Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<jPCcnX0_gY6QXWD6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 02:10:21 +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> <J8ecndXhTZctJmD6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 19:10:02 -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: <J8ecndXhTZctJmD6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <jPCcnX0_gY6QXWD6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 221 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-33IF95dOQqPuNOAZpjhKFAiKLSB75ADHJ7WHG3sqpNS+dcaDXWzbKvEPQGja+dRjJrWu+UAUq4LXf65!1eMaxLwUyUJTkA68/UPbTRqOjSL4X22DWlWlwZXXobsJQYXXrc3yY9Nxt3WLedZVMPG2zwvqAz0= 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: 11675 On 04/14/2025 06:51 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========