Amedeo

I spoke of my INCORRECT answers, by which I did not mean ERRONEOUS positions. I am incorrect relatively to the orthodox theory or dogma. In fact, you kept on noticing the DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHT i WAS SAYING AND YOU YOU HOLD TO BE THE TRUTH. fOR INSTANCE, SINCE YOUR BALOON REDUCES EVERYTHING TO 2 DIMENSIONS, YOU FAILED TO ANALYZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF MY DISCOURSE ABOUT A 3-DIMENSIONAL star-studded WORLD. (Anyway, the zenith and nadir referred to the earth or the solar system "globe, not the baloon._) Again, you baloon is OK for the reductionism it makes, but it is not a baloon for other purposes, because your baloon does not have a center. I suppose the the baloon skin -- or all that is -- is like a one-sided line or one clapping hand. I said, dump the baloon. Oh no, the problem is with my non-understanding the baloon. (I confess I don't understand self contradictory things: this baloon, the one-sides line, god, and dehadrated water.)
Finally, the contention of the solar system being the center of the expanding universe is something inferred from facts; any other center or any non-centes is due to a theory which tries to hide unlikely facts.

I withdraw, as I did on other occasions, because taking a textbook test is not my style of living. Incorrectness is disagreement or non-compliance with with what is presumed to be true. (Of course, big bangers assume the the Doppler effect is a fact rather than an unproven theory. But dogmatists don't have the time to bother with such minutiae.)

I'll sleep on my globally star-surrounded earth -- zenith, nadir, and the twilight zone. Good night.

John A. Broussard

Somehow, human beings seem to have this need to be at the center of things. First it was a flat earth, with whoever was writing in the center, then it was a geocentric universe with everything revolving around it. Now there seems to still be this need to be at the center of the universe in the face of all the evidence indicating there is no center.

Human beings are indeed strange.

RGD

I realize that, once again, you are going to abandon a discussion once it appears that your contentions are erroneous, but I did need to comment on this.

It is wrong. It is blatantly incorrect. It is not something inferred from the facts. What is inferred from the facts is that the expansion has no center. What is inferred from the facts is that the solar system is not the center of an expansion. You are contradicted by facts - not just inferences.

No valid philosophical system can ignore the facts as you seem to insist on doing.

Jack the Bodiless

No, it is possible to infer from observed facts that we are NOT at the "center".

In the balloon analogy, the folks on dot A will note that the other dots are receding, and might conclude that they are at the center of expansion. However, if they observe dot B and then perform some vector calculations to see how things would look from dot B (i.e. calculate the movement of all visible dots relative to B), they can note a universal expansion from dot B: or any other dot.

The same applies to our Universe. Various galaxies are moving in various directions, but the overall trend is a movement AWAY from our Milky Way galaxy. If astronomers pick "distant galaxy X" and calculate the movement of all other galaxies relative to X, they note a similar overall trend of universal expansion from galaxy X.

EVERY galaxy is apparently the center of the expansion. Because, in fact, NONE of them are.

Amedeo

I am not abandoning this discussion because, as YOU think, my contentions appear to be erroneous. I, for one, always seek true knowledge and I welcome criticism. The fact is that I do not find people with enough brain to MAKE a criticism of what they read; all they can do is to recognize that what they read is INCOIRRECT: contrary to what they believe to be true. It's as if I were wrong by default.
(Their procedure is logically fallacious, but I am not going to start teaching logic now.)

Many of you do not know the difference between facts and theories. Idiotic theories are made everyday. Theories are in the books of physics, in the Bible, and in everydayday thinking, and most people believe in theories rather than facts -- for they themselves do not know what the facts imply. Case in point, I have taken two facts (light-waves have a velocity; perception occurs when and where light-waves strike the eye) and drawn logical consequences which happen to be contrary to certain solid beliefs [theories -- when the beliefs are put into words] people have and we all live by for practical purposes. By their conventional theory I was wrong, but they never found anything wrong with my explicitations. I am sure you mentally behave like them when I state that the sun you see (the visual luminous body in the sky) does not exist outside your eyes; the whole visual field which has the sky as the limit does not exist in front of your tangible eyes. (Join the crowd in the philosophy thread, "What is the star we are gazing at?")

Since this Section is about gods and, appropriately, other self-contradictions, I am going to open a thread in the Science section about some Physics facts and theories, to show how certain theories about facts are actually groundless, mere imaginings, or how certain theories distort and even ignore facts. / Continuing in this threat may give the impression that I am rebeling against facts.
-----
I'll sleep in my three-dimensional universe rather than a two-dimensional curved space universe without Lucifer above and the pit of hell at the opposite side.

RGD

It is certainly possible to point out when you have made an invalid inference or are using incorrect facts. We have pointed this out to you. Rather than welcoming criticism, you have simply ignored our corrections and continued to assert invalid inferences and incorrect facts. This isn't a question of what we 'believe' to be true; it's a question of what we 'know' to be true. We have given you citations from the web in support of our point that your inferences and facts are erroneous.

On the contrary - every person who responded to you in this thread understands the distinction quite well.

Having read the thread, it would appear that they have found a great deal wrong with your explication. Once again, you appear to be ignoring them, and not accepting criticism.

Which you are, but such a thread would be fun.

John A. Broussard

HINT: To get people to engage in a meaningful discussion insulting them is a poor way to achieve that goal.

Gawdzila

No, you're wrong because your model is neither supported by facts
nor is your model a useful representation of spacetime. We were simply
pointing out that your argument is based on fallacy. This seems like a
valid criticism to me.

If you think that the Bible contains "theories" in the same way that a physics
textbook contains theories, then it is YOU who don't know the difference
between fact and theory. In physics, a theory requires rigorous testing and
verification. The "theories" in the Bible are nothing but (un)educated
guesses.

Just so you know, "explicitation" isn't a word. Did you mean "explanation"?
Because we found plenty wrong with it, if you'll go back and read.

Take this, for instance:
First, I'd like to point out that, since the balloon is 2-D, the idea of "above
and below" are meaningless. Any point on the balloon IS surrounded "globally"
by other points on the balloon, if you confine movement to the surface. The
really confusing part is when you say that you're dumping the balloon analogy
but then go on to use it again. Except that now you're re-defining space as
existing within the "thick skin" of another balloon, as you did here: Now you're somehow calling this a valid 3-D model of the universe. It is not.
There are many shapes that spacetime could be, however, a thick hollow
sphere is not one of them. We know this because of spacetime curvature,
which we can measure very accurately. Spacetime could be saddle-shaped
(hyperbolic), it could be a torus, or it could simply be infinite in all directions,
none of which behave in the way your "thick balloon" model does.