From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000020, 20.01.2026 um 10:46 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 01/20/2026 01:04 AM, 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   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> ...   
   >   
   > Either "Big Bang" or "Steady State", then including   
   > "Cyclic Cosmology", can be fitted to the data.   
   >   
   > If black holes or trous noirs are singular attractors,   
   > and white holes or trous blancs are singular repellers,   
   > some relate the atom itself to a black hole and the   
   > contents of the Dirac positronic sea to white holes.   
   >   
   > It seems to evoke space inversion and matters of   
   > perspective and projection.   
   >   
   > Then, ideas like "small/medium/large" black/blanc holes,   
   > can be outfitted to equip cosmological models.   
   >   
   > It's geometry, though.   
      
   My interpretation is different and goes like this:   
      
   I take spacetime of GR as real and our observation of the sky as picture   
   of our own past light cone.   
      
   This is actually a little tricky to visualize, but not that difficult.   
   Just take the picture of a light cone and mulitply it by three.   
      
   This means: the 3d-lightcone is actually reduced by one dimension, hence   
   that missing dimension needs to be put in again 'by hand'.   
      
   This can be done, if you replace a horizontal sheet through the light   
   cone by a hollow sphere and stack them all into each other, the larger   
   the further away.   
      
   This means, that we have a 'backwards time axis' which points in all   
   directions away from us within our observations of the universe.   
      
   Now we take that 'axis of time' and rotate it 45° to - say- the 'right'.   
      
   Than we have a real universe, too, but one that we cannot see from our   
   position on Earth, because it exists actually behind the event horizon   
   of a black hole.   
      
   Now we fly with our (imaginary) spaceship from Earth to that spot, hence   
   need to accelerate, hence curve our worldline away from our former axis   
   of time, until we finally arrive there.   
      
   Then we switch off our engine and find ourself floating in a different   
   universe, which was invisible before, while our own former universe   
   (together with Earth and our solar system) has vanished in a black hole.   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)