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 ==========