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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#662109

On 03/23/2025 04:46 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> 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

Maybe he should try nailing it down or measuring it.


And I thought it was Ben Ito..., "Ken Seto" is no "Ben Ito".


Anyways the modern sky-survey, since the "discovery"
(or rather, lack thereof) of un-scientific non-explanations
in the cosmology, has long ago falsified naive theories of
gravity. 2MASS and JWST have thoroughly further round-filed it.

These can be repaired though, with a gravity that a) is not
a perpetual motion machine, b) doesn't twist and turn space-time
for free, c) reflects a classical mechanics with different linear
and rotational interpretations, and d) explains optics and the
special character of light with regards to measurements.

It's more of an orbifold and "trajectifold" than a geodesy, say,
to arrive at fitting all the data.


Maxwell doesn't even say which of his pairs of electrical and
magnetic fields is to be considered real, ..., though that
there's both.

Try reading some O.W. Richardson about the electron theory.

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

#662110

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 2:01:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 03/23/2025 04:46 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> 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
>
> Maybe he should try nailing it down or measuring it.

Huh? Arindam has done enough to show the new discovery that the Lorentz
force does not have an equal and opposite reaction. By violating inertia
with his invention, the heavy armature low voltage rail gun.
>
>
> And I thought it was Ben Ito..., "Ken Seto" is no "Ben Ito".

Blabbering.
>
>
> Anyways the modern sky-survey, since the "discovery"
> (or rather, lack thereof) of un-scientific non-explanations
> in the cosmology, has long ago falsified naive theories of
> gravity. 2MASS and JWST have thoroughly further round-filed it.

More blabbering.

The universe is infinite and made of electrons, protons and aether. All
charges are linked to each other by infinitely infinite lines of force
on one grand oneness. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon as Arindam
discovered.
>
> These can be repaired though, with a gravity that a) is not
> a perpetual motion machine, b) doesn't twist and turn space-time
> for free, c) reflects a classical mechanics with different linear
> and rotational interpretations, and d) explains optics and the
> special character of light with regards to measurements.

Even more blabbering. Arindam has found a new equation for gravitational
force.
>
> It's more of an orbifold and "trajectifold" than a geodesy, say,
> to arrive at fitting all the data.

Gobble dy gook.

>
>
> Maxwell doesn't even say which of his pairs of electrical and
> magnetic fields is to be considered real, ..., though that
> there's both.

Irrelevant.
>
> Try reading some O.W. Richardson about the electron theory.

Electrons are the smallest negative charge that either circle protons or
join them closely to form neutrons. They tie up the protons in the
nucleus of an atom.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

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

#662059

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.

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

#662118

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.


more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new 
telescopes coming online in the next few years that will try to 
deal with dark matter.

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

#662120

On 03/24/2025 06:26 AM, jojo 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.
>
>
> more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new telescopes
> coming online in the next few years that will try to deal with dark matter.
>

No, "dark matter" at all falsified Newtonian and Einsteinian theories
of gravity as with regards to all measurements in the galactic.

When it hit six and seven sigmas then it was definitely long past
significant.

Now, saying that's not so: is in-significant.

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

#662133

Dark matter is stars without their bright hydrogen cover.

Woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#662210

On 03/24/2025 08:55 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/24/2025 06:26 AM, jojo 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.
>>
>>
>> more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new telescopes
>> coming online in the next few years that will try to deal with dark
>> matter.
>>
>
> No, "dark matter" at all falsified Newtonian and Einsteinian theories
> of gravity as with regards to all measurements in the galactic.
>
> When it hit six and seven sigmas then it was definitely long past
> significant.
>
> Now, saying that's not so: is in-significant.
>
>

So, everyone appreciates that the premier theories are TOAST.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web