https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on theexpanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.
In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that arehypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half thehelium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been
--------------------------------------------Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all directions,
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having beenFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on theexpanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.
In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that arehypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half thehelium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been
--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranksYou are a knitwit because there is no center in an infinite universe. A center can only exist in a finite universe.
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranks"center
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having beenFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the
Mei Xiaochun explains the Newtonian expanding universe and the fact that "Abstract The motion equation of standard cosmology, the Friedmann equation, is based on the Einstein’s--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.100 years of ignorance, lies and deception.
Redshift is not due to Doppler effect. Universe is infinite and quasi-static.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranksOnly a finite universe can expand. You are very very silly!
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranksIs it a finite expanding universe with one center or an infinite universe without any center and unable to expand?
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranksIf you exercise basic logic, you can understand better than many eminent thinkers from the institutions of "higher learning." Science by committee is not very good and is full of contradictions. I took a course in logical fallacies in high school in 1973.
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Yes, Lerner's criticisms of BBT are excellent. All one really needs to know is that the velocity-distance relationship is an unwarranted inference from the redshift-distance relation, as proven by the fact that the redshift is identical in all
More cranks supporting cranksThat reminds me of the Nobel Committee.
Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe, *everywhere* is the center!
100 years of ignorance, lies and deception.
Redshift is not due to Doppler effect. Universe is infinite and quasi-static.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:Anton Petrov has a recent video I like: "Origins Of Fast Moving Runaway Stars Escaping The Galaxy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk7h_GplQU The runaway stars are interpreted as having escape velocity and being headed out of the galaxy. In my opinion,
100 years of ignorance, lies and deception.
Redshift is not due to Doppler effect. Universe is infinite and quasi-static.Observe the ignorance, lies and deception planted by professional BBT/GR supporters:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Nearsc.gif
This is a "map" (fraudulent map) of galaxies distribution in superclusters of galaxies (filaments) with Earth at the center (in Virgo Supercluster),
in a radius of 500 million light years.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
In this article, there are maps of large-scale distribution up to a radius of 1,000 million light years.
PROBLEMS:
1) The Universe is ANYTHING but isotropic. There are huge voids in space, occupying more than 95% of the volume.
2) The maps were built ONLY with the information of the z value and relative luminosity (for location).
3) There is ZERO INFORMATION about the true velocity vector, delayed in time for millions of years. Galaxies could be anywhere NOW.
4) There is ZERO UNDERSTANDING about the HUGE magnetic and electric forces that produce intergalactic highways through which PLASMA flows,
causing the creation of ULTRA-ENERGETIC RADIATION that accelerate particles, a portion of them bombarding Earth. Galaxies interchange matter
through these highways.
5) There are more than a dozen projects studying the structure of the Universe since 1990. All of them OBEY 1922 Friedmann stupid theories, derived
from GR, and NONE OF THEM work without introducing the idiocy of dark matter/energy. More than 30,000 galaxies have been "cataloged".
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/large-scale-structure
6) There is no single proof of the existence of the BB, besides some fancy mathematics. CMR is not a proof of the BB, nor has been served as evidence
of a bounded Universe. Any "calculation" of its distance (as the frontier of the Universe) is only that: CALCULATIONS.
7) Humans, in spite of their intellectual arrogance, don't understand and WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND what the Universe is.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:45:15 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
Anton Petrov has a recent video I like: "Origins Of Fast Moving Runaway Stars Escaping The Galaxy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk7h_GplQU The runaway stars are interpreted as having escape velocity and being headed out of the galaxy. In my
What possible value does *your* opinion have? Tell us, O clueless one, approximately what is the escape velocity for our galaxy? Exactly what information do you need to calculate it? Show us your math that supports your claim that our galaxy is toomassive to ever allow a star to escape?
This is a trivial math problem, providing that you have realistic numbers for the variables involved. Google is your friend. Your opinion in this case is worthless.EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Hint: there are literally dozens of hypervelocity stars that are known to exist, all of which will someday leave our Milky Way.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1084US1085&oq=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&gs_lcrp=
Anton Petrov has a recent video I like: "Origins Of Fast Moving Runaway Stars Escaping The Galaxy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk7h_GplQU The runaway stars are interpreted as having escape velocity and being headed out of the galaxy. In my opinion,the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:The consensus recognizes the galactic rotation curve requires there to be ten times more mass in the galaxy than they have found in the stars. Is their calculation of escape velocity based on the amount of mass known in the stars or on the amount
100 years of ignorance, lies and deception.
Redshift is not due to Doppler effect. Universe is infinite and quasi-static.Observe the ignorance, lies and deception planted by professional BBT/GR supporters:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Nearsc.gif
This is a "map" (fraudulent map) of galaxies distribution in superclusters of galaxies (filaments) with Earth at the center (in Virgo Supercluster),
in a radius of 500 million light years.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
In this article, there are maps of large-scale distribution up to a radius of 1,000 million light years.
PROBLEMS:
1) The Universe is ANYTHING but isotropic. There are huge voids in space, occupying more than 95% of the volume.
2) The maps were built ONLY with the information of the z value and relative luminosity (for location).
3) There is ZERO INFORMATION about the true velocity vector, delayed in time for millions of years. Galaxies could be anywhere NOW.
4) There is ZERO UNDERSTANDING about the HUGE magnetic and electric forces that produce intergalactic highways through which PLASMA flows,
causing the creation of ULTRA-ENERGETIC RADIATION that accelerate particles, a portion of them bombarding Earth. Galaxies interchange matter
through these highways.
5) There are more than a dozen projects studying the structure of the Universe since 1990. All of them OBEY 1922 Friedmann stupid theories, derived
from GR, and NONE OF THEM work without introducing the idiocy of dark matter/energy. More than 30,000 galaxies have been "cataloged".
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/large-scale-structure
6) There is no single proof of the existence of the BB, besides some fancy mathematics. CMR is not a proof of the BB, nor has been served as evidence
of a bounded Universe. Any "calculation" of its distance (as the frontier of the Universe) is only that: CALCULATIONS.
7) Humans, in spite of their intellectual arrogance, don't understand and WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND what the Universe is.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 9:08:31 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:45:15 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Anton Petrov has a recent video I like: "Origins Of Fast Moving Runaway Stars Escaping The Galaxy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk7h_GplQU The runaway stars are interpreted as having escape velocity and being headed out of the galaxy. In my
massive to ever allow a star to escape?What possible value does *your* opinion have? Tell us, O clueless one, approximately what is the escape velocity for our galaxy? Exactly what information do you need to calculate it? Show us your math that supports your claim that our galaxy is too
EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8This is a trivial math problem, providing that you have realistic numbers for the variables involved. Google is your friend. Your opinion in this case is worthless.
Hint: there are literally dozens of hypervelocity stars that are known to exist, all of which will someday leave our Milky Way.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1084US1085&oq=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&gs_lcrp=
Are you done chest beating?
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 9:08:31 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:45:15 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Anton Petrov has a recent video I like: "Origins Of Fast Moving Runaway Stars Escaping The Galaxy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk7h_GplQU The runaway stars are interpreted as having escape velocity and being headed out of the galaxy. In my
massive to ever allow a star to escape?What possible value does *your* opinion have? Tell us, O clueless one, approximately what is the escape velocity for our galaxy? Exactly what information do you need to calculate it? Show us your math that supports your claim that our galaxy is too
EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8This is a trivial math problem, providing that you have realistic numbers for the variables involved. Google is your friend. Your opinion in this case is worthless.
Hint: there are literally dozens of hypervelocity stars that are known to exist, all of which will someday leave our Milky Way.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1084US1085&oq=how+many+milky+way+stars+have+enough+velocity+to+excape+it%3F&gs_lcrp=
Are you done chest beating?Are you done making $hit up, without a lick of evidence, as you go along?
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the mass of
100 years of ignorance, lies and deception.
Redshift is not due to Doppler effect. Universe is infinite and quasi-static.Observe the ignorance, lies and deception planted by professional BBT/GR supporters:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Nearsc.gif
This is a "map" (fraudulent map) of galaxies distribution in superclusters of galaxies (filaments) with Earth at the center (in Virgo Supercluster),
in a radius of 500 million light years.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
In this article, there are maps of large-scale distribution up to a radius of 1,000 million light years.
PROBLEMS:
1) The Universe is ANYTHING but isotropic. There are huge voids in space, occupying more than 95% of the volume.
2) The maps were built ONLY with the information of the z value and relative luminosity (for location).
3) There is ZERO INFORMATION about the true velocity vector, delayed in time for millions of years. Galaxies could be anywhere NOW.
4) There is ZERO UNDERSTANDING about the HUGE magnetic and electric forces that produce intergalactic highways through which PLASMA flows,
causing the creation of ULTRA-ENERGETIC RADIATION that accelerate particles, a portion of them bombarding Earth. Galaxies interchange matter
through these highways.
5) There are more than a dozen projects studying the structure of the Universe since 1990. All of them OBEY 1922 Friedmann stupid theories, derived
from GR, and NONE OF THEM work without introducing the idiocy of dark matter/energy. More than 30,000 galaxies have been "cataloged".
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/large-scale-structure
6) There is no single proof of the existence of the BB, besides some fancy mathematics. CMR is not a proof of the BB, nor has been served as evidence
of a bounded Universe. Any "calculation" of its distance (as the frontier of the Universe) is only that: CALCULATIONS.
7) Humans, in spite of their intellectual arrogance, don't understand and WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND what the Universe is.
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the massof the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the
So I guess this limits the numbers of stars capable of leaving the galaxy to about 10 million...numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/scientists-discover-the-fastest-stars-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way#:~:text=Astronomers%20have%20detected%20the%20fastest,(8%2C226%2C967%20kilometers%20per%20hour).
"If a significant fraction of Type Ia supernovae produce a D6 star, the galaxy has likely launched more than 10 million of them into intergalactic space," the researchers wrote in the study. "An interesting corollary is that there should be large
You remain ignorant of the subject matter and you keep proving it over and over again!
Your *opinion* remains worthless. Read a dang textbook!
Evidence rules... got any?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the
So I guess this limits the numbers of stars capable of leaving the galaxy to about 10 million...numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/scientists-discover-the-fastest-stars-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way#:~:text=Astronomers%20have%20detected%20the%20fastest,(8%2C226%2C967%20kilometers%20per%20hour).
"If a significant fraction of Type Ia supernovae produce a D6 star, the galaxy has likely launched more than 10 million of them into intergalactic space," the researchers wrote in the study. "An interesting corollary is that there should be large
You remain ignorant of the subject matter and you keep proving it over and over again!Poor Paul, you didn't understand what I said. I said the galaxy must have many times more mass than what allows these millions of stars to escape. This is just more evidence the galaxy has yet more mass. It is very improbable that any stars are pinging
Your *opinion* remains worthless. Read a dang textbook!
Evidence rules... got any?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the
So I guess this limits the numbers of stars capable of leaving the galaxy to about 10 million...numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/scientists-discover-the-fastest-stars-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way#:~:text=Astronomers%20have%20detected%20the%20fastest,(8%2C226%2C967%20kilometers%20per%20hour).
"If a significant fraction of Type Ia supernovae produce a D6 star, the galaxy has likely launched more than 10 million of them into intergalactic space," the researchers wrote in the study. "An interesting corollary is that there should be large
You remain ignorant of the subject matter and you keep proving it over and over again!But thank you for the link, As I said, it provides more evidence for me.
Your *opinion* remains worthless. Read a dang textbook!
Evidence rules... got any?
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on theexpanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.
In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that arehypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half thehelium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been
--------------------------------------------Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having beenFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the
--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likelyorbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its orbit.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more likely
Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of this!The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.
The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:13:56 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the
numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."So I guess this limits the numbers of stars capable of leaving the galaxy to about 10 million...
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/scientists-discover-the-fastest-stars-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way#:~:text=Astronomers%20have%20detected%20the%20fastest,(8%2C226%2C967%20kilometers%20per%20hour).
"If a significant fraction of Type Ia supernovae produce a D6 star, the galaxy has likely launched more than 10 million of them into intergalactic space," the researchers wrote in the study. "An interesting corollary is that there should be large
You remain ignorant of the subject matter and you keep proving it over and over again!
Your *opinion* remains worthless. Read a dang textbook!
Evidence rules... got any?
Science says it takes eight solar masses for stars that supernova paul.
The Sun came after its prior form that did supernova.
So where is the other 7 masses that should be in the solar system?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:14:14 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:13:56 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To answer my own question, the escape velocity that includes the 10x mass as determined by the galactic rotation curve, is 484 km/sec. [Substructure at High-Speed II: The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia DR2]. In my opinion, the
numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."So I guess this limits the numbers of stars capable of leaving the galaxy to about 10 million...
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/scientists-discover-the-fastest-stars-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way#:~:text=Astronomers%20have%20detected%20the%20fastest,(8%2C226%2C967%20kilometers%20per%20hour).
"If a significant fraction of Type Ia supernovae produce a D6 star, the galaxy has likely launched more than 10 million of them into intergalactic space," the researchers wrote in the study. "An interesting corollary is that there should be large
. and you would already know this if you had only read a dang textbook!You remain ignorant of the subject matter and you keep proving it over and over again!
Your *opinion* remains worthless. Read a dang textbook!
Evidence rules... got any?
Science says it takes eight solar masses for stars that supernova paul. The Sun came after its prior form that did supernova.Science does indeed say that stars of about 8 solar masses can go supernova, Mitch... but, BY DEFINITION, our sun is only one solar mass, so it almost certainly will become a planetary nebula someday far in the future, like about 5 billion years or so..
So where is the other 7 masses that should be in the solar system?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
They aren't claims. They are my own interpretation. The accepted science is very ignorant.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
Paul, you are like a woman because they seek consensus, and unlike a male who debates. "How women changed the university atmosphere" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmmPrqQ_VkThe masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all
The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you are like a woman because they seek consensus, and unlike a male who debates. "How women changed the university atmosphere" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmmPrqQ_
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all
The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot showotherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show
Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded. "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical
based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are
that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements
than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium orFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all
otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all of
Either the universe is infinite, has no center, and has no room to expand, or the universe is finite and has a center and has room to expand. If it has a center, it is very unlikely we are there. This is the same problem that plagued geocentricity andThe masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details
on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based
are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that
half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithiumFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than
likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in its--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are more
of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know all
gave it away as highly unlikely. If College graduates could reason, they would not believe in the Big Bang Baloney.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Either the universe is infinite, has no center, and has no room to expand, or the universe is finite and has a center and has room to expand. If it has a center, it is very unlikely we are there. This is the same problem that plagued geocentricity and
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical
based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are
that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements
than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium orFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less
more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are
all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know
otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show
I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot
Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded. "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:45:28 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical
based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are
elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light
than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium orFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less
more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the Sun in--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they are
all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already know
show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot
I've given you every opportunity and now I admit for once and for all you are just a heckler.I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.Larry, reasoning is *way* beyond your skill set. Please, just give it up.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot
chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the
You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot
chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:04:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:45:28 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:54:10 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:42:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical
are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, alsoLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that
elements that are hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light
less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium orFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have
are more likely orbiting larger masses within the galaxy. Look at our Sun's orbit around the galaxy. It is also supposed to be moving up and down and in and out at a 60 myr periodicity. This should require another center of mass capable of holding the--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of
galaxies rotation.
Only in your dreams. Evidence rules, Got any?BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
Instead of postulating a dark matter halo to account for the galactic rotation curve, it is better to suppose that mass is in the stars, so they have underestimated the mass of stars. Rather than stars pinging out of the galaxy, they
know all of this! The orbit of the Sun is simply inclined to the plan of the galaxy, no spooky forces are required. Just a proper education in astronomy, of which you are sorely lacking.Once again you are revealing you ignorance of the subject matter. The oscillations of the Sun going above and below the galactic plane are well understood and well documented. Of course, had you read the dang textbook you would already
show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.The masses of most stars are equally well understood, so your claim that they are universally underestimated goes directly out of the window. You can make it up as you go along but that does not mean that you are even remotely correct.
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot
I've tried to help you learn to reason but I find no value in your discussions because they are merely appeals to authority instead of to reason.Larry, reasoning is *way* beyond your skill set. Please, just give it up.
I've given you every opportunity and now I admit for once and for all you are just a heckler.
Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, ...................................
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you
chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the
single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless.You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 1:48:54 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:....
<snip>
Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, ...............................
Finally, some truth emerges. Dubious degrees from 1973, and A LOT of books read in 50 years, being that most of what you read you forgot.
A fucking PARROT with a memory erasing disease, for self-preservation.
I know of a true parrot which can sing the entire lyrics of more than 200 songs (and in tune). A 25 years old bird, which is about 150 years of your life,
and beats you hands-down.
Imagine if that parrot had memorized 200 books of physics, for your shame.
But experimental physics was not your strength when The Beatles were giving concerts, isn't it?
And, in any case, all of what know IS OBSOLETE 50 years later: Math, physics and in particular astronomy.
Do you know how to point a telescope to Alpha Centauri NOW (exactly now), from your house? Using which system of coordinates?
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you
chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the
single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why...You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a
If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds wantto know...
Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you
the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from
a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why...You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read
You need to go back to school paul. You have not taught yourself wellwant to know...
If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds
He is not mentally ill. You are.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you
chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the
single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why...You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a
If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds wantto know...
Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.As usual, you are only making appeals to "authority" instead of reason. Obviously, you're not capable of reasoning.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on theexpanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.
In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that arehypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.
For both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half thehelium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having been
--------------------------------------------The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose that
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining 95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you
the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
"Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
AND THEN WRITE
"Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory.
It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
a drooling stupid.
If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from
a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why...You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read
want to know...If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds
Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
As usual, you are only making appeals to "authority" instead of reason. Obviously, you're not capable of reasoning.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on this
expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations.Lerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium having beenFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half the
that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers
without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
They aren't claims. They are my own interpretation.
The accepted science is very ignorant.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose
Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules, and the evidence concerning the masses of individual stars has been determined beyond reproach, but since you have never actually studied the subject matter you remain clueless as tohow all of this works.
Reason is something about which you are unfamiliar. There is an answer to all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" stuff, but currently it remain mysterious. This is not a big surprise. it will not be you (or Dick) who solves the problem, but thescientific community will eventually tweak the current theories to make the cuffs match the collars... and that is how science works. Make observations and tweak the theory to match the observations. This will eventually sharpen the theory and make
Ain't science wonderful?A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.
𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘁_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺_𝗽𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting
fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed
interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the
composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose
how all of this works.Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules, and the evidence concerning the masses of individual stars has been determined beyond reproach, but since you have never actually studied the subject matter you remain clueless as to
scientific community will eventually tweak the current theories to make the cuffs match the collars... and that is how science works. Make observations and tweak the theory to match the observations. This will eventually sharpen the theory and makeReason is something about which you are unfamiliar. There is an answer to all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" stuff, but currently it remain mysterious. This is not a big surprise. it will not be you (or Dick) who solves the problem, but the
Ain't science wonderful?
A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.
On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours?
No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or
by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
On 2023-11-30 05:19:39 +0000, Volney said:
On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? >>> No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or >> by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.Yes. He made a big tactical error by using the word "opinions": can he really be so ignorant of how science advances that he thinks it is
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
based on opinions?
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:56:07 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/
EXCERPT
In May, 2014, Lerner and colleagues Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa published new evidence indicating that the universe is not in fact expanding. “Questions and Answers on The Science of Surface Brightness” gives more technical details on
the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradictLerner elaborated this research in a 2018 paper published in the leading journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The new study, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on
hypothesized to have been created by the Big Bang. Precise amounts of helium, deuterium and lithium are predicted to have been formed by fusion reactions in the dense, extremely hot initial instants of the Big Bang.In 2020, Lerner presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting a new study showing that bedrock predictions of the Big Bang are contradicted by observations. The study looks at the origin and abundance of three key light elements that are
the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than that predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that predicted by the theory. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium havingFor both lithium and helium, the study shows, observations of abundances in old stars now differ from predictions by more than a dozen standard deviations and the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace. The oldest stars have less than half
that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.--------------------------------------------
Summary: All pseudo-theories based on the BBT and Hubble's red shifting fail to explain stellar and galactic composition. Negationism about the role
of electrical currents and huge magnetic phenomena at galactic level force
the invention of "dark matter and energy" to adapt 1915 GR to the failed interpretation of galaxy rotation curves.
Current establishment backed theories can't explain the existence of quasars
or the "calculated" existence of less than 6% of baryonic matter in the composition of the universe.
Plasma cosmology has been applied to simulations in supercomputers without the need of inventions like dark matter/energy filling the remaining
95% structure of the "expanding universe" and the failed theories of galaxies rotation.
BBT and GR are just infantile fairy tales.
The accepted view is that the galactic rotation curve proves there must be ten times as much mass in our galaxy than has been found in the stars. So it is thought there must be a dark matter halo accounting for the missing 90%. I venture to suppose
Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules
On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of
yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus
or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
Volney wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:56 PM, Devoise Baiburin Marmazov wrote:
𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘁_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺_𝗽𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:Thanks in large part to t̶h̶e̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ of the USSR. No wonder 卐P̶u̶t̶l̶e̶r̶卐
wants t̶o̶ s̶t̶e̶a̶l̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ for his USSR V2.0.
there are 𝗻𝗼 "𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀", me friend. But, 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 06:19:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies,
stupid Mike.
In sci.physics Physfitfreak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/30/2023 1:22 PM, Rocco Mumladze Bahelov wrote:
there are 𝗻𝗼 "𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀", me friend. But, 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀. The gay actor
khazar goy 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_"𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁" on 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗳 of fucking america, is a 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗱
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆, stealing a country for america. However, the 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 is
86% 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻, not khazar goys. Amazing you act this stupid.
Hanson, you're a donkey in matters of Russia. Like "Jim Pennino" is,
without his internet access.
The Dunning-Kruger poster boy can't seem to grasp that Hanson hasn't
posted anything for a very long time.
On 11/29/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote:
On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33?PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of
yours? No, I didn't think so...
Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus
or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
Nothing changes...
I was gone because I had an accident at home requiring surgery and
rehab. That does not mean I am staying to participate. I rather enjoyed
the explorations available to me while starring at a blank ceiling more
than reading the utter nonsense posted here. And I achieved some
progress in areas important to me.
Watch this space.
BTW, The "Jane" I thought I knew I do know, but matters are there
obscured by the fact I knee her under false pretenses. There's no sense
in fleshing this out because your opinions to date are quite correct.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:45:43 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,371 |
