Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662059

Re: Modern cosmology's crises

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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 king of the run-on sentences...

obvisouly Englsh is your second language, what's the first? is it those
guys that wear a dress? Scotts?


Finland? man dats far away from Brooklyn..


Boy, dats gotta be the longest sentence ever!


people tulk dat way?

o'l chap...with a spoon in the mouth? 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 17:46 -0700
  Re: Modern cosmology's crises The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-20 10:47 -0700
    Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 11:05 -0700
      Re: Modern cosmology's crises The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-20 16:16 -0700
        Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 05:32 -0700
          Re: Modern cosmology's crises The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-21 12:28 -0700
            Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 21:38 -0700
              Re: Modern cosmology's crises Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 11:43 -0500
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises x <x@x.org> - 2025-03-22 13:25 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 13:28 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises x <x@x.org> - 2025-03-22 15:43 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 16:03 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 16:12 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises x <x@x.org> - 2025-03-23 15:55 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-22 22:15 +0000
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-03-23 10:25 -0400
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-03-23 11:16 -0400
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-03-23 09:48 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-23 21:54 +0000
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-23 23:46 +0000
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 19:01 -0700
                Re: Modern cosmology's crises bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-24 05:18 +0000
            Re: Modern cosmology's crises The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-21 23:48 -0700
  Re: Modern cosmology's crises jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-03-24 13:26 +0000
    Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 08:55 -0700
      Re: Modern cosmology's crises bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-03-25 08:19 +0000
      Re: Modern cosmology's crises Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 02:20 -0700

csiph-web