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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662001 > unrolled thread

Modern cosmology's crises

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#662001 — Modern cosmology's crises

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#662008

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!








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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662009

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662011

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!










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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662020

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662052

On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, 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 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.
>
>
>

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662065

On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
> 
> 



I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662068

On 03/22/2025 09:43 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
>>
> 
> I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)
> 

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.

There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.

Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662069

x wrote:
> On 03/22/2025 09:43 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
>>>
>>
>> I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)
>>
> 
> Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
> worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
> called 'word salad'.
> 
> There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
> geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
> 'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
> are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
> one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
> I am not just esoteric, people should actually
> pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
> asks someone else - what is a particle and
> what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
> or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
> Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
> 
> Psychology also has come up with a term called
> the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
> most people are fed lies on something called
> 'television and radio' that constantly feed
> them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
> feeding them lies with only the illusion of
> knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
> incapable of telling the difference and this
> constantly has destructive effects all over
> the place.
> 

nice user name where did you steal that idea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662076

On 03/22/2025 01:28 PM, % wrote:
> x wrote:
>> On 03/22/2025 09:43 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)
>>>
>>
>> Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
>> worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
>> called 'word salad'.
>>
>> There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
>> geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
>> 'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
>> are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
>> one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
>> I am not just esoteric, people should actually
>> pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
>> asks someone else - what is a particle and
>> what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
>> or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
>> Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
>>
>> Psychology also has come up with a term called
>> the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
>> most people are fed lies on something called
>> 'television and radio' that constantly feed
>> them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
>> feeding them lies with only the illusion of
>> knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
>> incapable of telling the difference and this
>> constantly has destructive effects all over
>> the place.
>>
> 
> nice user name where did you steal that idea

The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
Greece.  They were not capable of picking up
and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
Greece at the time and carrying it over to
directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.

Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
generally part of that symbol system.
I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
for the 'G' sound if you want to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662078

On 03/22/2025 03:43 PM, x wrote:
> On 03/22/2025 01:28 PM, % wrote:
>> x wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2025 09:43 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
>>> worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
>>> called 'word salad'.
>>>
>>> There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
>>> geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
>>> 'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
>>> are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
>>> one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
>>> I am not just esoteric, people should actually
>>> pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
>>> asks someone else - what is a particle and
>>> what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
>>> or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
>>> Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
>>>
>>> Psychology also has come up with a term called
>>> the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
>>> most people are fed lies on something called
>>> 'television and radio' that constantly feed
>>> them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
>>> feeding them lies with only the illusion of
>>> knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
>>> incapable of telling the difference and this
>>> constantly has destructive effects all over
>>> the place.
>>>
>>
>> nice user name where did you steal that idea
>
> The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
> when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
> Greece.  They were not capable of picking up
> and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
> Greece at the time and carrying it over to
> directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.
>
> Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
> generally part of that symbol system.
> I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
> for the 'G' sound if you want to.
>


Let's start with "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials",
then "least-action least gradient", reduce that to
"sum-of-potentials least-action", then reduce that
to "sum-of-potentials".

You know "quantum mechanics" is sum-of-histories
and "conservation" is least action?


So, "least action" the simplest principle and
"sum-of-potentials" the most thorough, you
figure that "the theory" is one of those?

If you don't then you have no opinion.


And keep your psycho-babble out of other
groups where it doesn't belong, too.



So, "relativity theory" is kind of simple,
"motion is relative", all the rest are
still absolutes, and of course:
"relativity is relative", and absolute.


Then in the formalism it's just saying
what coordinates are "free" and then saying
it's "coordinate-free", yet, any _real_ interpretation
has that it's continuous according to metrics and
norms that define coordinates everywhere.



Dunning-Kruger? Dunning-Kruger: you slippery-slope sycophants.



Learn the language of science:
you'd obviously be learning something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662080

x wrote:
> On 03/22/2025 01:28 PM, % wrote:
>> x wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2025 09:43 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
>>> worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
>>> called 'word salad'.
>>>
>>> There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
>>> geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
>>> 'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
>>> are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
>>> one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
>>> I am not just esoteric, people should actually
>>> pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
>>> asks someone else - what is a particle and
>>> what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
>>> or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
>>> Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
>>>
>>> Psychology also has come up with a term called
>>> the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
>>> most people are fed lies on something called
>>> 'television and radio' that constantly feed
>>> them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
>>> feeding them lies with only the illusion of
>>> knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
>>> incapable of telling the difference and this
>>> constantly has destructive effects all over
>>> the place.
>>>
>>
>> nice user name where did you steal that idea
> 
> The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
> when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
> Greece.  They were not capable of picking up
> and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
> Greece at the time and carrying it over to
> directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.
> 
> Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
> generally part of that symbol system.
> I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
> for the 'G' sound if you want to.
> 
so you don't know why you copied me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662105

Some mail systems have inline quotes.  Sorry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662073

Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.

Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

Bertietaylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662087

Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
> eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
> must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
> by the pseudo physicists.
>
> Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

    https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

-- 
The best way to make a fire with two sticks is to make sure one of them
is a match.
		-- Will Rogers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662093

In article <vrp5l6$2gbis$4@dont-email.me>,
 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

> Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
> > Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
> > eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
> > must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
> > by the pseudo physicists.
> >
> > Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!
> 
>     https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
>     te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.

He/She/It  follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam.   This fool is 
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars, 
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the 
vehicle.  

This - they claim - "violates inertia".   

Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible.   This is what 
"external force" means.   There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle 
to propel it.   

Try this.  Pack as many people as you can inside a car.  Have the people 
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back 
seat push against the backs of the front seats.  

Tell us how far the car moves.  

Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.   
The car WILL move forward. 

THAT is how "an external force" moves something.   ANYTHING.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662095

In sci.physics Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
> In article <vrp5l6$2gbis$4@dont-email.me>,
>  Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> 
>> Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>> 
>> > Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
>> > eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
>> > must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
>> > by the pseudo physicists.
>> >
>> > Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!
>> 
>>     https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
>>     te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
> 
> You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
> 
> He/She/It  follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam.   This fool is 
> writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars, 
> planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the 
> vehicle.  

BertiTaylor is a second personality of Arindam who thinks that going by an
English sounding persona gives credence to his insane delusions as he
believes that his nonsense is rejected by mainstream science because he is
South Asian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662102

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:16:09 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:

> In article <vrp5l6$2gbis$4@dont-email.me>,
>  Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
>> Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
>>> eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
>>> must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
>>> by the pseudo physicists.
>>>
>>> Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!
>>
>>
>> https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
>>     te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
>
> You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
>
> He/She/It  follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam.   This fool is
> writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
> planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
> vehicle.

Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
jet engines mercifully obsolete.
>
> This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
scientist after Newton.
>
> Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible.   This is what
> "external force" means.   There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
> to propel it.

But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule

>
> Try this.  Pack as many people as you can inside a car.  Have the people
> in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
> seat push against the backs of the front seats.
>
> Tell us how far the car moves.

That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
In most mechanical systems such is the case.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
> Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
> The car WILL move forward.
>
> THAT is how "an external force" moves something.   ANYTHING.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662106

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:53:59 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:16:09 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
>
>> In article <vrp5l6$2gbis$4@dont-email.me>,
>>  Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
>>>> eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
>>>> must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
>>>> by the pseudo physicists.
>>>>
>>>> Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
>>>     te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
>>
>> You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
>>
>> He/She/It  follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam.   This fool is
>> writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
>> planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
>> vehicle.
>
> Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
> acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
> stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
> website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
> travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
> jet engines mercifully obsolete.
>>
>> This - they claim - "violates inertia".
>
> Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
> and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
> scientist after Newton.
>>
>> Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible.   This is what
>> "external force" means.   There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
>> to propel it.
>
> But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
> violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
> in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
> theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule
>
>>
>> Try this.  Pack as many people as you can inside a car.  Have the people
>> in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
>> seat push against the backs of the front seats.
>>
>> Tell us how far the car moves.
>
> That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
> One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
> If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
> car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
> In most mechanical systems such is the case.

If the passengers each throw a heavy ball at the windscreen and it
bounces back out of the car from the rear the car will go forward. This
is the basic principle of rocket science. What pushes comes out. Now
Arindam wants to push without any exhaust with his new motors. He has
got the power stroke going. Now to complete the task which is beyond his
means.
>
> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
>> The car WILL move forward.

Indeed. The Earth is pushed back by the person but being so big the
Earth does not move.
>>
>> THAT is how "an external force" moves something.   ANYTHING.

Well Arindam proved that to be WRONG with his new invention showing a
new effect - that the Lorentz force does not have an equal and opposite
reaction


Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web