Re: Modern cosmology's crises

On 3/21/25 11:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/21/2025 12:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
Researchers in foundations and physics know that
the data thusly makes it so that the theories of
mechanics and the optical sort of demand a retro-classical
super-classical account of that the theory is a theory
of fields of potential, and that optical light is special
and is not the same as electromagnetic or nuclear radiation,
and that the mechanical has "worlds turn" or for the
free rotational, with space/frames and frame/spaces, and
while still setting up the Galilean and Newtonian and
Lorentzian in the middle, though not necessarily keeping
the gravitational equivalence principle, with regards to
the orbifold instead of the geodesy, and that there's
that momentum isn't a conserved quantity, and that
it's a continuum mechanics what makes any quantum mechanics,
with wave/resonance dichotomy above particle/wave duality,
so that it results the old linear classical is just a
mere differential time-slice, that is itself always
a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action least-gradient,
theory.

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

 Yeah, shut the fuck up, you frivolous moron.
 

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