From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000018, 18.01.2026 um 18:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 01/17/2026 08:59 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >> Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> The images or pictures of galaxies that arrive, according to what   
   >>> may be inferred from models of stellar formation and pulsation,   
   >>> and luminous matter, have long ago falsified the standard theories,   
   >>   
   >> On the contrary: All observations so far have confirmed them in   
   >> multiple ways.   
   >>   
   >>> according to what there is a great deficit of luminous matter,   
   >>> thus called dark matter or a perceived required dark matter,   
   >> Dark Matter by definition does not interact electromagnetically, so it   
   >> does   
   >> not absorb light, but it does "interact gravitationally": It produces the   
   >> spacetime curvature and thus the gravitational lensing by clusters of   
   >> galaxies that cannot be explained by baryonic ("luminous") matter alone:   
   >>   
   >> Wikipedia (2026-01-18): Gravitational lens   
   >> > title=Gravitational_lens&oldid=1333086280>   
   >>   
   >> Lawrence Krauss (2009): A Universe From Nothing. AAI 2009. 0:26:56   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>> then that if the rotating disc is instead free itself in its   
   >>> own frame and space, that explains dark matter its absence as   
   >>> instead its presence as usual luminous matter.   
   >>   
   >> Pseudoscientific nonsense.  Word salad, too.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I was interested in Krauss' book 'A Universe From Nothing' and   
   > it introduces some great ideas then though it's not very   
   > conclusive - an example though that going through a given work   
   > isn't going to necessarily be a great work or magnum opus,   
   > yet as well both the commonalities and differences make for   
   > context.   
   >   
      
   I personally think, that 'big-bang-theory' is wrong.   
      
   I have a different explanation for the same observations.   
      
   I compare 'big-bang' to a 'white hole' and 'big crunch' to a 'black hole'.   
      
   So: the future of a black hole is a 'white hole' and the future of a big   
   crunch is a big bang.   
      
   So far so good, BUT:   
      
   black holes are 'relative'.   
      
   This means: if you would see a black hole from here on planet Earth and   
   could fly with your spaceship to that position, the black would be gone,   
   but seen from there the Earth would just vanish in a black hole.   
      
   Same with 'big bang':   
      
   you can see a new universe popping out of a white hole, but only if you   
   are in the exact center of the future light cone of that 'white hole'.   
      
   Would you be able to fly to some other galaxy, you would still see a big   
   bang, but not the same big bang, because if you are in a different   
   gallaxy, the universe didn't start with the same 'big bang', because to   
   that other gallaxy would belong a different future light cone, in which   
   center you would be there, hence a different 'big bang' .   
      
      
   TH   
      
      
      
   ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)