re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick

I think the original basis of this old saw is that some dictionaries define
sound as 1. the sensation of hearing... and 2. something heard..., hence, by
that definition if there are no ears to hear it there is no sound even tho
the falling tree does generate a pressure wave in the air.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick

I think the original basis of this old saw is that some dictionaries define
sound as 1. the sensation of hearing... and 2. something heard..., hence, by
that definition if there are no ears to hear it there is no sound even tho
the falling tree does generate a pressure wave in the air.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Rick

"Bob Weber" wrote in message newsYkmb.21223$e01.41947@attbi_s02...
I think the original basis of this old saw is that some dictionaries define
sound as 1. the sensation of hearing... and 2. something heard..., hence, by
that definition if there are no ears to hear it there is no sound even tho
the falling tree does generate a pressure wave in the air.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick

Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Rick

"Bob Weber" wrote in message newsYkmb.21223$e01.41947@attbi_s02...
I think the original basis of this old saw is that some dictionaries define
sound as 1. the sensation of hearing... and 2. something heard..., hence, by
that definition if there are no ears to hear it there is no sound even tho
the falling tree does generate a pressure wave in the air.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick

What are "facts"? This is one possible answer to that recursive question:
They're just the things we generally agree it's not worth arguing about
(disputing).

What is "truth"? An ambiguous term.

Logic (the rare, not-ad-hominem, part of disputation?) depends on "facts"
fitting neatly to the edges of sets. What is not false is true, in the
logical sense. *Anything* that is not false is true.

(That's verrrry rough, but it has to be to make the point).

The point? Logic is something we've invented; "facts" is the word we use for
objects that couldn't give a damn what we think of them. Facts don't fit
neatly to the edges of the boxes of our elements of reasoning. Between lying
and honesty there is fudging, for instance. Between truth and falsehood
there is always some indeterminate space out there in the facts.

Now we come to NASA and its vicious lies about the nature of the universe
What Facts does NASA know better than you or me? Gazillions of them I
suppose - the vast majority of which you'd have to be just plain stupid to
dispute.

Does NASA *lie* about any of these facts? Maybe they fudge on a few -
national security matters etc. - but otherwise I doubt it. And surely the
facts are all they can actually *lie* about.

All the rest is just reasoning from the facts, within the limitations of a
logic which has no maybes in it.

Here's the spooky (to humans) fact about the origins of the Universe: WE
JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Sorry about shouting, but our discomfort at
living in a mental universe filled mainly with dark void and litten by just
a few stars makes us start talking "factually" about disputable matter
beyond the plainer, simpler facts.

Why go on like this? Can't remember. I think it had something to do with
cooling the temperature down.

I make the bare assertion that the longing for "facts" is just an expression
of a fear of the unknown - and the horrible possibility of the Unknowable.

Is anyone ever going to *know* the truth about the origins of the universe?
Maybe. Just maybe. Why be frightened of that?

"Duke" wrote in message
.. .
Hey Art, So by saying that Nasa is "Lying" you are saying that they know
the
truth about the origins of the universe but are not telling us?
How do you know that they know the truth? If they know the truth and tell
us the truth, how would they prove it is the truth?
Proving they know the truth with the truth not being the big bang, is the
only way you can prove they are lying!
So you must be lying!
George
"Arth6831" wrote in message
...
i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american
schoolkids
for
40 years???
art swanson

What are "facts"? This is one possible answer to that recursive question:
They're just the things we generally agree it's not worth arguing about
(disputing).

What is "truth"? An ambiguous term.

Logic (the rare, not-ad-hominem, part of disputation?) depends on "facts"
fitting neatly to the edges of sets. What is not false is true, in the
logical sense. *Anything* that is not false is true.

(That's verrrry rough, but it has to be to make the point).

The point? Logic is something we've invented; "facts" is the word we use for
objects that couldn't give a damn what we think of them. Facts don't fit
neatly to the edges of the boxes of our elements of reasoning. Between lying
and honesty there is fudging, for instance. Between truth and falsehood
there is always some indeterminate space out there in the facts.

Now we come to NASA and its vicious lies about the nature of the universe
What Facts does NASA know better than you or me? Gazillions of them I
suppose - the vast majority of which you'd have to be just plain stupid to
dispute.

Does NASA *lie* about any of these facts? Maybe they fudge on a few -
national security matters etc. - but otherwise I doubt it. And surely the
facts are all they can actually *lie* about.

All the rest is just reasoning from the facts, within the limitations of a
logic which has no maybes in it.

Here's the spooky (to humans) fact about the origins of the Universe: WE
JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Sorry about shouting, but our discomfort at
living in a mental universe filled mainly with dark void and litten by just
a few stars makes us start talking "factually" about disputable matter
beyond the plainer, simpler facts.

Why go on like this? Can't remember. I think it had something to do with
cooling the temperature down.

I make the bare assertion that the longing for "facts" is just an expression
of a fear of the unknown - and the horrible possibility of the Unknowable.

Is anyone ever going to *know* the truth about the origins of the universe?
Maybe. Just maybe. Why be frightened of that?

"Duke" wrote in message
.. .
Hey Art, So by saying that Nasa is "Lying" you are saying that they know
the
truth about the origins of the universe but are not telling us?
How do you know that they know the truth? If they know the truth and tell
us the truth, how would they prove it is the truth?
Proving they know the truth with the truth not being the big bang, is the
only way you can prove they are lying!
So you must be lying!
George
"Arth6831" wrote in message
...
i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american
schoolkids
for
40 years???
art swanson

Ron Miller wrote:

yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.

yadda yadda yadda

That is if you misintepret the data as Doppler shift.

Bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

Ron Miller wrote:

yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.

yadda yadda yadda

That is if you misintepret the data as Doppler shift.

Bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

Rick wrote:
Well, the definitions in those dictionaries are wrong, or are at least
confusing "sound" with "hearing". Sound IS a pressure wave,
whether or not anyone happens to hear it. *Hearing* is the act
of receiving it.

Ok. Then what about a bell ringing in a vacuum? A
ghost would say (has said), "Well, *I* can hear it!"
Therefore is hearing just the act of receiving it or
is it the act of receiving it through waves of pressure
in the *air*?

bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!