usenet weirdness

Hm. The 2MASS experiment was sort of in the time when it was discovered that what much of astronomy had pointed at as the "beginning", according to Doppler redshift, that it was actually as of "LaniaKea", our local supercluster.

These days that's considered with ideas like "redshift bias" and "redshift distortion", about more effects involved that lead to ideas like "tired light", about "redshift bias removal", since otherwise according to the energy budget of the observable universe, it's seven-sigmas or 99% "Dark Energy".

So, various experiments with regards to various models point to that "Expanding Universe", which makes for ideas like "Growing Earth" to keep things balanced, instead have ideas like "tired light", "Dark Energy", and here "redshift bias removal".

Otherwise there's sort of a non-explanation as to why the premier theories of the cosmological models in the macroscale, or their reflection on energy budgets in the microscale, are falsified.

The CMBR as about establishing the universe was flat, so, that vis-a-vis establishing the universe was curved, also is often interpreted as that there's a constant microwave background, yet, also it was found that there's a constant infrared background, again, _not_ among the various tents of the various derivations of the various stacks of what are legs of the table upon which is the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter" exhibit.

These days then there was talk about things like "MOND", "Modified" Newtonian gravity, Einsteinian gravity being Newtonian in the limit, about "Dark Matter", and as like Freundlich's "tired light", about "Dark Energy", since otherwise those terms are placeholders for _missing data_ and have no other corroboration or relation of their existence except being missing.

Then, I don't think "Growing Earth" is "real", yet it is "an idea", since it's merely a physical model for the physical interpretation thusly to what must relate to the mathematical interpretation a mathematical model, why it "isn't not so", by itself, though, like "tired light" and "MOND" it's not agreeable _thoroughly_, then though that "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" aren't "agreeable" at all since they're non-scientific, i.e., there's no data, so, "theoretic" is generous.

I do think that redshift bias is real, and various modern accounts make that that neatly that redshift bias or redshift distortion removal makes for a model of the universe that's isotropic and lends itself to a rather classical model an eternal universe.

So, 2MASS _does_ have some of the pieces of the puzzle in terms of its energy and configuration of experiment, as well, CMBR has different ways of looking at it and besides _data_ that falsifies otherwise the premier theories that are said to gain credence from it, then, JWST quite broke it open. Then hopefully the Nancy Grace Roman observatory is really going to widen things open, while also the Vera Rubin observatory is furthermore giving accounts why: for there to be _one_ theory with _all_ the data instead of a _mostly empty_ theory according to _most_ of the data, it's an idea.

It's simply an idea, and applies where it does and doesn't where it doesn't. That it doesn't so much apply, "Growing Earth", still speaks to that the alternatives the usual premier theories, these days are known, or, there's data, that: they're wrong.

So, ..., "not wrong".

A certain measure of decorum and not being uncouth is just considered being polite.

Here on Usenet there's a somewhat lower bar, yet, it's as well that we can make constructive conversation.

Then, as with regards to actually making "news", is the idea usually that there's one good theory that all of science and mathematics is after, called "Foundations", or "ToE" sometimes in physics, that somehow everything points to that.

Otherwise if this was just "creative writing" then there wouldn't necessarily be any sort of common thread at all, yet we are educated people and have various notions of postmodern literary criticism including both disfigurist and structuralist views, thusly as rhetoric or poesie can yet be put through a structuralist and rational lens.

A certain measure of decorum and "generous reading", ....

Burning fuel, and next throwing lots of energy at the atmosphere to get that fuel back is kind of silly to begin with,

Jan

You may think that this is orthodoxy, but none of it seems to have made it down to the New Scientist level of popular science.

I'm sure that there's a lot of nut-case pseudoscience that plays with these opinions, but again none of it seems to have made it down to the New Scientist level of popular science.

The "growing earth" hypothesis strikes me a decidedly unbalanced, to the point of certifiable lunacy.

Only in the minds of people who have an interest in seeing them as falsified.

It's almost flat, which is to say that it is only slightly curved.

But nowhere near right, and nowhere near enough to right to be worth discussing.

I'm not saying Growing Earth is not wrong, I'm saying Dark Matter / Dark Energy is already wrong.

It rather _is_ de rigeur for many actual _physicists_, mostly as would require being _theoretical physicsts_.

What I say is so.

My aim was actually something else:

I take nature as undivided and wanted to find a relatively simple mechanism, which could been seen as we see the world from our perspective.

This means: nature is most likely very simple at a very low level, but complex patterns emerge, if we add more 'elements' and allow them to build patterns.

I have 'sieved' through a lot of stuff and found quaternions of a certain type fitting, so called bi-quaternions.

Now I took a simple mechanism and looked, whether or not it is possible to replicate known things by this scheme.

This is actually possible, as you can see in my 'book'.

So, I tried that same scheme upon exotic problems, too, and found, that it worked there as well.

Such an exotic problem was e.g. the so called 'Pioneer anomaly', for which this scheme gives a simple explanation.

My 'book' isn't really a book, but a longish presentation, that I have created in 2008 and 2010. It can be found here:

TH

I have spent a very long time upon 'growing Earth'.

Certainly you don't take my word, but I can assure you, that Earth does in fact grow from within.

I took this example as means to disprove the so called 'materialistic metapardigma' in the so called 'standard modell of QM'.

In other words: if matter can pop out of nothing and builds inside the planet, than some parts of physics must be totally wrong.

What actually is wrong, that is the idea of lasting particles as primordial 'building blocks'.

This point is extremely important, because it has an impact upon almost everything, from particle physics to biology and daily life.

I regard it as absolutely sick, that this particular question was apparently 'shuffled under the rug' since almost 100 years.

It is totally essential in all kinds of sciences, whether or not matter can eventually pop out of nowhere or not.

TH

Of course you do, but why do you expect that nature might cooperate?

Why would it mean that? Our idea of what is "simple" is driven by our mental capacity's which have evolved by a process that depends on the steady appearances of errors in our genome, and the selection of those "errors" which work better than the previous generation of errors

To your complete satisfaction.

But regular physics gives a perfectly simple explanation simple explanation.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hypotheses, and haven't actually been falsified. They don't seem to have been proved wrong.

Nothing is de rigeur for working scientists, but if you want to ignore a popular hypothesis that hasn't been falsifed you need to find a better one to put in it's place.

But who care what you say?

I've never come across any evidence that suggests that this happens.

You may like to think so, but it looks more as if you are off with fairies.

And the bit of physics that you imagine proves that matter pops up out of nothing and builds up inside the earth is going to be decidedly suspect if you ever get around to spelling it out.

We've got a good idea of the element ratios in the matter that was created immediately after the big bang, and the matter that constitutes the bulk of the earth was formed by nuclear fusion in first generation stars, and neutron capture in supernovas.

If matter were popping up out of nothing inside the earth, the expectation would be that most of it was hydrogen, which wouldn't stick around.

What makes you think that? Stable elements don't show any sign of radioactive decay. Technecium is the lightest element that doesn't have a stable isotope, and when it showed up in nuclear reactor fission products it came as a complete surprise.

It's might be extremely important in showing that you are away with the fairies, but it sounds exactly like ignorant nonsense.

People with silly ideas aren't happy when it is pointed out that ideas are silly, but silly idea can have unfortunate side effects. Societies where silly idea get taken seriously tend to come apart in ways that have killed a lot of people.

What's essential to any kind of science that is worth doing is some connection between observation and theory, and you are short on observation.

The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since otherwise the usual premier theories are violated.

Now, these theories already have gravity always doing work for free, which is a constant violation of conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise premier theory has been falsified.

"... as would require being theoretical _physicists_."

I don't even care what I say: only what's said.

Lee Smolin wrote

Solving "the measure problem" involves matters of measure, and measure theory belongs to mathematics.

String theory or superstring theory is a great idea, "atoms as indivisible quanta is a great idea and corresponds with the elements of chemistry, make another quantum scale as far beneath that as chemistry's atoms are beneath us".

The ivory tower is a bit heavy at the top, what it needs is some particularly dense individuals at the Foundations keeping it from floating off.

Theoretically, all we should need is one good theory of all of it.

Anything else, you know, "isn't".

One particular aspect of research in foundations is a sort of reverence for books or papers, or after since the term was introduced by Montaigne "essays", as from essaier "to try", with regards to Yoda and "to do", is the collection of a researcher in foundations of a library, a collection of books that are to make for a bibliographic account of citation, so that the authority belongs to the words their durable form, vis-a-vis given individuals able to emit words freely.

Then, sometimes people are more easily finding it relatable and as a model of the relayable, i.e. communication with comprehension and the command of the conveyance of the conceit of the concepts of the communication, in the spoken word.

Then, for examples, besides my 10,000's posts to Usenet, each with its little message-id that makes the unique part of its URL and URN, among usual matters of bibliographic citation having usual matters of bibliographic identity, I record some

It might not seem much, yet I regularly see the counters roll backwards, so, there's perhaps a bit more to it than the casual researcher might otherwise notice.

About science and physics, there's that "Logos 2000: physics today", I pasted a bunch of back-and-forth from the AIs of the day into the comments, so, readily find material. Thusly also generally you can find from the descriptions mentions of the titles and there's a rather thorough account of analysis and an original analysis for the mathematics, mechanics and a rather thorough account for the mechanics, then quite a talk on the logic and the language, all quite usually carrying the canon, dogma, and doctrine, or, "the authorities".

Don Quixote of La Mancha of Miguel Cervantes since about the 1500's some centuries after "El Cid", or the knight of the sad countenance or knight of the lions, serialized and novelized in two great parts, besides being called the first novel in literature, often most familiar with its first few pages where Quixote girds up and relates to his companion Sancho Panza as to why the windmills are in allegory giants against which to test, has at least a few points of interest besides Panza's brief governorship and Quixote's experience in the cave.

For example, one theory includes that Sancho Panza is actually Quixote's own illegitimate son with the maid. This isn't outright declared, while though, about 3/4 through Quixote starts declaring Panza as his son, and at the end bequeaths his estate to the maid and the Panza's, after his niece.

There are several and many stories contained in the hundreds upon thousands of pages of Cervantes' great classic, a gentle and touching and thoughtful comedy about the idealism of chivalry and the chivalric, and the ideals of beauty and devotion.

The page or two on tilting windmills, and its various mentions later, are before even Quixote has a helmet. ... Which he fashioned from a barber's wash-bowl.

The second section beginning as it does with the lambasting of the plagiarists and charlatans to Quixote's account makes for that today all editions of it are much alike, while though many treatments as so inspired make for many variations, like Welles'.

A foolish hobgoblin's consistency is yet a little mind.

What became of Quixote's library? Cervantes makes an account of it.

And, largely, its _idealisms_.

On, Rocinante.

Chivalry's not dead, it's just curled up in the corner weakly kicking it with Conversation.

Super-symmetry's not dead, again, ....

Quantum Mechanics, if never wrong, is just a perspective on Continuum Mechanics.

The _energy_ always lives in the _entelechy_. The _point_ is always of the _space_.

The point, local, global, and total, make for usual reflection about particles and resonances: waves, models of change, in time, in an open system.

Physics: it's an open system. (The science.)

Technicolour is the idea that it's quarks all the way down.

The asymptotic freedom of the strong nuclear making for reasoning that fall-gravity is the perfect explanation of gravity, speaks quite directly to the complementary concepts of "flow", and, "flux", when they're different at all.

There's a definition of entropy: Aristotle's and Leibnitz'. They're opposites.

The dynamis and dunamis, power and potential, are similar, originally being one word, yet readily enough distinguished by theoretical physicists since antiquity, in fragments.

Geometry as axiomless geometry of points and spaces a dialectic after axiomless natural deduction about voids and universals, makes for matters of perspective and projection, for an account after constancy and change of geometry and motion, being along the Testaments Old and New, the Vedas, Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical, and other sorts widely published and maintained works of whatever sort of an authoritative philosophical position. Hegel's Wissenschaft der Logik, "The Science of Logic", or "insightful beams", makes for that Hegel, like Duns Scotus, was a fair and full sort of Aristotlean, moreso than usual sorts of partial, half accounts.

A full account, ....

Sort of like "gravitic", vis-a-vis, "gravific", force, neither one quite whole without the other, while though yet the "gravitic" is more easily found and it's called the classical, about the "point" and "local", while the "gravific" is of the wider sort of potentialistic account, the "global" and "total", then that there's the idea that the potential fields _are_ the real fields, and that the classical is an individual's perspective, while the fuller potentialistic view makes for the theory's, perspective, as it were.

For from being "unknown", these sorts of accounts are the best-known, to historians of physics and science, the theoretical physicists, the reasoning behind why the usual standard linear curriculum's narrative is given, quite thoroughly and over time.

Einstein has his "spatial" and "spacial" as different terms, with different definitions, for GR and SR, another usual sort of example, easy to miss and of the carefully didactic to keep straight, and, not exactly explicit besides the merest difference.

So, it is as _we_ say, and, we care a lot.

These days the online conversational report generators are quite adept at consuming material like this.

Cats? Oats. (Describing a difference for example the "categorical" and "objective", in "agents and actors in the ecosystem and economy of a large language model, and for the entire.)

Practice draws one's attention to the fact that devising good theories is difficult, and isn't worth the effort until you have lots of observations to make sense of

Einstein wasted a lot of his life on a premature attempt to find a unified field theory. He had had enough early successes to make him a little too optimistic.

Sadly, publishing the same nonsense repeatedly makes you a noise source, rather than a source of information.

Good scientific papers do cite earlier work, but they get to be seen as good when they reinterpret that information in a way that lets the reader integrate it with other, not obviously related work.

It's quality, not quantity, that matters. The peer-peer review system blocks a lot of nonsense from publication, but it's less effective against the tedious me-too replication of other peoples work in minimally different areas.