Modern cosmology's crises

[Ross Finlayson]

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.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Ross Finlayson
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!

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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!

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.




And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

[x]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.

There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'? Yes? No? Maybe? People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!! The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave? How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.

Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'. This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time. People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

[%]

Post by x

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.
There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

nice user name where did you steal that idea

[x]

Post by %

Post by x

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.
There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

nice user name where did you steal that idea

The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
Greece. They were not capable of picking up
and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
Greece at the time and carrying it over to
directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.

Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
generally part of that symbol system.
I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
for the 'G' sound if you want to.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by x

Post by %

Post by x

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.
There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'? Yes? No? Maybe? People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!! The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave? How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'. This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time. People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

nice user name where did you steal that idea

The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
Greece. They were not capable of picking up
and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
Greece at the time and carrying it over to
directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.
Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
generally part of that symbol system.
I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
for the 'G' sound if you want to.

Let's start with "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials",
then "least-action least gradient", reduce that to
"sum-of-potentials least-action", then reduce that
to "sum-of-potentials".

You know "quantum mechanics" is sum-of-histories
and "conservation" is least action?


So, "least action" the simplest principle and
"sum-of-potentials" the most thorough, you
figure that "the theory" is one of those?

If you don't then you have no opinion.


And keep your psycho-babble out of other
groups where it doesn't belong, too.



So, "relativity theory" is kind of simple,
"motion is relative", all the rest are
still absolutes, and of course:
"relativity is relative", and absolute.


Then in the formalism it's just saying
what coordinates are "free" and then saying
it's "coordinate-free", yet, any _real_ interpretation
has that it's continuous according to metrics and
norms that define coordinates everywhere.



Dunning-Kruger? Dunning-Kruger: you slippery-slope sycophants.



Learn the language of science:
you'd obviously be learning something.

[%]

Post by x

Post by %

Post by x

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The truth is...particles do not behave like waves.
And your 'one sentence paragrah' looks like it was writen by a girl with
her panties in a knot.

Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.

I see Kosmanson does not like a much more efficiently active rival :)

Yea there is a religion called 'psychology' or the
worship of Psyche, the wife of Cupid, that has terms
called 'word salad'.
There are words like 'point' and 'curve' in analytical
geometry, but are they supposed to be the same as
'particle' or 'wave'?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  People
are jumping up and down in physics and shouting 'no
one can understand me because I AM WORD SALAD.
I am not just esoteric, people should actually
pay me more money!!!  The second that someone
asks someone else - what is a particle and
what is a wave?  How is it similar to point
or curve in mathematics and how is it different?
Then people shout 'baby' 'baby' 'stupid' 'stupid'.
Psychology also has come up with a term called
the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.  This is because
most people are fed lies on something called
'television and radio' that constantly feed
them the illusion of knowledge while constantly
feeding them lies with only the illusion of
knowledge at the same time.  People are generally
incapable of telling the difference and this
constantly has destructive effects all over
the place.

nice user name where did you steal that idea

The letter 'x' was added to the Latin 'alphabet'
when some Italians claimed that they 'owned'
Greece.  They were not capable of picking up
and carrying all of the rocks and dirt in
Greece at the time and carrying it over to
directly adjacent to the Italian peninsula.
Using a symbol in the Latin alphabet is
generally part of that symbol system.
I give you the right to use the letter 'Z'
for the 'G' sound if you want to.

so you don't know why you copied me

[x]

Some mail systems have inline quotes. Sorry.

[Bertitaylor]

Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.

Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

Bertietaylor

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

[Johnny LaRue]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.

He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible. This is what
"external force" means. There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
to propel it.

Try this. Pack as many people as you can inside a car. Have the people
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
seat push against the backs of the front seats.

Tell us how far the car moves.

Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
The car WILL move forward.

THAT is how "an external force" moves something. ANYTHING.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Johnny LaRue

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

BertiTaylor is a second personality of Arindam who thinks that going by an
English sounding persona gives credence to his insane delusions as he
believes that his nonsense is rejected by mainstream science because he is
South Asian.

[Bertitaylor]

Post by Johnny LaRue

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
jet engines mercifully obsolete.

Post by Johnny LaRue
This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
scientist after Newton.

Post by Johnny LaRue
Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible. This is what
"external force" means. There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
to propel it.

But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule

Post by Johnny LaRue
Try this. Pack as many people as you can inside a car. Have the people
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
seat push against the backs of the front seats.
Tell us how far the car moves.

That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
In most mechanical systems such is the case.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
The car WILL move forward.
THAT is how "an external force" moves something. ANYTHING.

[Bertitaylor]

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
jet engines mercifully obsolete.

Post by Johnny LaRue
This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
scientist after Newton.

Post by Johnny LaRue
Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible. This is what
"external force" means. There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
to propel it.

But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule

Post by Johnny LaRue
Try this. Pack as many people as you can inside a car. Have the people
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
seat push against the backs of the front seats.
Tell us how far the car moves.

That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
In most mechanical systems such is the case.

If the passengers each throw a heavy ball at the windscreen and it
bounces back out of the car from the rear the car will go forward. This
is the basic principle of rocket science. What pushes comes out. Now
Arindam wants to push without any exhaust with his new motors. He has
got the power stroke going. Now to complete the task which is beyond his
means.

Post by Bertitaylor
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
The car WILL move forward.

Indeed. The Earth is pushed back by the person but being so big the
Earth does not move.

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
THAT is how "an external force" moves something. ANYTHING.

Well Arindam proved that to be WRONG with his new invention showing a
new effect - that the Lorentz force does not have an equal and opposite
reaction


Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
jet engines mercifully obsolete.

Post by Johnny LaRue
This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
scientist after Newton.

Post by Johnny LaRue
Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible. This is what
"external force" means. There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
to propel it.

But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule

Post by Johnny LaRue
Try this. Pack as many people as you can inside a car. Have the people
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
seat push against the backs of the front seats.
Tell us how far the car moves.

That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
In most mechanical systems such is the case.

If the passengers each throw a heavy ball at the windscreen and it
bounces back out of the car from the rear the car will go forward. This
is the basic principle of rocket science. What pushes comes out. Now
Arindam wants to push without any exhaust with his new motors. He has
got the power stroke going. Now to complete the task which is beyond his
means.

Post by Bertitaylor
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
The car WILL move forward.

Indeed. The Earth is pushed back by the person but being so big the
Earth does not move.

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
THAT is how "an external force" moves something. ANYTHING.

Well Arindam proved that to be WRONG with his new invention showing a
new effect - that the Lorentz force does not have an equal and opposite
reaction
Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Maybe he should try nailing it down or measuring it.


And I thought it was Ben Ito..., "Ken Seto" is no "Ben Ito".


Anyways the modern sky-survey, since the "discovery"
(or rather, lack thereof) of un-scientific non-explanations
in the cosmology, has long ago falsified naive theories of
gravity. 2MASS and JWST have thoroughly further round-filed it.

These can be repaired though, with a gravity that a) is not
a perpetual motion machine, b) doesn't twist and turn space-time
for free, c) reflects a classical mechanics with different linear
and rotational interpretations, and d) explains optics and the
special character of light with regards to measurements.

It's more of an orbifold and "trajectifold" than a geodesy, say,
to arrive at fitting all the data.


Maxwell doesn't even say which of his pairs of electrical and
magnetic fields is to be considered real, ..., though that
there's both.

Try reading some O.W. Richardson about the electron theory.

[Bertitaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Bertitaylor
Problem is that while telescopes show the universe as infinite hence
eternal, the Abrahamic racist bigots who find them insist the universe
must have a beginning. Hence Big Bang and ensuing nonsenses held sacred
by the pseudo physicists.
Woof-woof what insight we doggies have!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_fini
te_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You have to understand that BertiTaylor is a kooktard.
He/She/It follows a quack "physicist" named Arindam. This fool is
writing books claiming that it is possible to move vehicles (cars,
planes, spaceships) by flinging objects at an interior wall of the
vehicle.

Yes, provided that electromagnetic forces are involved in the
acceleration. Arindam makes that very clear in his original book "To the
stars!" He wrote that book in 1999 and published it online in his adda
website in 2000. Correct. Indeed this method will be the mode for space
travel, making polluting and inefficient and really stupid rockets and
jet engines mercifully obsolete.

Post by Johnny LaRue
This - they claim - "violates inertia".

Correct. It also throws out the theories of thermodynamics, relativity
and quantum. So theoretically in 2000 that makes Arindam the greatest
scientist after Newton.

Post by Johnny LaRue
Of course, moving a vehicle this way is impossible. This is what
"external force" means. There is nothing you can do INSIDE a vehicle
to propel it.

But Arindam did just that. He invented a new design em rail gun which
violated inertia. Plenty of video links are there for all to see, posted
in this Ng. Thus Arindam by violating inertia proved his earlier
theories which are now hard facts only fools can ignore or ridicule

Post by Johnny LaRue
Try this. Pack as many people as you can inside a car. Have the people
in the front push on the dashboard/windshield and the people in the back
seat push against the backs of the front seats.
Tell us how far the car moves.

That is the first step which shows the direction of thought is correct.
One has to be careful about managing the reaction.
If the reaction is the same as in this case - you are pushing back the
car with your backsides - then there is no inertia violation.
In most mechanical systems such is the case.

If the passengers each throw a heavy ball at the windscreen and it
bounces back out of the car from the rear the car will go forward. This
is the basic principle of rocket science. What pushes comes out. Now
Arindam wants to push without any exhaust with his new motors. He has
got the power stroke going. Now to complete the task which is beyond his
means.

Post by Bertitaylor
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
Now ONE person can get out of the car and push the back of the car.
The car WILL move forward.

Indeed. The Earth is pushed back by the person but being so big the
Earth does not move.

Post by Bertitaylor

Post by Johnny LaRue
THAT is how "an external force" moves something. ANYTHING.

Well Arindam proved that to be WRONG with his new invention showing a
new effect - that the Lorentz force does not have an equal and opposite
reaction
Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Maybe he should try nailing it down or measuring it.

Huh? Arindam has done enough to show the new discovery that the Lorentz
force does not have an equal and opposite reaction. By violating inertia
with his invention, the heavy armature low voltage rail gun.

Post by Ross Finlayson
And I thought it was Ben Ito..., "Ken Seto" is no "Ben Ito".

Blabbering.

Post by Ross Finlayson
Anyways the modern sky-survey, since the "discovery"
(or rather, lack thereof) of un-scientific non-explanations
in the cosmology, has long ago falsified naive theories of
gravity. 2MASS and JWST have thoroughly further round-filed it.

More blabbering.

The universe is infinite and made of electrons, protons and aether. All
charges are linked to each other by infinitely infinite lines of force
on one grand oneness. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon as Arindam
discovered.

Post by Ross Finlayson
These can be repaired though, with a gravity that a) is not
a perpetual motion machine, b) doesn't twist and turn space-time
for free, c) reflects a classical mechanics with different linear
and rotational interpretations, and d) explains optics and the
special character of light with regards to measurements.

Even more blabbering. Arindam has found a new equation for gravitational
force.

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's more of an orbifold and "trajectifold" than a geodesy, say,
to arrive at fitting all the data.

Gobble dy gook.

Post by Ross Finlayson
Maxwell doesn't even say which of his pairs of electrical and
magnetic fields is to be considered real, ..., though that
there's both.

Irrelevant.

Post by Ross Finlayson
Try reading some O.W. Richardson about the electron theory.

Electrons are the smallest negative charge that either circle protons or
join them closely to form neutrons. They tie up the protons in the
nucleus of an atom.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[The Starmaker]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

The king of the run-on sentences...

obvisouly Englsh is your second language, what's the first? is it those
guys that wear a dress? Scotts?


Finland? man dats far away from Brooklyn..


Boy, dats gotta be the longest sentence ever!


people tulk dat way?

o'l chap...with a spoon in the mouth?

[jojo]

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new
telescopes coming online in the next few years that will try to
deal with dark matter.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new telescopes
coming online in the next few years that will try to deal with dark matter.

No, "dark matter" at all falsified Newtonian and Einsteinian theories
of gravity as with regards to all measurements in the galactic.

When it hit six and seven sigmas then it was definitely long past
significant.

Now, saying that's not so: is in-significant.

[Bertitaylor]

Dark matter is stars without their bright hydrogen cover.

Woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson
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.

more observations and data needed, i suppose. there are new telescopes
coming online in the next few years that will try to deal with dark matter.

No, "dark matter" at all falsified Newtonian and Einsteinian theories
of gravity as with regards to all measurements in the galactic.
When it hit six and seven sigmas then it was definitely long past
significant.
Now, saying that's not so: is in-significant.

So, everyone appreciates that the premier theories are TOAST.