• Plasma Cosmology - No Big Bang, no redshift. Pseudo-static Universe

    From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 25 09:53:08 2023
    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
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy. --------------------------------------------

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Nov 25 20:35:12 2023
    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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 directions,
    placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 25 21:42:20 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.

    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 25 23:16:52 2023
    On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 06:42:23 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:

    Larry, every time you open your mouth you reveal just how ignorant you are of the subject matter. In an infinite universe

    Any of your precious "evidence" for that, poor trash?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 26 08:03:39 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-3, 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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 11:54:45 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    You are a knitwit because there is no center in an infinite universe. A center can only exist in a finite universe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 12:17:08 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    "center
    /ˈsentƏr/(Brit. centre) n. 1 the middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface. ▪ a point or part that is equally distant from all sides, ends, or surfaces of something;"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 26 13:27:20 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:42 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-3, 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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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.
    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
    equations of gravitational fields. However, British physicist E. A. Milne pointed in 1943 that the same
    equation could be deduced simply based on the Newtonian theory of gravity. It means that the Friedmann
    equation, in stead of the motion equation of relativity, is actually the Newtonian one in essence." His reference: E. A. Milne, A Newtonian Expanding Universe, General Relativity and Gravitation, Springer ,
    Netherlands, ,32, 9 (2000).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 13:47:54 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    Only a finite universe can expand. You are very very silly!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 14:03:21 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    Is it a finite expanding universe with one center or an infinite universe without any center and unable to expand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 14:14:18 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    If 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 14:17:14 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:42:23 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:35:14 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    directions, placing us at the center of the universe. Hubble and Zwicky did not accept the velocity-distance relationship.
    More cranks supporting cranks

    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!
    That reminds me of the Nobel Committee.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 26 20:05:48 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

    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.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 26 20:45:12 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:05:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

    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.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 21:10:43 2023
    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
    opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
    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
    massive 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.

    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=
    EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
    Are you done chest beating?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 26 21:08:28 2023
    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 opinion,
    the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.

    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
    massive 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.

    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=
    EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 26 21:13:06 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:05:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

    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.
    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
    required by the rotation curve?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 26 22:01:44 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    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
    opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
    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
    massive 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.

    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=
    EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Are you done chest beating?

    Are you done making $hit up, without a lick of evidence, as you go along? You remain very ignorant of the subject matter. You need to read several textbooks because you have nothing to offer here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 23:50:02 2023
    On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 07:01:46 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 9:10:46 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    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
    opinion, the galaxy has much more mass, so they have not reached escape velocity.
    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
    massive 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.

    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=
    EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTMzOTkwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Are you done chest beating?
    Are you done making $hit up, without a lick of evidence, as you go along?


    Al, poor trash, come on. The evidence is only
    making you spitting more fiercely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Nov 27 13:45:58 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:05:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:03:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

    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 mass of
    the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Nov 27 18:13:54 2023
    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 mass
    of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.

    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 numbers
    of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 19:14:12 2023
    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
    mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
    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
    numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 20:05:16 2023
    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
    mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
    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
    numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?
    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
    out of the galaxy. They haven't been able to come up with a very probable mechanism.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 20:06:05 2023
    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
    mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
    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
    numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?
    But thank you for the link, As I said, it provides more evidence for me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Nov 27 20:53:41 2023
    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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Nov 27 21:42:36 2023
    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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 21:48:45 2023
    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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 22:04:02 2023
    On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 06:42:39 UTC+1, 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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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?

    Al, poor halfbrain, come on. The mumble of your
    idiot guru was not even consistent, and the
    evidence is only making you barking more
    fiercely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Nov 27 22:35:31 2023
    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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.

    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...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Nov 27 23:00:55 2023
    On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 07:35:33 UTC+1, 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 details on
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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...

    Al, poor halfbrain, come on. The mumble of your
    idiot guru was not even consistent, and the
    evidence is only making you barking more
    fiercely.
    Instead any evidence The Shit has a bunch of
    morons screaming of its magnificient evidence;
    that's not the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 28 09:27:03 2023
    On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:14:14 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    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
    mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
    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
    numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?

    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...
    and you would already know this if you had only read a dang textbook!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 10:48:36 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:27:06 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:14:14 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    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
    mass of the galaxy is many times that, requiring a much higher escape velocity.
    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
    numbers of faint, nearby D6 stars launched from galaxies all throughout the local volume passing through the solar neighborhood."

    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?
    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..
    . and you would already know this if you had only read a dang textbook!

    It already went supernova 4.5 billion years ago. How many solar masses was the Sun before?
    Where is the other 7 or more solar masses that should be in the solar system?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 11:48:24 2023
    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 details on
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 11:54:07 2023
    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 details on
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 12:47:54 2023
    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 details on
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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_Vk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 14:35:37 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 12:47:56 PM 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 details
    on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.

    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.

    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_

    You obviously don't know any more about women than you do about relativity!

    Consensus is not evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Your claim that textbooks are very ignorant and stupid is just your unsupported opinion, and is valueless. ALL of your opinions about relativity are valueless. Any claim you make about relativity
    needs to be supported by evidence, and you have absolutely none to offer. ZERO.

    You remain eternally clueless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 16:36:32 2023
    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 details
    on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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
    otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 19:14:25 2023
    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 show
    otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Nov 28 19:53:07 2023
    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 show
    otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 19:45:26 2023
    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
    details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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 having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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
    otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 19:20:49 2023
    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 details on
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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
    gave it away as highly unlikely. If College graduates could reason, they would not believe in the Big Bang Baloney.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 20:01:46 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:20:52 PM 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 details
    on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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
    having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    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
    orbit.
    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.
    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
    gave it away as highly unlikely. If College graduates could reason, they would not believe in the Big Bang Baloney.

    You actually think that if the universe is infinite then it has nowhere to expand? Do you not understand that this in itself would make it finite? No more room? LOL!

    Clearly you do not even remotely understand the concept of "infinite". Hint: infinity is not a number!

    You have made my day, Larry, I have not seen this level of ignorance for a long time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 20:04:18 2023
    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
    details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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 having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.
    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.
    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
    otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 20:08:44 2023
    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
    show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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 chaff,
    and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 20:09:04 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:04:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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 having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.
    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.
    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 otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 20:48:52 2023
    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 cannot
    show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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
    chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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
    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 don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!

    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 want
    to know...

    Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 20:29:11 2023
    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 cannot
    show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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
    chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Nov 28 20:20:29 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:04:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    details on this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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 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.

    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 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 having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 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 orbit.
    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.
    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 otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.

    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, your outrageous claims invite heckling, just like Dick's claims. If anyone ever deserved it, it's you two!

    Find another hobby, this one is way beyond you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 21:42:51 2023
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Nov 28 23:01:21 2023
    On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 05:48:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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
    chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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
    single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless.

    No, the reason is that you present nothing but
    rants and insults.
    And speaking of math, it's alwways good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
    part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Nov 28 22:18:51 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:42:54 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
    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?

    There is nothing dubious about my degrees, Dick, why would there be? I earned them fair and square. Sure, physics and astronomy have made large strides since then and they have been mostly exciting. I have kept up as best as I can with the progress in
    the fields but there is a lot going on. But the basics remain the same now as they were then. Most of the stuff I learned by 1969 is definitely NOT obsolete, you are just showing your own ignorance of the subject matter. Anyone who was read my astronomy
    and physics textbooks from the 1960's would learn a lot of good astronomy and very little that has been refuted.

    Alpha Centauri is not visible from my house, not ever, because it has a declination of about -61 degrees and my location has a declination of about +33 degrees... so at it closest approach to my southern horizon it is about 4 degrees below that horizon.
    I've seen it several times from Australia when I went there to observe in the Southern Sky for a couple of weeks. Of course, I *could* accurately point my telescope towards Alpha Centauri but it would be pointing at the ground! like all stars, it has a
    fixed RA and Dec so its location is easy to determine. I've also seen it from Hawaii a couple of times. It is close the the Southern Cross and this makes for a wonderful sight in the southern sky.

    Your rants about relativity, Dick, only help to put you firmly in the School of Cranks and at this point in time you are the Lead Crank in this forum... in my own opinion, of course.

    Congratulations!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Nov 29 12:59:00 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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
    chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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
    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 don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!

    You need to go back to school paul. You have not taught yourself well

    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 want
    to know...

    He is not mentally ill. You are.

    Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 29 16:02:22 2023
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 12:59:03 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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 chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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 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 don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!
    You need to go back to school paul. You have not taught yourself well

    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
    want to know...

    He is not mentally ill. You are.

    Look who's talking! LOL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Nov 29 17:37:38 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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
    chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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
    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 don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!

    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 want
    to 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed Nov 29 17:56:05 2023
    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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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 that
    it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Nov 29 18:32:30 2023
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:37:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
    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 chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.

    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 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 don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!

    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
    want to 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.

    So, your "bye bye Paul" turns out to be a Big Lie! So much for your honesty! You have no concept of honesty... or reason!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Nov 29 18:45:28 2023
    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 this
    study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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
    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.
    However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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 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 having been
    formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

    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 how
    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 the
    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 make
    everyone happy.

    Ain't science wonderful?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Nov 30 00:11:35 2023
    On 11/28/2023 2:48 PM, 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:

    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.

    In other words, a claim.

    The accepted science is very ignorant.

    Another claim.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Nov 29 20:29:24 2023
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.
    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
    how 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 the
    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 make
    everyone happy.

    Ain't science wonderful?
    A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Devoise Baiburin Marmazov on Thu Nov 30 00:17:25 2023
    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 the Ukrainians of the USSR. No wonder 卐Putler卐 wants to steal Ukraine for his USSR V2.0.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Nov 30 00:19:39 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Nov 29 22:18:16 2023
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:29:26 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.

    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
    how 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 the
    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 make
    everyone happy.

    Ain't science wonderful?

    A dark matter halo is a fairy tale because they haven't a clue.

    A dark matter halo is just another tweak to the model and the jury is still out about this. JUST A MODEL. If you think it is a fairly tale I would surely like to see your evidence. You would be the first person in the world to do so, and would
    undoubtedly win a Nobel for it. All you need is evidence since your imagination is worthless. Good luck!

    I thought you said you were done with me, Larry! Yet another fantasy of yours, I suppose.

    It is YOU, Larry, who hasn't a clue, not the scientists.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Nov 30 08:41:59 2023
    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.
    Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.

    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
    based on opinions?


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Nov 30 00:36:22 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Thu Nov 30 00:37:37 2023
    On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 08:42:04 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    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.
    Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
    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
    based on opinions?

    And can you really be so ignorant of how science advances
    that you think it is not? Yes, you can, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Nov 30 00:34:53 2023
    On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 03:45:30 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    this study. Here are biographical sketches of the research team members, and background on “The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory”.

    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 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. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

    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
    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.

    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
    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 having
    been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
    --------------------------------------------

    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
    that it may be more reasonable to look for that mass within the stars themselves instead of under rugs.
    Your "venture to suppose" is not at all scientific. Evidence rules

    Come on , poor trash. Evidence can only make
    fanatic doggies like you barking more fiercely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Nov 30 13:52:18 2023
    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.

    Sorry girl,

    Jane you would do well to avoid the sci newsgroups.

    You even managed to embarrass yourself in your chosen field.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Rocco Mumladze Bahelov on Thu Nov 30 15:14:35 2023
    On 11/30/2023 2:22 PM, Rocco Mumladze Bahelov wrote:
    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.

    Nobody believes that, nymshifter. The Ukrainians have their own
    language, their own culture, 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ians卐 insult them by calling them
    хохол, and they are fighting against the nazi 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ians卐 because their
    only other option would to be genocided by the 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ians卐, as Stalin
    already tried.

    The Ukrainians seemed to have been the brains of the former USSR. The
    USSR space program was largely Ukraine based. Lots of factories in
    Ukraine that 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 no longer has access so 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 can no longer
    make lots of things the USSR could.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Nov 30 15:22:26 2023
    On 11/30/2023 3:36 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    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.

    Again, in science, evidence rules. Your opinions, such as this one, are
    totally irrelevant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Thu Nov 30 15:19:11 2023
    On 11/30/2023 3:04 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
    In sci.physics Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> 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.



    yeah, haha Hanson vanished when his stalkee, Trebert, left or died.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Dec 1 16:26:06 2023
    whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

    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.

    Good of you to let us know.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)