Re: Modern cosmology's crises

On 03/23/2025 04:46 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:53:59 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
>

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:16:09 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
>

In article <vrp5l6$2gbis$4@dont-email.me>,
 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>

Bertitaylor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

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

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

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

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

>
This - they claim - "violates inertia".

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>
Bertietaylor

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

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

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

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

Maybe he should try nailing it down or measuring it.
And I thought it was Ben Ito..., "Ken Seto" is no "Ben Ito".
Anyways the modern sky-survey, since the "discovery"
(or rather, lack thereof) of un-scientific non-explanations
in the cosmology, has long ago falsified naive theories of
gravity. 2MASS and JWST have thoroughly further round-filed it.
These can be repaired though, with a gravity that a) is not
a perpetual motion machine, b) doesn't twist and turn space-time
for free, c) reflects a classical mechanics with different linear
and rotational interpretations, and d) explains optics and the
special character of light with regards to measurements.
It's more of an orbifold and "trajectifold" than a geodesy, say,
to arrive at fitting all the data.
Maxwell doesn't even say which of his pairs of electrical and
magnetic fields is to be considered real, ..., though that
there's both.
Try reading some O.W. Richardson about the electron theory.