Re: Expansion and Inflation and Dark Energy and Redshift-Bias-Removal

On 12/27/2024 09:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/27/2024 08:26 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 4:00:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 12/27/2024 07:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:56:14 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

Expansion and Inflation and Dark Energy and Redshift Bias Removal
>
If you've been following along, for about a hundred and
more years since Hubble there was observed a sort of
red-shift bias, meaning distant galaxies appear to
demonstrate a red-shift which according to Doppler
means they recede, and that given the theory of
stellar formation and pulsation, and the theory of
hydrogen lines and standard candles, then it was
really well figured out and quite tuned the theory,
to arrive at estimates like the age of the universe,
from taking averages and extrapolating backwards,
and the Expansionary making for the Inflationary
and making a very sensible theory called Big Bang.
>
So, over time, then science found that there wasn't
enough energy to explain all the receding. Much like
science couldn't explain why galaxies like free-rotating
platters weren't flying apart and thus had to add
Dark Matter or not luminous matter to explain how
gravity, which also isn't really a theory in those days,
then for energy there's Dark Energy, enough to
explain why things appear to be falling apart in
the large, while holding together in the close.
>
Over time, then these non-scientific non-explanations,
mute matter say or false energy, well they started to
grow more and more, until at some point it was
reached "out non-scientific non-explanations now
dominate the theory so obviously our theory is wrong".
>
That is to say, ever since Dark Matter and Dark Energy
were in the theory, it's _not_ the theory, of that without.
>
Now, when talking about Dark Matter and Dark Energy,
it's not to be read as about ethnicity, while of course
human beings have ethnicities and that, just saying,
when we say Dark Matter and Dark Energy, it's exactly
the non-luminous, so un-detectable, matter, and,
energy with same idea, non-observable non-scientific.
So, that's just saying that the reasons why theory
want to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy as
having reasons why their role in the theory is
according to something else in the theory,
is like so.
>
>
So, red-shift bias is the idea "well what if all along
the measurements get a red-shift _bias_ and we
thought it was plain straight Doppler yet really
it's something else", about Dark Energy. (Then,
for Dark Matter it's actually a matter of mechanics,
and so free rotating frames explain via a true
centrifugal why it's to be explained what makes
the role of Dark Matter in theories that are
otherwise quite thoroughly broken because
they don't have any way to say what it is.) So,
the Dark Energy, then, if red-shift bias is explainable
because it's more about "Fresnel and large lensing"
and not about ideas like "tired light" or "lumpy space-time",
or these other strange and sometimes bizaare
non-scientific non-explanations, where red-shift
bias is explainable, and removable, then: the
premier theories of the day can be much better.
>
>
So, since 2MASS, and, the discovery of LaniaKea,
and, particularly since JWST, and soon with the
Nancy Roman if that makes it, all these latest
additions to the sky survey, also have in other
spectra, _much, much, much_ less red-shift bias,
what was 99/1 is now 51/49. Then this makes all
the Lambda CDM and particular Expansion and
Inflation quite lose most their justification, except
as a tuning problem according to measurements
and extrapolations tuning and fitting the data
an exercise in scientific modeling that the new
data has paint-canned and round-filed.
>
>
Well, have a great day, just letting you know that
fall-gravity explain Dark Matter and red-shift-bias-removal
explains Dark Energy: away.
>
>
Of course, both Big Bang and Steady State hypotheses
either can be made fit the data as neither are falsifiable.
>
>
Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
mathematics of infinity, and continuity.

Right, so before Olber it was already understood that light doesn't go
on forever and gets tired so mainstream science is just a boondoggle
anyone with a 85 IQ who uses his brains can see through.

>
No, it's just figured there's more space than matter.
>
Olbers paradox is "if the sky is full of stars, why
isn't it full of light", and answers or explanations
may include that there's a model of free transit of
information, the light-like, about images in light,
and about the _intensity_ of light. Then, the idea
is that light is omni-directional, and, it _attenuates_
as it _dissipates_, while of course the sky is full of stars.
>
So, it's simply dissipation and attenuation, and the fact
that a given observer for example a terrestrial observer,
only sees so many, the arriving intensity.
>
"Tired Light", for example Finlay-Freundlich's theory
with Born, as above is an analytical method, yet as
above is out-moded by the data, and furthermore more
of a large-Fresnel-lensing approach to optics.
>
Just like "Big Bang" and "Steady State" are
neither falsifiable and either tunable, so
are each of "heat death", "cold death", and
"Big Crunch", and "Steady Horizon".
>
Now, I just made up "Steady Horizon", a theoretical
non-end of the universe among theories of the end of
the universe yet, that's the way of these things sometimes.
Usually these may be considered Cyclic Cosmologies,
though, those are also neither falsifiable and either
tunable, before/after and before/after.
>
>
I think that comprehension largely depends on
vocabulary and language, and reading is fundamental,
to make textual learners from graphical and manual learners.
>
The concept of intensity varies among optical and
electrodynamic theories and as with regards to usual
models of flow and flux in fluid models about usual
models of waves their lengths for frequency and lengths
for velocity, and, energy and entelechy, that the
intensity is of a given form.

The boondoggle is claiming a velocity-distance relationship is at all
intelligent when it is illogical nonsense that Hubble and Zwicky
rejected. Some one of the many tired light theories will be correct.
Olbers is common sense. No mystery there.

>
Considering the point of this thread is sort of
to revisit to review to reject Hubble, as part of
the old "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs" bit,
and that Zwicky is sort of a linear spherical contradiction,
no, here it's "large-Fresnel-lensing" not "tuckered photons".
>
The "tired light" would be a violation of conservation of energy.
>
Now, of course the data advised that it was correct
and Hubble wasn't incorrect - there's new data and
so now the entire stack of derivations needs revisiting.
>
Zwicky's approach of "severe abstraction" results some
sort of "linearisations" which may be useful approximations,
they've about though ran out their utility, and furthermore
as they're buried in the stacks of derivations of each
other, that GR and QM have pointy bits at each other,
when it should all be a smooth continuous continuum mechanics.
>
Yeah, "universal 99/1 red-shift" is these days instead
the "51/49 red-shift-bias-removal". If you haven't been
paying attention, science has already fixed some of your
perceived problems.
>
It's made new ones - but the old ways of solving the old
ones don't have any more reach.
>
Yeah, I know "log-normal the g2", ..., spherical sheep, say.
>
>
>
>

Article the other day, "well the sky suvey means that we,
the physics department, have to throw away the grand
tuning that is expansionary and inflationary, so, how
about everything just starts spinning, then faster and
faster over time, so we don't have to properly explain
mechanics about the linear and rotational and free
rotating frames, neither redshift bias and other features
of light, then at various boundaries that we'd use to
call where the Riemann metric begins and gradient
descent, instead just make shear walls there and
spinning either way, thusly we can start a new
grand tuning, which will take years to complete,
by which time we'll have a new tuning".