Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 01:51:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Expansion and Inflation and Dark Energy and Redshift-Bias-Removal
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <8aicnSk_nvT6ifL6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <eb76c4cc1374d0d0780e4c2be5307dfd@www.novabbs.com>
 <l8idnTi3SPpD6vL6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <065b4a2606678921a2a71f51718f08ec@www.novabbs.com>
 <mOudnabOQqDUDvL6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:51:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mOudnabOQqDUDvL6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <J8ecndXhTZctJmD6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 199
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zbxhpw6/48Rjszh8Y/oi5BByFXw5SMPeU6VBnSH8NtOG2KQ44r8o9/V1XQWRpcc6YDZVm7VQc+gZLwT!eobpoEhIuQ+d0dv7MmycJ9frHdzqFnLdqkjieGRArGD786WFLwv5wJcOKzFPcWj3YZxZCbODdyg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 10534

On 12/27/2024 09:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/27/2024 08:26 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 4:00:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2024 07:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:56:14 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Expansion and Inflation and Dark Energy and Redshift Bias Removal
>>>>>
>>>>> If you've been following along, for about a hundred and
>>>>> more years since Hubble there was observed a sort of
>>>>> red-shift bias, meaning distant galaxies appear to
>>>>> demonstrate a red-shift which according to Doppler
>>>>> means they recede, and that given the theory of
>>>>> stellar formation and pulsation, and the theory of
>>>>> hydrogen lines and standard candles, then it was
>>>>> really well figured out and quite tuned the theory,
>>>>> to arrive at estimates like the age of the universe,
>>>>> from taking averages and extrapolating backwards,
>>>>> and the Expansionary making for the Inflationary
>>>>> and making a very sensible theory called Big Bang.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, over time, then science found that there wasn't
>>>>> enough energy to explain all the receding. Much like
>>>>> science couldn't explain why galaxies like free-rotating
>>>>> platters weren't flying apart and thus had to add
>>>>> Dark Matter or not luminous matter to explain how
>>>>> gravity, which also isn't really a theory in those days,
>>>>> then for energy there's Dark Energy, enough to
>>>>> explain why things appear to be falling apart in
>>>>> the large, while holding together in the close.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over time, then these non-scientific non-explanations,
>>>>> mute matter say or false energy, well they started to
>>>>> grow more and more, until at some point it was
>>>>> reached "out non-scientific non-explanations now
>>>>> dominate the theory so obviously our theory is wrong".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is to say, ever since Dark Matter and Dark Energy
>>>>> were in the theory, it's _not_ the theory, of that without.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, when talking about Dark Matter and Dark Energy,
>>>>> it's not to be read as about ethnicity, while of course
>>>>> human beings have ethnicities and that, just saying,
>>>>> when we say Dark Matter and Dark Energy, it's exactly
>>>>> the non-luminous, so un-detectable, matter, and,
>>>>> energy with same idea, non-observable non-scientific.
>>>>> So, that's just saying that the reasons why theory
>>>>> want to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy as
>>>>> having reasons why their role in the theory is
>>>>> according to something else in the theory,
>>>>> is like so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, red-shift bias is the idea "well what if all along
>>>>> the measurements get a red-shift _bias_ and we
>>>>> thought it was plain straight Doppler yet really
>>>>> it's something else", about Dark Energy. (Then,
>>>>> for Dark Matter it's actually a matter of mechanics,
>>>>> and so free rotating frames explain via a true
>>>>> centrifugal why it's to be explained what makes
>>>>> the role of Dark Matter in theories that are
>>>>> otherwise quite thoroughly broken because
>>>>> they don't have any way to say what it is.) So,
>>>>> the Dark Energy, then, if red-shift bias is explainable
>>>>> because it's more about "Fresnel and large lensing"
>>>>> and not about ideas like "tired light" or "lumpy space-time",
>>>>> or these other strange and sometimes bizaare
>>>>> non-scientific non-explanations, where red-shift
>>>>> bias is explainable, and removable, then: the
>>>>> premier theories of the day can be much better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, since 2MASS, and, the discovery of LaniaKea,
>>>>> and, particularly since JWST, and soon with the
>>>>> Nancy Roman if that makes it, all these latest
>>>>> additions to the sky survey, also have in other
>>>>> spectra, _much, much, much_ less red-shift bias,
>>>>> what was 99/1 is now 51/49. Then this makes all
>>>>> the Lambda CDM and particular Expansion and
>>>>> Inflation quite lose most their justification, except
>>>>> as a tuning problem according to measurements
>>>>> and extrapolations tuning and fitting the data
>>>>> an exercise in scientific modeling that the new
>>>>> data has paint-canned and round-filed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, have a great day, just letting you know that
>>>>> fall-gravity explain Dark Matter and red-shift-bias-removal
>>>>> explains Dark Energy: away.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, both Big Bang and Steady State hypotheses
>>>>> either can be made fit the data as neither are falsifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
>>>>> mathematics of infinity, and continuity.
>>>> Right, so before Olber it was already understood that light doesn't go
>>>> on forever and gets tired so mainstream science is just a boondoggle
>>>> anyone with a 85 IQ who uses his brains can see through.
>>>
>>> No, it's just figured there's more space than matter.
>>>
>>> Olbers paradox is "if the sky is full of stars, why
>>> isn't it full of light", and answers or explanations
>>> may include that there's a model of free transit of
>>> information, the light-like, about images in light,
>>> and about the _intensity_ of light. Then, the idea
>>> is that light is omni-directional, and, it _attenuates_
>>> as it _dissipates_, while of course the sky is full of stars.
>>>
>>> So, it's simply dissipation and attenuation, and the fact
>>> that a given observer for example a terrestrial observer,
>>> only sees so many, the arriving intensity.
>>>
>>> "Tired Light", for example Finlay-Freundlich's theory
>>> with Born, as above is an analytical method, yet as
>>> above is out-moded by the data, and furthermore more
>>> of a large-Fresnel-lensing approach to optics.
>>>
>>> Just like "Big Bang" and "Steady State" are
>>> neither falsifiable and either tunable, so
>>> are each of "heat death", "cold death", and
>>> "Big Crunch", and "Steady Horizon".
>>>
>>> Now, I just made up "Steady Horizon", a theoretical
>>> non-end of the universe among theories of the end of
>>> the universe yet, that's the way of these things sometimes.
>>> Usually these may be considered Cyclic Cosmologies,
>>> though, those are also neither falsifiable and either
>>> tunable, before/after and before/after.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that comprehension largely depends on
>>> vocabulary and language, and reading is fundamental,
>>> to make textual learners from graphical and manual learners.
>>>
>>> The concept of intensity varies among optical and
>>> electrodynamic theories and as with regards to usual
>>> models of flow and flux in fluid models about usual
>>> models of waves their lengths for frequency and lengths
>>> for velocity, and, energy and entelechy, that the
>>> intensity is of a given form.
>> The boondoggle is claiming a velocity-distance relationship is at all
>> intelligent when it is illogical nonsense that Hubble and Zwicky
>> rejected. Some one of the many tired light theories will be correct.
>> Olbers is common sense. No mystery there.
>
> Considering the point of this thread is sort of
> to revisit to review to reject Hubble, as part of
> the old "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs" bit,
> and that Zwicky is sort of a linear spherical contradiction,
> no, here it's "large-Fresnel-lensing" not "tuckered photons".
>
> The "tired light" would be a violation of conservation of energy.
>
> Now, of course the data advised that it was correct
> and Hubble wasn't incorrect - there's new data and
> so now the entire stack of derivations needs revisiting.
>
> Zwicky's approach of "severe abstraction" results some
> sort of "linearisations" which may be useful approximations,
> they've about though ran out their utility, and furthermore
> as they're buried in the stacks of derivations of each
> other, that GR and QM have pointy bits at each other,
> when it should all be a smooth continuous continuum mechanics.
>
> Yeah, "universal 99/1 red-shift" is these days instead
> the "51/49 red-shift-bias-removal". If you haven't been
> paying attention, science has already fixed some of your
> perceived problems.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========