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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:09:44 |
| Calls: | 9,685 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,725 |
| Messages: | 6,176,041 |