From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Mittwoch000021, 21.01.2026 um 18:04 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 01/21/2026 01:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > Hm. It's like some new stories of the past few weeks.   
   >   
   > One for example says "space must be a viscous elastic fluid",   
   > and one would aver "you mean aether theory", and one wonders   
   > whether they're just unawares that the idea is already very   
   > well explored, or maybe they just want to avoid association   
   > with the historical argument. Yet, much like "supplementary   
   > variables" for "hidden variables" of QM, or, like how "ether"   
   > theory was already renamed "aether" theory, it's just already   
   > subject all the historical argument.   
      
   'aether' is kind of matter, even if it is very 'thin'.   
      
   But 'expanding universe' requires actually 'matter out of nothing'.   
      
   This requirement alone would rule out 'aether' theories.   
      
   Therefore we need something else. But what???   
      
   My guess was called 'structured spacetime'.   
      
   This approach connects GR and QM from the GR-side and makes material   
   objects like particles immaterial.   
      
   In the local universe matter pops out of nothing.   
      
   We can actually see this happening in 'Growing Earth'.   
      
   'Aether' and similar concepts are totally incompatible to such ideas.   
      
   > Then, that sort of naming is kind of like GR and SR about   
   > STR and GTR, some would have them the same, yet others aver   
   > that STR thus GTR is a reductionist account absent some of   
   > the content of GR vis-a-vis SR. (Here it's GR then SR,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)