Re: Modern cosmology's crises

On 03/24/2025 06:26 AM, jojo wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

Articles these days about inflationary cosmology,
"well we don't understand apparent galaxies holding
together and call it dark matter, and don't understand
apparent galaxies falling apart and call it dark energy,
and instead of figuring out rotational freedom and
a different linear and rotational to explain what's
called dark matter, and instead of figuring out redshift bias
and that most of the sky survey was just a large local jet
to explain dark energy, now we'll just say that the universe
in the long past simply had entirely opposite laws".
>
Trading a non-scientific explanation of a non-scientific
explanation for a non-scientific explanation.
>
It's like that one new theory last year, "wobbly bits",
sort of instead of "wobbly bits", just a giant "wobbly bend".
>
And those g2 log-linear goofs, ....
>
>
If it was honest scientific reporting it'd say "modern cosmology
is in a crisis since the decades since non-scientific un-explanations".
>
>
Of course a simple difference linear/rotational all the way
down in classical mechanics and then the optical character
of optical light and redshift bias provide mechanism and
explanation, and events like lunar eclipses, or spiral footballs
or gyroscopic action, demonstrate the super-classical optical
and retro-classical mechanical.
>
>
>
So anyways "scientific reporting" painting itself in pretty
terms is, not so scientific after all.

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

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