Argument by analogy

[Gibsense]

his is an incomplete sentence, can't understand what you are getting at.

Cat's argument is that the CMB consists of radiation, and radiation moves therefore it cannot be stationary.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, the radiation itself is travelling at the speed of light, as all radiation does. The particles that originally emitted the CMBR were moving randomly at the time, just like all hot atoms do. We know this because the spectrum of the CMBR is a perfect Black Body emission. The gas itself, that contained the atoms that radiated, was not moving. The gas was everywhere all at once in the same density, thus there was no motion of gas trying to get where it was less dense.

 

[Gibsense]

actually took out the patents in my name but did assign them. I used to visit RB (also when just R) but not in the last 35-40 years. I won't say more in case we recognise each other!!! But perhaps you are more recent, in which case, no possibility.

If you were a prisoner of war by the Japanese, I may know you

 

[Catastrophe]

This is an incomplete sentence, can't understand what you are getting at.

Quoting you "Every spot in the universe emitted a photon." in brackets.

This leaves
Photons you describe (bracketed quote)
must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

You describe photons, saying (bracketed quote) so

[they] must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

The word 'they' was omitted. Sorry.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Or more likely:

Photons, as you describe (bracketed quote) must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

Sorry. Again, I missed out a word.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Looking back, so much of the discussion was composed of semantic inconsequential bubbles.

I make no apologies in repeating "The map is not the territory".
A map may endeavour to describe or portray, but never is more than a collection of words or symbols.

For example, we see a foreground commentator on TV describing a horse race, with perhaps 20 horses in the background, "giving their all" to outrace each other, perhaps goaded on by the whips of their jockeys.
We use a word to describe this as "background". We then say this word IS "static". Another invented word.

Really, are these words much better than animal grunts? (My apologies to "animals")

It is our "civilisation" which attributes meaning (another word) to these assumptions.

We assume (at least on a daily basis) that our senses provide all the information necessary to give a perfect and complete description of our surroundings, and beyond. Further, that we have the necessary "brainpower" to convert those limited signals into "understanding", and "perfect understanding" at that.

These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival. In terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail. We do not hesitate, faced with a charging bull, to meditate on its age - whether it means us harm and, if so, why - will it grow up to learn better - how sharp its horns are - would it be less aggressive if it were green or purple in colour?

We pay little attention to words, and hope people understand "what we mean".

Is a still photograph of racing horses static? Well, relative to what we hold in our hands, it is static. But the event it portrays is not static. But am I static when I hold this "static" photo? No, of course not. We all know that the Earth is spinning, and rotating around the c of g of the Earth-Moon system, which orbits the Sun, which orbits the centre of the Milky Way, which . . . . . . . . . .

So language is mostly just a compromise method of communicating approximate understanding, and normally, in living our llives, it is not too unfit for purpose.

But try to dissect it too avidly, and you will waste away your lives.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Cat:
"These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival. In terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail. We do not hesitate, faced with a charging bull, to meditate on its age - whether it means us harm and, if so, why - will it grow up to learn better - how sharp its horns are - would it be less aggressive if it were green or purple in colour?"

Gibsense
"Our senses provide an approximate model that is held in our brains. This model is fairly accurate for most tasks and functions we encounter it seems"

Sorry for

So language is mostly just a compromise method of communicating approximate understanding, and normally, in living our llives, it is not too unfit for purpose.

But try to dissect it too avidly, and you will waste away your lives.

having trouble in replying - my fault


Yes

 

[CreatedEvolution]

Analogy observing all the mass in the universe in a 3 foot aquarium if all light started at point A and ends at point B you could theoretically watch the universe end.

For example in our solar system stuff would be so small we would be smaller than atoms because our body to the mass of the universe is insignificant. Let’s say the universe is so small it ends in 3 heart beats.

If everyone were to wake up after death above the aquarium everybody would wake in the blink of an eye

 

[Catastrophe]

This is logically impossible and therefore invalid.

Firstly, please explain how light stops. It is not explained above.
Are you suggesting, for example, that light stops "at an edge of the Universe?
If so, what is on the "other side" of that point?

For another, saying something does not make it so.
"Let’s say the universe is so small it ends in 3 heart beats."
But it has already lasted more than 3 heart beats, so your "say" is already impossible.
Your suggestion does not relate to reality.

Cat