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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662030

Re: Modern cosmology's crises

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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