From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Donnerstag000022, 22.01.2026 um 10:27 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 01/22/2026 12:49 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> 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'.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)