Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 04:00:30 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:00:29 -0800
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: <eb76c4cc1374d0d0780e4c2be5307dfd@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <l8idnTi3SPpD6vL6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 142
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BN9gcatYYX8ODl+zqnGkKL+ufd+CHYl2MEpVRD9c/PyvOIQeAi7kWVy7hKTLjjYAzYPe/62WevFPKlY!A/WAxYs1wdC+fwKTAoBPzoBEr3SjHr4jUOZFsHqcUVAnUHrXcCaCVR6mRcqUGCFcg0stospzhHo=
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: 7527

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.