From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >   
   > 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   
   >   
   > ...   
      
      
   I called my distributor in Germany to stop selling you smoke.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,   
   to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,   
   and challenge the unchallengeable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)