned powerful evidence that
hydrogen gas, indeed, does lower the energy level of photons traveling in
space.

Hydrogen gas, and the electrons in the plurality of that gas, as I
understand the matter from a scientist acquaintance, can indeed, lower the
energy level of the photons. A quotient of energy remains, and the identity
of that quotient may be explained further to the scientific public in due
time. I gather that scientist have prior identified these relationships,
and that they are well known.

The upshot of all this, leading to the idea that the hydrogen-photon RS
theory is true, is that the RS has been explained by verifiable scientific
experiments under at least three types of experimental conditions, and that
the factual basis is far more scientific and demonstrable than the previous
explanation. Numerous supporting evidence, being accurate identifications
of facts found when trying to examine the universe from the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble point of view, also supports the hydrogen-photon
theory of the Red Shift.

Science must now compare the two theories. Many pieces to a complex puzzle
appear to fit together by merit of the RS being logically rather than
associatively explained by the theory of the reduction of photon energy levels.

This is a simplified overview, and real scientists have been weighing in
support of the hydrogen-photon theory of the Apparent Red Shift of the
frequencies of light.

That does not deny the possibility of local expansions, of Hubble's
hypothesis under specific conditions, or of the Doppler Effect concerning
frequencies, as some recent scientists have carefully observed.

The hydrogen-photon RS theory would also mean that the universe is not
expanding as the expansionists have stated. It would also mean that there
is no cause for thinking that there was a geometric origin point or
creation point for the universe. The universe would be found to be
generally not expanding due to the aforementioned theories, and that the
universe would likely be more dense than than presupposed.

Metaphysically and epistemologically speaking, the creationists logical
horror that nothing was the cause of something would at last be dispelled.

Science may once again be based solidly upon the facts of existence, and
that the universe is a continuing plurality of existents that all have
properties that are knowable to scientists. The cause of the continuation
of the universe of everything is the existence and interacting properties
of everything that exists.

Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence. Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.


Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle wrote:
The question you are making is, however, based upon the same assumption
that the BB theorists make. That is, that the supposed cause of the BB and
the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same.

By and large, BB theorists do not, in fact, make that assumption. They
assume that the BB started the expansion. Most cosmologists do not
concern themselves with what caused the BB. Since time as we know it
was created at the BB, it is not clear what causality would really mean
in this context. There are some theories that place BB in a broader,
multiversal context, but they are not (yet) mainstream cosmology.

Both those theoretical viewpoints have, as their common basis, the same
true and empirically verifiable argument: that the Apparent Red Shift of
the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements
have been observed on spectrographs.

Hubble observed that light from what appeared to be more distant sources
also appeared to be more Red Shifted in their frequencies as displayed on
the spectrographs. He was dealing with frequencies, and he applied the
concept of the Doppler Effect to explain the RS effect.

He was not the first to do so. V. M. Slipher had done so before that,
and Fizeau anticipated the effect before him. All this by way of saying
that Hubble had strong grounds for using the Doppler effect as his
explanation for the observed red shift.

Nor was this effect *only* observed for receding galaxies. It was also
observed in the preceding and following limbs of the Sun. The preceding
limb rotates away from us, the following one toward us. This leads to
a Doppler shift in the light radiated by the Sun; we can tell by the
minute shifts in the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. The amount
of the red and blue shifts in the preceding and following limbs,
respectively, are exactly what are predicted for the Doppler shift. It
is not at all a fanciful or solely theoretical effect.

Even today, the majority of extrasolar planets are discovered by an
application of the Doppler shift. These shifts are tiny, thousandths
of a percent, perhaps, but there just the same, and the stellar wobbles
they represent are the effect of their orbiting planets. The variation
of the Doppler shift with respect to time is exactly what you would
expect of a revolving planet (or planets). Could you explain the same
variations by resorting to the hydrogen absorption you mention below?
I suspect it would be quite a contrivance.

In science the principle of application has always been considered to be a
lesser form of explanation and verification. Because something fits or is
similar does not mean that the causes have been explained or proved, or
that the demonstration in logic or actuality is necessarily logically true
and factual.

Of course not, since these things can never be proved logically and
absolutely true. To prove them would require axioms of science--axioms
that we would have to assume true. That is not a weakness of science;
it means that ideas about the world can be revised without having to
rewrite our basic assumptions each and every time.

Hubble also applied the principle of Euclid's that given a straight line,
that in geometry one could extend the straight line in either direction.
Hubble, observing that most celestial objects were to some extent Red
Shifted in their frequencies of emitted light, also hypothesized that all
things could be moving away from one another. He concluded that the
aforementioned straight lines if continued in the direction of the presumed
origin of travel could cut one another at a common point. He further
hypothesized that all things could have traveled from a common point of
origin.

Hubble thought the universe was expanding. He did not espouse the BB
theory with any kind of vigor. I seem to recall he found it unconvincing.
It was others that used his observations to support the BB theory.

There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.

It has nothing at all to do with Euclid, since every indication shows
that space is non-Euclidean, and yet the BB theory survives.

Lord Rayleigh discovered that hydrogen atoms change the frequencies of
light photons that strike the atoms and that continue on. He said that the
collisions were inelastic, and that he measured the lowered frequencies of
the transmitted photons. He really had discovered the Red Shift, only in a
more fundamental way. Rayleigh's explanation did not rely upon the
application on other theories, e.g., Doppler and Euclid, and, rather, he
found direct repeatable empirical results from laboratory experiments.

Recently, the Cassini space vehicle returned powerful evidence that
hydrogen gas, indeed, does lower the energy level of photons traveling in
space.

Hydrogen gas, and the electrons in the plurality of that gas, as I
understand the matter from a scientist acquaintance, can indeed, lower the
energy level of the photons. A quotient of energy remains, and the identity
of that quotient may be explained further to the scientific public in due
time. I gather that scientist have prior identified these relationships,
and that they are well known.

The upshot of all this, leading to the idea that the hydrogen-photon RS
theory is true, is that the RS has been explained by verifiable scientific
experiments under at least three types of experimental conditions, and that
the factual basis is far more scientific and demonstrable than the previous
explanation. Numerous supporting evidence, being accurate identifications
of facts found when trying to examine the universe from the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble point of view, also supports the hydrogen-photon
theory of the Red Shift.

Science must now compare the two theories. Many pieces to a complex puzzle
appear to fit together by merit of the RS being logically rather than
associatively explained by the theory of the reduction of photon energy
levels.

It is true that under certain circumstances, light may be absorbed by
hydrogen atoms--in particular, by the electrons orbiting the nucleus.
That does not mean that it has anything at all to do with the observed
red shift of galaxies (other than that it enables us to measure that
shift).

What mostly happens is that the light does not lower in frequency. It
either passes through unaffected, or if it is at one of the right
frequencies, it is absorbed *in toto*, leading to the absorption lines
in a spectrum that indicate the presence of hydrogen gas. The sum total
of the light energy is reduced by a small percentage, that is true, but
each photon either retains all of its original energy, or it is absorbed
entirely (perhaps to be re-emitted later as the electron returns to its
original energy level).

If galactic red shift were due to absorption by hydrogen gas, why is it
that intergalactic hydrogen gas doesn't seem to have an effect on the
observed shift? True, it's very tenuous, but there are cubic megaparsecs
of it. It's a lot of hydrogen. Yet galaxies at roughly the same distance
by other metrics do not exhibit variations in red shift depending on
whether there's a lot of hydrogen gas in the way, or very little. There
are variations, yes--but they don't depend very much on how much hydrogen
gas is in the way.

This is a simplified overview, and real scientists have been weighing in
support of the hydrogen-photon theory of the Apparent Red Shift of the
frequencies of light.

By which you presumably mean those scientists who agree with you that
quantum effects somehow explain galactic red shifts. And the rest of
them are just faking it? Probably you think I'm faking it, too.

I'm afraid I don't play that game. I play the game of science, which
means that you don't discount well-established theories because they
haven't been proven (which can't happen, anyway), and you don't favor
a theory simply because it makes more sense to you. Nature doesn't
always make sense--at least, not initially.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Remember, the Rayleigh light scattering theory cannot explain
blue-shifts. Blue shifts occur in a number of object such as
glob-clusters and galaxies. In the former case the blue shifted light
from a glob. is considered to come toward us. In the case of galaxies
that rotate, the red shift of the edges is assumed to be travelling
away from us while the blue shif indicates the tip is rotating toward
us.
Also I thing there was some work showing a gradient of shifts
across the galaxy.

Havriliak:

Thanks for suggesting some questions.


wrote:
Remember, the Rayleigh light scattering theory cannot explain
blue-shifts.



The issue of the Red Shift when understood in terms of the Doppler effect
can explain the "motion" (Hubble's term) away from the viewer of celestial
objects, for example. Its corollary, the Blue Shift, explains the motion of
objects towards the viewer.

Rayleigh's light scattering theory has nothing to do with that. He did
provide the explanation for the elastic scattering and backscattering of
blue light in the sky of air. That is not the Blue Shift. To say that the
two are the same would be an equivocation on the facts.




Blue shifts occur in a number of object such as
glob-clusters and galaxies. In the former case the blue shifted light
from a glob. is considered to come toward us. In the case of galaxies
that rotate, the red shift of the edges is assumed to be travelling
away from us while the blue shif indicates the tip is rotating toward
us.



That is true, and the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble theory nicely explains that.
One has to differentiate ordinary Doppler Effects from the Doppler Effect
used to explain a general cosmological expansion.

The light photons from distant objects have been clearly identified to have
reduced energy levels. That is sufficient to explain the spectrographic Red
Shift. Hubble ultimately reversed his opinion, and he said that there was
insufficient and inconsistent evidence to conclude that there was a general
cosmological expansion. He said that there was evidence that showed that
the reduced energy level of photons may be due to other causes, and that
those causes should be investigated by other scientists who are concerned
with those matters.



Also I thing there was some work showing a gradient of shifts
across the galaxy.




The Cassini results also show that the IR energy levels vary, and that the
uneven-ness of IR radiation energy levels is probably due to the
interactions of photons and hydrogen, and the varying amounts amounts of
hydrogen. The more hydrogen the photons collide with mean that the energy
level is reduced more. The scientist's reports and conclusions must be
consulted for a proper explanation.

Ralph Hertle

Brian:


Brian Tung wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

[clip]
There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.


It has nothing at all to do with Euclid,



That's a direct lie. In science lies are not valid forms of refutation or
proof. Proof is reserved for identification of the facts and logic.

The cosmological Red Shift concludes that everything, on balance, is moving
away from everything else. By projecting lines from all said moving
entities to an origin point, it was necessary to use the Euclidean proved
concepts of the extension of a straight line, and that the ends of a line
are points, for example.

Try to explain the BB origin point without the use of straight lines. It
cannot be done. Unless the lines to the origin point are not straight, and
in that case the projection of the universe would appear to be similar to a
plate of linguine - all curvy.




since every indication shows
that space is non-Euclidean, and yet the BB theory survives.





The term "non-Euclidean" is an anti-Euclidean terms that carries with it a
specific anti-reason implication. "Non-Euclidean" is a term that denies the
use of identifications, facts, and logic. Note the the same authors have
been equally vehement against the metaphysics (existents, facts,
properties, functionings, consequences, and cause and effect relationships
of existents), and the epistemology (inductive and deductive logic, proof,
validation of concepts, genus and differentia definitions, and the
hierarchy of knowledge) of Aristotle.

Your Platonism is showing.

The BB theory is untenable now that physics has proved that the
cosmological Red Shift is caused by the energy reduction of photons in
inelastic collisions with hydrogen molecules in cosmological space. Do the
math: the universe need not be expanding to explain and demonstrate the
cosmological Red Shift. Hence, the BB theory is history.

The Christian Platonists wanted a non-physically existing "ideal" cause for
the universe, and Plato's ideas were perfect for them. They also discarded
Aristotle's, objective reality, proof, validation of concepts, and accurate
scientific measurement.

Aristotle first explained that the causes for the continued existence of
the plurality of existents in the universe are the existence, properties,
functionings, and potentials of the existents in the universe. Aristotle
said that the cause and effect relationships of the properties of things
function and are conserved, and the plurality of the universe continues to
exist.

Ralph Hertle

Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is STILL the
point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides!!

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
Brian:


Brian Tung wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

[clip]
There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses
almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of
properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.


It has nothing at all to do with Euclid,



That's a direct lie. In science lies are not valid forms of refutation or
proof. Proof is reserved for identification of the facts and logic.

The cosmological Red Shift concludes that everything, on balance, is
moving away from everything else. By projecting lines from all said moving
entities to an origin point, it was necessary to use the Euclidean proved
concepts of the extension of a straight line, and that the ends of a line
are points, for example.

Try to explain the BB origin point without the use of straight lines. It
cannot be done. Unless the lines to the origin point are not straight, and
in that case the projection of the universe would appear to be similar to
a plate of linguine - all curvy.




since every indication shows
that space is non-Euclidean, and yet the BB theory survives.





The term "non-Euclidean" is an anti-Euclidean terms that carries with it a
specific anti-reason implication. "Non-Euclidean" is a term that denies
the use of identifications, facts, and logic. Note the the same authors
have been equally vehement against the metaphysics (existents, facts,
properties, functionings, consequences, and cause and effect relationships
of existents), and the epistemology (inductive and deductive logic, proof,
validation of concepts, genus and differentia definitions, and the
hierarchy of knowledge) of Aristotle.

Your Platonism is showing.

The BB theory is untenable now that physics has proved that the
cosmological Red Shift is caused by the energy reduction of photons in
inelastic collisions with hydrogen molecules in cosmological space. Do the
math: the universe need not be expanding to explain and demonstrate the
cosmological Red Shift. Hence, the BB theory is history.

The Christian Platonists wanted a non-physically existing "ideal" cause
for the universe, and Plato's ideas were perfect for them. They also
discarded Aristotle's, objective reality, proof, validation of concepts,
and accurate scientific measurement.

Aristotle first explained that the causes for the continued existence of
the plurality of existents in the universe are the existence, properties,
functionings, and potentials of the existents in the universe. Aristotle
said that the cause and effect relationships of the properties of things
function and are conserved, and the plurality of the universe continues to
exist.

Ralph Hertle

William:


William Foley wrote:
Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is STILL the
point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides!!




Thats the most gigantic non-sequitur ever written, probably. A non-sequitur
is a fallacy of logic, and logic is the science of correct thinking or the
identification of facts. You are obviously not a fan of formal logic.

The universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. The term
cosmos is a plural term, and ever since the Ancient Greeks identified the
universe, the term has been used as a name for all physical things, that is
for everything. For all practical purposes the cosmos, or to us, the
universe, is a metaphysical term that refers to physical entities.

A point, or "that which has no part", and which is a concept of location
only, is not a metaphysical term. It is an idea, specifically a constituent
concept of a defined relationship, and that means that it is an
epistemological term.

You say the the "entire cosmos" _is_ "the point of origin". That means that
the physical universe is a "point".

You have at lease three fallacies at work there.

1. There is a non-sequitur regarding the plurality of the universe and the
concept of a single point.

2. From 1., above, there is also a fallacy, or contradiction, in that that
which is plural cannot be at once singular in the same time, place and
respect. That violates the axiom called the Law of Contradiction, by
Aristotle. And that axiom is one of the two most fundamental laws of
science ever written, and which is also one of the bases for all the sciences.

3. If something "has no part" it has no physical being, and a point is the
idea, that may be actually or potentially specified, of a location. A point
is a location. A point is an idea. It does not physically exist. To say
that the physically existing cosmos is and idea is as irreconcilable with
the facts as saying that the cosmos doesn't physically exist. There, you
have two more fallacies, or contradictions.

"You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you say.

4. What folks. Not me. For one thing I am not "hung up", and for another
thing, all the readers of the thread, or of the general public, are not
"hung up". You have a problem of distribution in your premises. That's one
more fallacy.

5. Again, "You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you say.
Don't me in on that claim. The universe exists where its constituent parts
exist. Period. There are no, "centers, edges, and outsides" of the
universe, at least that are possible to be known. You claim to have facts
regarding "centers, edges, and outsides" of the universe that you imply
that others presumably should not have. What are the true facts. And. yet
you claim that others are wrong without providing any facts whatsoever.
That is another fallacy, a non-sequitur. Probably other fallacies too.

6. Your term "hung up" implies a general disregard for the science and
definitions of geometry. You provide no true facts instead. That is the
fallacy that is at the base of Positivism, meaning that a person says, "Its
that way because I say its that way."

7. Your term "hung up" implies an insult to all readers of the thread or
the general public. Apparently you want to intimidate them so they will not
challenge your claims using facts and logic. That intimidation with out
proper argument is the fallacy called, "ad hominem." That is that the
claimant demeans the character of his opponent rather than by using facts
and logic in dealing with the ideas of the opponent.

That totals to ten contradictions, and there may be more.

Without the Law of Contradiction can you even do arithmetic? Let alone science?


Ralph Hertle

You do sound a little "hung up" to have written so much in an effort to
belittle anothers point, when the man seems to have a point, at least from
where I am sitting..

The Trash Man

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
William:


William Foley wrote:
Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is STILL
the point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and
outsides!!




Thats the most gigantic non-sequitur ever written, probably. A
non-sequitur is a fallacy of logic, and logic is the science of correct
thinking or the identification of facts. You are obviously not a fan of
formal logic.

The universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. The term
cosmos is a plural term, and ever since the Ancient Greeks identified the
universe, the term has been used as a name for all physical things, that
is for everything. For all practical purposes the cosmos, or to us, the
universe, is a metaphysical term that refers to physical entities.

A point, or "that which has no part", and which is a concept of location
only, is not a metaphysical term. It is an idea, specifically a
constituent concept of a defined relationship, and that means that it is
an epistemological term.

You say the the "entire cosmos" _is_ "the point of origin". That means
that the physical universe is a "point".

You have at lease three fallacies at work there.

1. There is a non-sequitur regarding the plurality of the universe and the
concept of a single point.

2. From 1., above, there is also a fallacy, or contradiction, in that
that which is plural cannot be at once singular in the same time, place
and respect. That violates the axiom called the Law of Contradiction, by
Aristotle. And that axiom is one of the two most fundamental laws of
science ever written, and which is also one of the bases for all the
sciences.

3. If something "has no part" it has no physical being, and a point is the
idea, that may be actually or potentially specified, of a location. A
point is a location. A point is an idea. It does not physically exist. To
say that the physically existing cosmos is and idea is as irreconcilable
with the facts as saying that the cosmos doesn't physically exist. There,
you have two more fallacies, or contradictions.

"You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you say.

4. What folks. Not me. For one thing I am not "hung up", and for another
thing, all the readers of the thread, or of the general public, are not
"hung up". You have a problem of distribution in your premises. That's one
more fallacy.

5. Again, "You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you
say. Don't me in on that claim. The universe exists where its constituent
parts exist. Period. There are no, "centers, edges, and outsides" of the
universe, at least that are possible to be known. You claim to have facts
regarding "centers, edges, and outsides" of the universe that you imply
that others presumably should not have. What are the true facts. And. yet
you claim that others are wrong without providing any facts whatsoever.
That is another fallacy, a non-sequitur. Probably other fallacies too.

6. Your term "hung up" implies a general disregard for the science and
definitions of geometry. You provide no true facts instead. That is the
fallacy that is at the base of Positivism, meaning that a person says,
"Its that way because I say its that way."

7. Your term "hung up" implies an insult to all readers of the thread or
the general public. Apparently you want to intimidate them so they will
not challenge your claims using facts and logic. That intimidation with
out proper argument is the fallacy called, "ad hominem." That is that the
claimant demeans the character of his opponent rather than by using facts
and logic in dealing with the ideas of the opponent.

That totals to ten contradictions, and there may be more.

Without the Law of Contradiction can you even do arithmetic? Let alone
science?


Ralph Hertle








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You obviouly have never met any type of logic.

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
William:


William Foley wrote:
Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is STILL
the point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and
outsides!!




Thats the most gigantic non-sequitur ever written, probably. A
non-sequitur is a fallacy of logic, and logic is the science of correct
thinking or the identification of facts. You are obviously not a fan of
formal logic.

The universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. The term
cosmos is a plural term, and ever since the Ancient Greeks identified the
universe, the term has been used as a name for all physical things, that
is for everything. For all practical purposes the cosmos, or to us, the
universe, is a metaphysical term that refers to physical entities.

A point, or "that which has no part", and which is a concept of location
only, is not a metaphysical term. It is an idea, specifically a
constituent concept of a defined relationship, and that means that it is
an epistemological term.

You say the the "entire cosmos" _is_ "the point of origin". That means
that the physical universe is a "point".

You have at lease three fallacies at work there.

1. There is a non-sequitur regarding the plurality of the universe and the
concept of a single point.

2. From 1., above, there is also a fallacy, or contradiction, in that
that which is plural cannot be at once singular in the same time, place
and respect. That violates the axiom called the Law of Contradiction, by
Aristotle. And that axiom is one of the two most fundamental laws of
science ever written, and which is also one of the bases for all the
sciences.

3. If something "has no part" it has no physical being, and a point is the
idea, that may be actually or potentially specified, of a location. A
point is a location. A point is an idea. It does not physically exist. To
say that the physically existing cosmos is and idea is as irreconcilable
with the facts as saying that the cosmos doesn't physically exist. There,
you have two more fallacies, or contradictions.

"You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you say.

4. What folks. Not me. For one thing I am not "hung up", and for another
thing, all the readers of the thread, or of the general public, are not
"hung up". You have a problem of distribution in your premises. That's one
more fallacy.

5. Again, "You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you
say. Don't me in on that claim. The universe exists where its constituent
parts exist. Period. There are no, "centers, edges, and outsides" of the
universe, at least that are possible to be known. You claim to have facts
regarding "centers, edges, and outsides" of the universe that you imply
that others presumably should not have. What are the true facts. And. yet
you claim that others are wrong without providing any facts whatsoever.
That is another fallacy, a non-sequitur. Probably other fallacies too.

6. Your term "hung up" implies a general disregard for the science and
definitions of geometry. You provide no true facts instead. That is the
fallacy that is at the base of Positivism, meaning that a person says,
"Its that way because I say its that way."

7. Your term "hung up" implies an insult to all readers of the thread or
the general public. Apparently you want to intimidate them so they will
not challenge your claims using facts and logic. That intimidation with
out proper argument is the fallacy called, "ad hominem." That is that the
claimant demeans the character of his opponent rather than by using facts
and logic in dealing with the ideas of the opponent.

That totals to ten contradictions, and there may be more.

Without the Law of Contradiction can you even do arithmetic? Let alone
science?


Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle wrote:
William:


William Foley wrote:

Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is
STILL the point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges,
and outsides!!




Thats the most gigantic non-sequitur ever written, probably. A
non-sequitur is a fallacy of logic, and logic is the science of correct
thinking or the identification of facts. You are obviously not a fan of
formal logic.

Ralphie, you just don't get it.
From your many verbose, rambling posts from an obviously unscientific
perspective, it's clear that's not you point (pun intended).

Shawn