Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Modern cosmology's crises Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:28:03 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 134 Message-ID: <67DDBDC3.1464@ix.netcom.com> References: <67DC54B4.7CAE@ix.netcom.com> <2h6cnTK-Wo2HxEH6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <67DCA1C2.1E88@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:27:57 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b39f08b4b16b44768e305e11264e5aa9"; logging-data="2314373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yphlSuBg6rEHNnx/3HzGwlHdCpkq0lxA=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:CyWHltGURHjwUIyIxTbiatkE5Ds= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250321-2, 03/21/2025), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:662030 Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 03/20/2025 04:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> On 03/20/2025 10:47 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Articles these days about inflationary cosmology, > >>>> "well we don't understand apparent galaxies holding > >>>> together and call it dark matter, and don't understand > >>>> apparent galaxies falling apart and call it dark energy, > >>>> and instead of figuring out rotational freedom and > >>>> a different linear and rotational to explain what's > >>>> called dark matter, and instead of figuring out redshift bias > >>>> and that most of the sky survey was just a large local jet > >>>> to explain dark energy, now we'll just say that the universe > >>>> in the long past simply had entirely opposite laws". > >>>> > >>>> Trading a non-scientific explanation of a non-scientific > >>>> explanation for a non-scientific explanation. > >>>> > >>>> It's like that one new theory last year, "wobbly bits", > >>>> sort of instead of "wobbly bits", just a giant "wobbly bend". > >>>> > >>>> And those g2 log-linear goofs, .... > >>>> > >>>> If it was honest scientific reporting it'd say "modern cosmology > >>>> is in a crisis since the decades since non-scientific un-explanations". > >>>> > >>>> Of course a simple difference linear/rotational all the way > >>>> down in classical mechanics and then the optical character > >>>> of optical light and redshift bias provide mechanism and > >>>> explanation, and events like lunar eclipses, or spiral footballs > >>>> or gyroscopic action, demonstrate the super-classical optical > >>>> and retro-classical mechanical. > >>>> > >>>> So anyways "scientific reporting" painting itself in pretty > >>>> terms is, not so scientific after all. > >>> > >>> > >>> ANY "Articles these days about inflationary cosmology,.." is all WRONG since > >>> the inventor of "inflationary cosmology" admited he was mistaken about "inflation".. There is no "inflationary cosmology". > >>> Inflation never happen. It's just an ad-hoc, a bandage they put when they are missing something. > >>> > >>> If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts...tweak it. > >>> > >>> OH, IT LOOKS GOOD NOW! > >>> > >>> Now, put it in the fuckin science textbooks books with all the rest of the garbage! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Both "Big Bang" and "Steady State", and even "Cyclic Cosmology", > >> are good theories, they're sort of super-scientific, though. > >> > >> Good theories, usually then get into Idealism, since, it's so > >> that Logicist Positivism or the Analytical Tradition needs > >> a good theory. > >> > >> "The", good theory, an idealism. > >> > >> Anyways saying everything's not rotten in the state of Denmark > >> when the sky survey _falsified_ Newtonian and Einsteinian theories, > >> has that approaches like linear/rotational differences and the > >> fundamentally kinematic and super-classical about the kinetic > >> and classical, and, the special character of optical light and > >> the Fresnel, can fix these. > >> > >> According to science, both the theory and the data. > >> > >> All the data, .... > >> > >> Yeah, the modern sky-survey has roundly paint-canned > >> many un-scientific theories of physics. > > > > > > don't forget "The" super-un-scientific theories of physics... > > > > > > take a can of paint and throw it against the wall! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers in foundations and physics know that > the data thusly makes it so that the theories of > mechanics and the optical sort of demand a retro-classical > super-classical account of that the theory is a theory > of fields of potential, and that optical light is special > and is not the same as electromagnetic or nuclear radiation, > and that the mechanical has "worlds turn" or for the > free rotational, with space/frames and frame/spaces, and > while still setting up the Galilean and Newtonian and > Lorentzian in the middle, though not necessarily keeping > the gravitational equivalence principle, with regards to > the orbifold instead of the geodesy, and that there's > that momentum isn't a conserved quantity, and that > it's a continuum mechanics what makes any quantum mechanics, > with wave/resonance dichotomy above particle/wave duality, > so that it results the old linear classical is just a > mere differential time-slice, that is itself always > a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action least-gradient, > theory. The truth is...particles do not behave like waves. And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with her panties in a knot. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.