Originally posted by no1marauderYou've explained nothing. That the article deals with the expansion of the Universe does not mean it does not also mention the point around centres. Your point around non-unique centres of physical objects was refuted right there - in fact the article you cited refutes it in the second sentence. What's more, as I pointed out, homogeneity and isotropy imply that every point will act as a centre of mass.
I already explained that to you. It also doesn't say that the Universe has infinite centers like you are now claiming. I read the article and it deals with the Universe's expansion. It's obvious you didn't read it in detail and/or can't understand it.
Don't compound ignorance with insult.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's the second time you've lied in this thread. I demonstrated conclusively in the other thread that Bruno was, indeed, an astrologer and magician in the Hermetic tradition - all post-Yates historians you've cited agree as much. In fact, he was barely interested in what we would call mathematics or physics.
LMFAO!!! As Bruno was murdered by the RCC, LH insists that he was merely an ignorant, superstitious astrologer. This BS was also demolished in another thread.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou do give yourself airs.
That's the second time you've lied in this thread. I demonstrated conclusively in the other thread that Bruno was, indeed, an astrologer and magician in the Hermetic tradition - all post-Yates historians you've cited agree as much. In fact, he was barely interested in what we would call mathematics or physics.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not sure if you and I are using "separate" in the same way. Does Gnosticism consider the physical and spiritual 'separate', in your view?
If physical and spiritual are not separate, then one cannot be incidental to the other. But why don't you explain what you mean (with reference to the Gnostic writer of your choice).
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou started the word games with "since the physical and spiritual are not separate, one cannot be incidental to the other". Now that I ask you to clarify the words you used, you're running off.
Here we go with the word games. Forget it.
EDIT: Asking for clarification is not "word games". It is precisely what is needed to avoid word games.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is a standard trick of yours: somebody uses a word in perfectly standard English and you start poking at it to see if it will turn into something else.
EDIT: Asking for clarification is not "word games". It is precisely what is needed to avoid word games.
I have no interest in discussing Gnosticism with you.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI now wonder whether you had any interest in discussing Gnosticism in the first place.
It is a standard trick of yours: somebody uses a word in perfectly standard English and you start poking at it to see if it will turn into something else.
I have no interest in discussing Gnosticism with you.
I didn't invent the English language. If a word has multiple senses, a reasonable discussion will include a clarification of the sense in which it is used - so that the sense of the word is not switched half-way through. The fact that you're unwilling to clarify strongly suggests that you are one intending to play word games here.
EDIT: I find it irritating when a person asked for clarification accuses the other of "word games". Try turning in a research paper (in any subject) where you do not clarify the meanings of the key terms you use (unless they are field-specific jargon) and see what happens.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou ought to read Dissemination by Jacques Derrida, in particular "Plato's Pharmacy."
I now wonder whether you had any interest in discussing Gnosticism in the first place.
I didn't invent the English language. If a word has multiple senses, a reasonable discussion will include a clarification of the sense in which it is used - so that the sense of the word is not switched half-way through. The fact that you're unwilling to clarify ...[text shortened]... nings of the key terms you use (unless they are field-specific jargon) and see what happens.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou demonstrated no such thing. Perhaps in your deluded mind you believe that, but all that you showed was that you can twist the meaning of the word "magician" to an absurd degree. You continue to be hopelessly confused over the state of scientific thought in the 1500's and try to apply invalid standards on Bruno and others.
That's the second time you've lied in this thread. I demonstrated conclusively in the other thread that Bruno was, indeed, an astrologer and magician in the Hermetic tradition - all post-Yates historians you've cited agree as much. In fact, he was barely interested in what we would call mathematics or physics.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're ridiculous. You're ignoring the whole import of the article to try to concentrate on a single word. This is what shallow nitpickers like you do. Please cite the place in the article where it says the Universe has infinite centers or that any point can be considered its center.
You've explained nothing. That the article deals with the expansion of the Universe does not mean it does not also mention the point around centres. Your point around non-unique centres of physical objects was refuted right there - in fact the article you cited refutes it in the second sentence. What's more, as I pointed out, homogeneity and isotropy imply that every point will act as a centre of mass.
Don't compound ignorance with insult.