From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000020, 20.01.2026 um 18:31 schrieb The Starmaker:   
   > 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.   
   > Please have a look at my 'book'   
      
   https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wT   
   xBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing   
      
   It is mainly an artistic visualisation of higher diemensions geometry.   
      
   The assumption is, that the 'real' universe has actually more   
   dimensions, which we cannot observe directly.   
      
   Now I have searched for an appropriate type of 'geometry', which could   
   eventually look like our local world, if we apply plausible assumptions.   
      
   My find was a certain type of 'geometric math', which uses complex four   
   vectors, aka 'biquaternions', and Clifford algebra Cl3.   
      
   These constructs shall provide the features of 'elements of spacetime',   
   which are the equvialents to points of the 'real universe'.   
      
   This superstructure is seen from a certain position, which is ours here   
   on Earth, and shows up as what we usually regard as 'real universe'.   
      
   But that is not the case. Instead what we call 'universe' isn't real and   
   not universal at all, but a picture, we receive from the past.   
      
   This is kind of 'cut' and allows us to regard as real, what actually isn't.   
      
   Now it is possible to estimate the superstructure from the observed   
   structures and fit a model to something, which is invisible.   
      
   Then we can go in reverse and look, if the real world pops out of this   
   guess, if we apply plausible assumtions.   
      
   If that is the case, we can be certain, that the superstructure actually   
   behaves like what we have assumed.   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)